Next question - what's the best way to downsample?

karlc wrote on 5/30/2000, 10:27 PM

You can get into some high tech arguments over the best way to
perform SRC.

That said, if you are taking the project to a first rate mastering
facility, I would simply let them do it.

If the project is not going to be mastered, you might find that
sometimes the simplest is the best ... IOW, a D to A/A to D step may
sound better than the SRC you can do in software for that particular
project. Depending upon the project, you just might want to go
analog into the inputs of a DAT machine recording at 44.1 and go with
that.

Try it both ways and use (and trust) your ears ... if it is a good
project, and the music is enjoyable, it can likely stand up to some
abuse in the SRC process. :)

KAC

Scott Weber wrote:
>>In my last post I outlined a specific fix for the
>>SoundBlaster Live and other sound cards based on the
>>EMU10K1 processor. The fix involves recording everything at
>>48 kHz, and resampling the finished product to 44.1 kHz.
>>
>>The question is, how should I go about doing this? What's
>>the best way to change a 48 kHZ file to a 44.1 kHz file?
>>
>>I've got a copy of SoundForge XP 4.0 (it came with the
>>sound card) and I guess I can use that - should I look into
>>upgrading to version 4.5? More specifically, does the newer
>>version of SoundForge improve upon this specific process at
>>all?

Caiwyn wrote on 5/31/2000, 6:39 AM

Thanks for the tips, Karl... I may end up doing that if I can, but
remember, the SBLive has trouble recording perfectly right at 44 kHz,
which is why I have to record in 48 kHz in the first place. I don't
have a DAT deck or any other digital recording equipment except the
sound card, as this is just a little personal home studio.

I can record out to analog, then back into the SBLive from that, if
all else fails, but I would prefer not to if I don't have to. I'll
rephrase my question for now - what's the best *software* method of
downsampling a file from 48 kHz to 44.1 kHz?

Karl Caillouet wrote:
>>You can get into some high tech arguments over the best way to
>>perform SRC.
>>
>>That said, if you are taking the project to a first rate mastering
>>facility, I would simply let them do it.
>>
>>If the project is not going to be mastered, you might find that
>>sometimes the simplest is the best ... IOW, a D to A/A to D step
may
>>sound better than the SRC you can do in software for that
particular
>>project. Depending upon the project, you just might want to go
>>analog into the inputs of a DAT machine recording at 44.1 and go
with
>>that.
>>
>>Try it both ways and use (and trust) your ears ... if it is a good
>>project, and the music is enjoyable, it can likely stand up to some
>>abuse in the SRC process. :)
>>
>>KAC
>>
>>
>>Scott Weber wrote:
>>>>In my last post I outlined a specific fix for the
>>>>SoundBlaster Live and other sound cards based on the
>>>>EMU10K1 processor. The fix involves recording everything at
>>>>48 kHz, and resampling the finished product to 44.1 kHz.
>>>>
>>>>The question is, how should I go about doing this? What's
>>>>the best way to change a 48 kHZ file to a 44.1 kHz file?
>>>>
>>>>I've got a copy of SoundForge XP 4.0 (it came with the
>>>>sound card) and I guess I can use that - should I look into
>>>>upgrading to version 4.5? More specifically, does the newer
>>>>version of SoundForge improve upon this specific process at
>>>>all?

Siggi_Churchill wrote on 5/31/2000, 12:30 PM

I use the resample process in SF 4.5 which works great. I believe XP
has it as well and I used to use the 4.0 process which is also good.
If you have alot of time on your hands turn the resolution all the way
up to 4 (on a scale of 1-4). Sonic Foundry claims you'll get a near
perfect downsample it's extremely CPU intensive at that setting
though. 3 does pretty good but I wouldn't go lower than that unless
you're in a serious rush and it doesn't matter (ie. temp mix to listen
in the car on the way home).

Scott Weber wrote:
>>Thanks for the tips, Karl... I may end up doing that if I can, but
>>remember, the SBLive has trouble recording perfectly right at 44
kHz,
>>which is why I have to record in 48 kHz in the first place. I don't
>>have a DAT deck or any other digital recording equipment except the
>>sound card, as this is just a little personal home studio.
>>
>>I can record out to analog, then back into the SBLive from that, if
>>all else fails, but I would prefer not to if I don't have to. I'll
>>rephrase my question for now - what's the best *software* method of
>>downsampling a file from 48 kHz to 44.1 kHz?
>>
>>
>>
>>Karl Caillouet wrote:
>>>>You can get into some high tech arguments over the best way to
>>>>perform SRC.
>>>>
>>>>That said, if you are taking the project to a first rate mastering
>>>>facility, I would simply let them do it.
>>>>
>>>>If the project is not going to be mastered, you might find that
>>>>sometimes the simplest is the best ... IOW, a D to A/A to D step
>>may
>>>>sound better than the SRC you can do in software for that
>>particular
>>>>project. Depending upon the project, you just might want to go
>>>>analog into the inputs of a DAT machine recording at 44.1 and go
>>with
>>>>that.
>>>>
>>>>Try it both ways and use (and trust) your ears ... if it is a good
>>>>project, and the music is enjoyable, it can likely stand up to
some
>>>>abuse in the SRC process. :)
>>>>
>>>>KAC
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Scott Weber wrote:
>>>>>>In my last post I outlined a specific fix for the
>>>>>>SoundBlaster Live and other sound cards based on the
>>>>>>EMU10K1 processor. The fix involves recording everything at
>>>>>>48 kHz, and resampling the finished product to 44.1 kHz.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The question is, how should I go about doing this? What's
>>>>>>the best way to change a 48 kHZ file to a 44.1 kHz file?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I've got a copy of SoundForge XP 4.0 (it came with the
>>>>>>sound card) and I guess I can use that - should I look into
>>>>>>upgrading to version 4.5? More specifically, does the newer
>>>>>>version of SoundForge improve upon this specific process at
>>>>>>all?

Caiwyn wrote on 6/1/2000, 12:53 AM

Thanks for the tips, Andrew. One thing, though - does SF 4.5 offer
any improvement over SF 4.0 in this area? That is, should I upgrade
from SoundForge XP 4.0 to XP 4.5, or even the full version? If they
haven't changed anything as far as downsampling goes, I'll just stick
with what I have, but if this has been improved, I want to use the
best tool possible for the job.

Andrew Linhart wrote:
>>I use the resample process in SF 4.5 which works great. I believe
XP
>>has it as well and I used to use the 4.0 process which is also
good.
>>If you have alot of time on your hands turn the resolution all the
way
>>up to 4 (on a scale of 1-4). Sonic Foundry claims you'll get a
near
>>perfect downsample it's extremely CPU intensive at that setting
>>though. 3 does pretty good but I wouldn't go lower than that
unless
>>you're in a serious rush and it doesn't matter (ie. temp mix to
listen
>>in the car on the way home).

RickZ wrote on 6/1/2000, 7:12 AM

Hi Scott,

Since this is the Vegas forum, I'm surprised that no one has
mentioned Vegas' resampling (rendering) capability. I compared
results of resampling a theatre organ concert recording from 48 to
44.1 using SF4.5 on max setting of 4, to Vegas render, and to my ears
the resulting 44.1 files sounded the same, ie great. And the Vegas
method works much faster, about 1/4 the time.

It sounds like you're on a bit of a budget constraint, so buying
Vegas may not be feasible, but try www.leighs.com, or your favorite
mail-order house. I'm pretty sure I was able to pick it up for a
little over $400, whenever it first was released, last year.

ForWhatItsWorth . .

Regards,
Rick Z

Scott Weber wrote:
>>Thanks for the tips, Andrew. One thing, though - does SF 4.5 offer
>>any improvement over SF 4.0 in this area? That is, should I upgrade
>>from SoundForge XP 4.0 to XP 4.5, or even the full version? If they
>>haven't changed anything as far as downsampling goes, I'll just
stick
>>with what I have, but if this has been improved, I want to use the
>>best tool possible for the job.
>>
>>Andrew Linhart wrote:
>>>>I use the resample process in SF 4.5 which works great. I
believe
>>XP
>>>>has it as well and I used to use the 4.0 process which is also
>>good.
>>>>If you have alot of time on your hands turn the resolution all
the
>>way
>>>>up to 4 (on a scale of 1-4). Sonic Foundry claims you'll get a
>>near
>>>>perfect downsample it's extremely CPU intensive at that setting
>>>>though. 3 does pretty good but I wouldn't go lower than that
>>unless
>>>>you're in a serious rush and it doesn't matter (ie. temp mix to
>>listen
>>>>in the car on the way home).
>>

Caiwyn wrote on 6/1/2000, 11:18 AM

Thanks, Rick. It's not so much that I'm on a tight budget as it is
that I just only want to buy the tools I need. I've got SoundForge XP
4.0 already. What I really want to know is whether 4.5 improves on
this particular feature, and whether the full version of SoundForge
does it better than the XP version. Anybody know?

And since you mentioned it, what does everybody else think? Does
Vegas do it as good as, or better than SoundForge?

Rick Zentmeyer wrote:
>>Hi Scott,
>>
>>Since this is the Vegas forum, I'm surprised that no one has
>>mentioned Vegas' resampling (rendering) capability. I compared
>>results of resampling a theatre organ concert recording from 48 to
>>44.1 using SF4.5 on max setting of 4, to Vegas render, and to my
ears
>>the resulting 44.1 files sounded the same, ie great. And the Vegas
>>method works much faster, about 1/4 the time.
>>
>>It sounds like you're on a bit of a budget constraint, so buying
>>Vegas may not be feasible, but try www.leighs.com, or your favorite
>>mail-order house. I'm pretty sure I was able to pick it up for a
>>little over $400, whenever it first was released, last year.
>>
>>ForWhatItsWorth . .
>>
>>Regards,
>>Rick Z
>>
>>Scott Weber wrote:
>>>>Thanks for the tips, Andrew. One thing, though - does SF 4.5
offer
>>>>any improvement over SF 4.0 in this area? That is, should I
upgrade
>>>>from SoundForge XP 4.0 to XP 4.5, or even the full version? If
they
>>>>haven't changed anything as far as downsampling goes, I'll just
>>stick
>>>>with what I have, but if this has been improved, I want to use
the
>>>>best tool possible for the job.
>>>>
>>>>Andrew Linhart wrote:
>>>>>>I use the resample process in SF 4.5 which works great. I
>>believe
>>>>XP
>>>>>>has it as well and I used to use the 4.0 process which is also
>>>>good.
>>>>>>If you have alot of time on your hands turn the resolution all
>>the
>>>>way
>>>>>>up to 4 (on a scale of 1-4). Sonic Foundry claims you'll get a
>>>>near
>>>>>>perfect downsample it's extremely CPU intensive at that setting
>>>>>>though. 3 does pretty good but I wouldn't go lower than that
>>>>unless
>>>>>>you're in a serious rush and it doesn't matter (ie. temp mix to
>>>>listen
>>>>>>in the car on the way home).
>>>>

Sonic wrote on 6/6/2000, 12:49 PM

Hello all,

The Vegas Pro resampling algorithm is very efficient and reasonable
for many kinds of audio, but in general, you get what you pay for
(processor-wise) in an SRC algorithm. Vegas Video/Audio gives you a
few more quality options, but for hardcore super-high-accuracy
resampling, I usually leave it to Sound Forge.

But again, you should make your own assessment based on your ears. I
happen to be familiar with both algorithms so I'm probably biased
towards the one that takes all the CPU time...

Oh, an interpolation accuracy of 4 in Sound Forge is typically way
overkill, but if you can spot differences between 3 and 4, more power
to you.

And finally...No, you don't need to upgrade. The same essential
technology in Sound Forge 4.0 was used in XP, 4.5, and XP 4.5 with
only minor improvements to efficiency, etc.

Regards,
Jason.

Scott Weber wrote:
>>Thanks, Rick. It's not so much that I'm on a tight budget as it is
>>that I just only want to buy the tools I need. I've got SoundForge
XP
>>4.0 already. What I really want to know is whether 4.5 improves on
>>this particular feature, and whether the full version of SoundForge
>>does it better than the XP version. Anybody know?
>>
>>And since you mentioned it, what does everybody else think? Does
>>Vegas do it as good as, or better than SoundForge?
>>
>>Rick Zentmeyer wrote:
>>>>Hi Scott,
>>>>
>>>>Since this is the Vegas forum, I'm surprised that no one has
>>>>mentioned Vegas' resampling (rendering) capability. I compared
>>>>results of resampling a theatre organ concert recording from 48
to
>>>>44.1 using SF4.5 on max setting of 4, to Vegas render, and to my
>>ears
>>>>the resulting 44.1 files sounded the same, ie great. And the
Vegas
>>>>method works much faster, about 1/4 the time.
>>>>
>>>>It sounds like you're on a bit of a budget constraint, so buying
>>>>Vegas may not be feasible, but try www.leighs.com, or your
favorite
>>>>mail-order house. I'm pretty sure I was able to pick it up for a
>>>>little over $400, whenever it first was released, last year.
>>>>
>>>>ForWhatItsWorth . .
>>>>
>>>>Regards,
>>>>Rick Z
>>>>
>>>>Scott Weber wrote:
>>>>>>Thanks for the tips, Andrew. One thing, though - does SF 4.5
>>offer
>>>>>>any improvement over SF 4.0 in this area? That is, should I
>>upgrade
>>>>>>from SoundForge XP 4.0 to XP 4.5, or even the full version? If
>>they
>>>>>>haven't changed anything as far as downsampling goes, I'll just
>>>>stick
>>>>>>with what I have, but if this has been improved, I want to use
>>the
>>>>>>best tool possible for the job.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Andrew Linhart wrote:
>>>>>>>>I use the resample process in SF 4.5 which works great. I
>>>>believe
>>>>>>XP
>>>>>>>>has it as well and I used to use the 4.0 process which is
also
>>>>>>good.
>>>>>>>>If you have alot of time on your hands turn the resolution
all
>>>>the
>>>>>>way
>>>>>>>>up to 4 (on a scale of 1-4). Sonic Foundry claims you'll get
a
>>>>>>near
>>>>>>>>perfect downsample it's extremely CPU intensive at that
setting
>>>>>>>>though. 3 does pretty good but I wouldn't go lower than that
>>>>>>unless
>>>>>>>>you're in a serious rush and it doesn't matter (ie. temp mix
to
>>>>>>listen
>>>>>>>>in the car on the way home).
>>>>>>