Dither vs Re-conversion...

[First Aid]

Right... done a little research and don't seem to be able to find anything relevant so easy on the flamethrowers please...

96k to 44.1k, which in your experience is generally more harmful; sample rate conversion & dither or another round of D/A recaptured at 44.1?

The converters in question are Prism ADA8XR's.

I spoken to many people and surprise surprise, everyone says something different but i'm def interested in hearing what the slutz have to say!

ta.

[Waltz Mastering]

Six of one, a half dozen of the other.

Since you mentioned dither, I'm assuming you mean, 96/24 to 44.1/16
Is there analog processing involved anyway?

If that's the case there's no need for SRC or Dither on a separate machine capture at 44.1/16
and both processes would be using da/ad.

[fenderbender.]

Either is fine. What's (mostly) lost in the HR to [44.1] conversion is 'depth'. Those high-frequency cues are rarely heard outside of the mastering studio.

[First Aid]

yes, i love to talk dither.

surely there is an audible difference between the 2?

whats everyone think is best for sample rate conversion then?

[First Aid]

thats the way i think we're going to go with our new setup. I've heard sample rate conversion and dither produce some strange results but with the Prism's it seems to sound so much better with a straight re-capture, so why don't more people seem to be doing this?

With lower grade converters it may be a different story and SR conv/dither may win out, but to my ears this seems to be the most transparent way we've found to step down.

[Table Of Tone]

I've found that it's best to leave dithering right to the very end of the process.
SRC works better at 24 bit.
It changes the sound less and the level control is a little better!

I personally playback at whatever the mix comes in at, for example 96/24.

I'll make any EQ/Comp/Gain adjustments in the analog domain and capture the audio on another system which will be running at the following:
44.1/24 if it's an album.
(I'll dither the entire record to 16 bit after all assembly/fades/gaps, have been completed)
48/24 if it's a film/video.
96/24 if it's for DVD.

If both or all three of those formats are needed, I'll run the audio again, with identical analog EQ/Comp/Gain settings and have the second, capture system (including the ADC) running at the desired target SR.

Everyone has their own method of doing all this stuff but this is what works best for me!

[First Aid]

Originally Posted by Waltz Mastering

Six of one, a half dozen of the other.

Since you mentioned dither, I'm assuming you mean, 96/24 to 44.1/16
Is there analog processing involved anyway?

most definitely some analogue processing going on but there's a digital end to the chain.

[First Aid]

funny you should say about Tools being not bad because we did a SRC in PT on saturday and it sounded really bad!

looks like Ozone is the winner from those comparisons?

Soundblade doesn't seem to fair to well...

[Table Of Tone]

Originally Posted by karyoky****

hi,

what was the origin reasoning for the 48kHz for film/video thing. hmmm, seems like i used to know this, but...........................not anymore.

It all goes back to when DAT and ADAT were first around.
Both of which were originally 48K.

ADAT used a type of VHS tape.

44.1k didn't arrive in those formats until the ADAT XT first appeared.

[Key]

I don't have an answer for you. SoX is free and sounds transparent to my ears (so far) when I use "intermediate phase". I guess try both and see if you can tell the difference or hear which is better. If you can't tell the difference flip a coin.

One of the problems I have with that SRC site is that it is showing you 44.1 24-bit benchmarks. Seems like if you are going from 192 or 96 to 44.1 you are most likely going to go down to 16-bit as well. Now take an ideal 44.1 16-bit file and compare it to the examples they give and you will see just how noisy it is and how it brings a lot of them pretty much even with each other. At least in terms of the spectral contamination shown in those benchmarks.

[Audiop]

Key,

do you mean that you can hear an effect/coloration using HQ linear phase with SOX? Which isn't there with intermediate?

Thanks in advance, I use SOX myself and haven't really put in any time yet doing critical listening tests or comparisons..


/Peter

[Key]

Well I can't say for sure but yeah I did. Barely. I heard a ringing sort of effect. I think it could actually be perceived as an improvement but it wasn't on the original with my test - so I think it was a barely audible artifact. I have to revisit the test because I don't trust it that much. But I have an idea of what to listen for this time so if I am hearing it I should be able to ABX it or something.

Why? Is intermediate phase not recommended over linear?

[Audiop]

Well intermeidate phase means phase distortion in the audible band (upper two octaves), not saying that is necessarily audible though, just curious.

IMP also means no impulse pre-ringing but OTOH more post-ringing.


/Peter

[Key]

So I guess I at least thought I was hearing pre ringing? Really I need to do some tests on some fresh recordings where I record sounds that make these artifacts obvious. So this is a weird question but do you know what post ringing would sound like? or what sound I could record that might make it more easy to hear?

[Audiop]

Nope, don't know what to expect it to sound like.

Remember that the ringing only take place with HF-rich material.

LF sounds do not excite this ringing. Also the ringing is at the nyquist frequency so the audibility of it should depend on how good ears you have and if you hear up to 22.05k.

So, the signals that would excite the ringing most is impulsive sounds with much energy in the upper range. Triangle, cymbal, claves and steel string acoustic maybe? A close miced cembalo would be nice as well I think.. :-)


/Peter

[Key]

Yeah I was using acoustic guitar on the last test. I believe I actually can still hear up that high. Not that I find it particularly useful. Just means I have no excuse for not doing listening tests haha. Lucky me.

[Audiop]

Originally Posted by karyoky****

hi,

pre-ringing does not occur only at "nyquist frequency".

Well hi there!

If you feed a full bandwith signal such as a squarewave or an "impulse" thru a linear phase PCM system you will see the pre and post ringing.

If you feed a sufficiently lowpassed-filtered signal (such as a sin^2 pulse) thru the system you will not see any ringing.

There need to be energy up to the nyquist frequency to see this effect.

Also by checking the periodicity of the ringing you will see that it matches the nyquist frequency.

If I'm mistaken about this I would appreciate something with substance to show that. For example you can do as I have done, loop some signals thru AD/DA and DA/AD and check with a external scope + software scope.

For ringing to take place the signal needs to be transient in nature and contain significant energy in the upper end of the passband.


/Peter

[Audiop]

A search?

I've done the tests/measurements outlined above and therefore my position. If you know that my study is flawed why can't you just point me in the right direction?

You are not only guessing and assuming things I hope?


/Peter

[Tweek Audio]

I tend to dither first, then resample. Folllowed by mixing and finaly recording.

Wait, scratch that. reverse it.

[polybonk]

For in the box I would use R8Brain pro from voxengo.
But I just use my prism

[Bubbakron]

Record your OTB mix to TAPE for a Combined khz rate summed quality, 16 tracks at 192/24 each is way better than L/R two TRACKS at 192/24!!!! Since your converters are now freed up, record cd track at 44.1/16 no dither- then record a 192/24 for live/home use!!! Or better play the damn reel to reel on your monitors!!! I'm a purist, but to me dither seems like a fan turned on over an annoying commercial on TV, you can still here the commercial but the fan noise makes it a lot easier!!! Why not just not have the annoying commercial and fan both off by utilizing the re-convert??????!!!!! Dither sucks just on principal- and after hours of mixing- everyone thinks they hear some thing "better", How about "knowing" something is better!???! IMO ofcourse!!!!!