I've spent most of today evaluating some new software I have, particularly algorithms for sample rate conversion and dithering.
Both processes come into play when creating a CD master. Since I record in high resolution at 24 bit and 96k sampling (with some current experimentation at 192k as well), in order to create a CD master, sampling rate must be brought down to the CD standard 44.1 kHz and word length must be brought down to the CD standard 16 bits.
Even when mastering an outside project recorded a lower resolution, if any sort of processing is necessary (as it often is with the output of most modern studios and mixrooms), I will create a high sample rate, longer word length version on which to perform all processing. When this is done, again, I have something that requires sample rate conversion and dithering.
What I found today, comparing what I deem to be the best of each type of process (twosample rate conversion algorithms and fourteen dither algorithms) is that among the best available, SRC makes a bigger difference. I should add that when I say an algorithm is "better", I mean it sounds closer to the original source.
Interestingly, what I'm hearing as the best SRC and best dithering -both significant steps up from what have been the best of each for the past several years- both come from thesame source. A young Russian designer named Alexey Lukin. His iZotope SRC represents a big advance in artifact free sample rate conversion.
I am still comparing the dither algorithms but have so far found that the three that stood out for me today among the 14 I'm listening to are all variations of Alexey Lukin's work too. I still need to listen to these some more (today has been a long, long day) and willreport when I reach a conclusion.
Meanwhile, for those who wish to hear what I was listening to as far as sample rate conversion, visit:
http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.com/zwsrc.htm
There you will find three samples. One, the original 32 bit float, 96k file which I fed toeach of the conversion algorithms. The other two are the 32 bit float, 44.1k outputs from the processes. (I'm not sure if a Mac will be required to hear these properly. Different software does 32 bit differently.)
Best regards to all listeners,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com
I've spent most of today evaluating some new software I have, particularly algorithms for sample rate conversion and dithering.
Both processes come into play when creating a CD master. Since I record in high resolution at 24 bit and 96k sampling (with some current experimentation at 192k as well), in order to create a CD master, sampling rate must be brought down to the CD standard 44.1 kHz and word length must be brought down to the CD standard 16 bits.
Even when mastering an outside project recorded a lower resolution, if any sort of processing is necessary (as it often is with the output of most modern studios and mixrooms), I will create a high sample rate, longer word length version on which to perform all processing. When this is done, again, I have something that requires sample rate conversion and dithering.
What I found today, comparing what I deem to be the best of each type of process (twosample rate conversion algorithms and fourteen dither algorithms) is that among the best available, SRC makes a bigger difference. I should add that when I say an algorithm is "better", I mean it sounds closer to the original source.
Interestingly, what I'm hearing as the best SRC and best dithering -both significant steps up from what have been the best of each for the past several years- both come from thesame source. A young Russian designer named Alexey Lukin. His iZotope SRC represents a big advance in artifact free sample rate conversion.
I am still comparing the dither algorithms but have so far found that the three that stood out for me today among the 14 I'm listening to are all variations of Alexey Lukin's work too. I still need to listen to these some more (today has been a long, long day) and willreport when I reach a conclusion.
Meanwhile, for those who wish to hear what I was listening to as far as sample rate conversion, visit:
http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.com/zwsrc.htm
There you will find three samples. One, the original 32 bit float, 96k file which I fed toeach of the conversion algorithms. The other two are the 32 bit float, 44.1k outputs from the processes. (I'm not sure if a Mac will be required to hear these properly. Different software does 32 bit differently.)
Best regards to all listeners,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com