|
|
|
08-02-2009, 01:00 PM
|
#1
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Synthopia
Posts: 1,729
|
Cockos can have the ultimate resampling algorithm...for FREE!
The SINC resampler currently used in REAPER is a waste of CPU time - the only setting worth using is the 'extreme' preset that's *extremely* slow, producing rendered files that are of less-than-stellar quality.Using this preset for real-time playback is out of the question. People are begging for a better resampler
Now what if there's a resampling algorithm that's orders of magnitude faster than the current one and at the same time so good that it beats the best resamplers out there?
Imagine the 'perfect' resampler - something that rivals R8brain Pro / iZotope in quality and is so fast that it can be used for real-time playback as well
Sounds too good to be true? Nope,it gets even better:
Meet SoX (Sound Exchange) - a free, open source audio processing toolkit:
http://sox.sourceforge.net/SoX/Resampling
Its resampler is one of the best things ever created in the open source world
Tests at http://src.infinitewave.ca indicate that SoX is the leader in resampling quality,rivaling R8brain Pro and iZotope while being much faster,using orders of magnitude less CPU
Since SoX's code is licensed under LGPL,the resampler can be used in any commercial program,free of charge
EDIT: Some cat dude made a Foobar2000 plugin:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...howtopic=67373
Last edited by synth; 08-02-2009 at 01:26 PM.
|
|
|
08-02-2009, 01:06 PM
|
#2
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,809
|
be silly not too I guess
Kind regards
Dave Rich
|
|
|
08-02-2009, 01:08 PM
|
#3
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 12,482
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by synth
producing rendered files that are of average quality.
|
"Average"? That's bullshit. Quality is very good (although not "best"). Only render times are not cool.
|
|
|
08-02-2009, 01:17 PM
|
#4
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Synthopia
Posts: 1,729
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dstruct
"Average"? That's bullshit. Quality is very good (although not "best"). Only render times are not cool.
|
Fixed (I was talking about the SINC resampler in general)
Last edited by synth; 08-02-2009 at 01:20 PM.
|
|
|
08-02-2009, 03:48 PM
|
#5
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 254
|
+1
yes please!!
|
|
|
08-02-2009, 04:11 PM
|
#6
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: ocean mists
Posts: 860
|
Hey synth,
Good point. Some almost audible shadows cast back into the mix even with the best Reaper conversions. This could up the quality.
Would be nice if there was a Windows interface with Sox or a vegetable level incorporation into Reaper so that command line challenged dimwits like me could more easily navigate.
John
|
|
|
08-03-2009, 12:31 AM
|
#7
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 642
|
I could use better resampler.
Maybe this is suitable addition to bug/feature tracker section?
cheers
|
|
|
08-08-2009, 07:14 AM
|
#8
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 510
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mich
Yes, but remember to meet the LGPL requirements the code needs to be implemented as a dynamically linked library and the source code of that must be released so it can be modified, and since currently the resampling of REAPER seems to be in the binary, Cockos would need to outfactor that part.
But all difficulties aside a big +1.
|
or improving what currently is available. but, by looking at the rmaa plot of the band transition, i'm not sure that doubling the n of points to 1024 for example will do much good. edit: can't really say i need such improvements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dstruct
"Average"? That's bullshit. Quality is very good (although not "best"). Only render times are not cool.
|
yes, execution times of sinc filters, which are trying to approximate the perfect lp are really really slow. in fact its more of a modern cpu limitation, over an algorithm issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xenakios
You have proof of that audibility? Blind testing done?
|
for a-b comparison of a single unmixed sample (a sine sweep) from two different src sources, differences would be clearly out of the audible range. however, it is arguable that in the case of a 16 tracks - 96khz mix, with 2 down sampling conversations in comparison, would produce audible differences. i cannot say for certain as i haven't done such test.
---
for free tools "r8b free" and "sox" should be considered superb and if you like to use them instead of reaper's src, do so.
however i'm not sure who declared "sox" to be the best (if we are talking the best of the best..etc)
window used: blackman, 1024bands, -220dbfs floor *note the lowered floor*, no img post-processing.
r8b free:
[img]http://img17.**************/img17/570/rb8freei.jpg[/img]
sox lin-phase vhq:
[img]http://img17.**************/img17/3075/soxlpq.jpg[/img]
my copy of cooledit from (y2000) :
[img]http://img17.**************/img17/4822/cedit.jpg[/img]
--
i've send this one to http://src.infinitewave.ca/ but they did not put it online, as it doesn't look very good or maybe because they are somehow biased :
traktor 2.5:
[img]http://img17.**************/img17/8866/tr261p.jpg[/img]
---
edit -> advice: avoid sample rate conversation as much as possible
lubomir
Last edited by liteon; 08-08-2009 at 08:10 AM.
|
|
|
08-08-2009, 09:00 AM
|
#9
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 256
|
@liteon
- Those images are cool but... what the heck am I looking at?
__________________
I used to worry that I had cloth ears. Then I realized they were only painted on.
|
|
|
08-08-2009, 01:59 PM
|
#10
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: in the middle of the icecube.
Posts: 7,403
|
I like all those pretty, blinky lights, but what do they sound like?
|
|
|
08-08-2009, 03:47 PM
|
#11
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,955
|
They're all pretty close except for the last one which aliases like a bastard.
Aliasing sounds like weird harmonic distortion, where the distortion frequencies are sorta unrelated to the source frequency. Think something like running your mix through a ring modulator, but turned down a bit.
Last edited by dub3000; 08-08-2009 at 03:49 PM.
|
|
|
08-08-2009, 09:31 PM
|
#12
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Synthopia
Posts: 1,729
|
Quote:
however i'm not sure who declared "sox" to be the best free resampler
|
Do a phase test and you'll see where r8brain free fails.
But the biggest difference is in the SPEED of execution.
Last edited by synth; 08-08-2009 at 09:33 PM.
|
|
|
08-03-2009, 03:35 AM
|
#13
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,265
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by synth
Since SoX's code is licensed under LGPL,the resampler can be used in any commercial program,free of charge
|
Yes, but remember to meet the LGPL requirements the code needs to be implemented as a dynamically linked library and the source code of that must be released so it can be modified, and since currently the resampling of REAPER seems to be in the binary, Cockos would need to outfactor that part.
But all difficulties aside a big +1.
|
|
|
08-03-2009, 10:26 AM
|
#14
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: CA
Posts: 991
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by synth
producing rendered files that are of less-than-stellar quality.
|
so you can really hear the difference, can you?
I'm gonna answer that and say NO. This is unperceived sound quality deterioration, that is around -50db above the threshold of human hearing and dips well below -100db in the audible range. You aren't gonna hear this under any practical circumstance.
That being said, if it is easy enough to implement, there is no reason not to get a higher quality algorithm, so folks can have their "peace of mind".
__________________
Damn it feels good to be a gangsta.
|
|
|
08-03-2009, 10:42 AM
|
#15
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,923
|
StepOne - the problem is that the better algos in REAPER are too slow. the least good algos in REAPER produce degradation that is plenty audible....
|
|
|
08-03-2009, 10:48 AM
|
#16
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oulu, Finland
Posts: 8,062
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by semiquaver
StepOne - the problem is that the better algos in REAPER are too slow. the least good algos in REAPER produce degradation that is plenty audible....
|
You have proof of that audibility? Blind testing done?
__________________
I am no longer part of the REAPER community. Please don't contact me with any REAPER-related issues.
|
|
|
08-03-2009, 11:24 AM
|
#17
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 309
|
+1 for this, much needed an high quality algorithm that is also FAST
Not everyone can use offline rendering so a FAST algorithm that keeps quality is MUCH NEEDED.
|
|
|
08-04-2009, 04:10 AM
|
#18
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,083
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xenakios
You have proof of that audibility? Blind testing done?
|
Come on! Always this real life stuff. Theory is so cool. We're talking about music in the end!
;-)
Shogger
|
|
|
08-04-2009, 04:18 AM
|
#19
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oulu, Finland
Posts: 8,062
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by shogger
Come on! Always this real life stuff. Theory is so cool. We're talking about music in the end!
;-)
Shogger
|
Seriously, I am wondering why Cockos should apparently urgently waste effort on adding something of which the majority of users would fail in a blind test to even hear if there is any difference...
__________________
I am no longer part of the REAPER community. Please don't contact me with any REAPER-related issues.
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Hybrid Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:02 PM.
|