All I want to do is load a .BWF

[West End]

Hi Guys,

OK, is it too much to ask to have SAW load .BWF's. I am currently using a Sound Devices 744T field recorder and since I am always synced to a video or film camera, I have to record mono or poly .BWF files. I love my SAW but I just can't appear to be able to find a way to load the .BWF's into SAW. In a perfect world I would think that this would be a native function, but apparently not enough of us are using .BWF's so I guess it's not a priority for Bob. I've tried Rail's BWF Helper and while it will load the .BWF files name into the region list, when I try to insert the region into the Multitrack I get an "region has zero length" error message.

I am really desperate here, I really need a tool to do this and if SAW can't are there any other programs that do?

I hate working outside of the SAW environment but it appears as if I may not have any other choice......


HELP

Ken Dabek
West End Recording

[Dave Labrecque]

Can you open 'em in another program and save as reg'lar wav?

[West End]

Hey Dave,

It kinda' defeats the purpose dosen't it. I really need to have the timecode data included with the file.

Are there any other programs that you could recommend?

Ken

[Rail Jon Rogut]

I've tried Rail's BWF Helper and while it will load the .BWF files name into the region list, when I try to insert the region into the Multitrack I get an "region has zero length" error message.

I've never heard of this -- could you please email me with details.. and perhaps an example BWF file.

Thanks,

Rail

[Mark Stebbeds]

In a perfect world I would think that this would be a native function, but apparently not enough of us are using .BWF's so I guess it's not a priority for Bob.

It is my understanding that SS cannot natively support BWF because of it's code that allows mixed sample rates in the same session.

Apparently if you have one session sample rate, and files with different sample rates being converted in real time, it's not possible to have accurate address information imbedded into the files.

I'm probably explaining this wrong, but I think it's something like that.

FWIW, I would rather see BWF support if I had to make a choice. Converting to correct sample rate on import is a no brainer in other apps, making mixed sample rates of little importance in my opinion.

Mark

[Mark Stebbeds]

I am really desperate here, I really need a tool to do this and if SAW can't are there any other programs that do?


Yes, there are many.

Mark

[Pedro Itriago]

...But if you have different sample rate files, they will converted them upon opening them.


Yes, there are many.

Mark

[Mark Stebbeds]

...But if you have different sample rate files, they will converted them upon opening them.

Huh?

[Dave Labrecque]

Hey Dave,

It kinda' defeats the purpose dosen't it. I really need to have the timecode data included with the file.

Are there any other programs that you could recommend?

Ken Oh, I see. Didn't know the time stamp info was important to you. BWF Helper is supposed to do this for you. Ah -- I see Rail is on the case...

[Bob L]

No... it has nothing to do with samplerates... its just that I have not taken the time to write the header parser for opening and placing the data on the timeline.

Samplerate conversion is done live in SS... a very powerful feature when mixed rates are part of a session... like many sound design projects pulling from sound effects libraries that may be at a different rate than the source project files.

Files are translated on the fly... and in realtime, even with many of the higher quality SRC settings.

I am considering writing the BWF code for 4.0... we'll see if it makes it in.

Bob L

[West End]

Bob,

I for one would be eternally grateful. I don't like the idea of not being able to do my work in SAW.

In the meantime any suggestions, I've sent Rail a sample of one of my files to look at, so hopefully it's just something I'm doing wrong.

Ken

[Mark Stebbeds]

No... it has nothing to do with samplerates... its just that I have not taken the time to write the header parser for opening and placing the data on the timeline.

<snip>

I am considering writing the BWF code for 4.0... we'll see if it makes it in.

Bob L

Thanks for the clarification Bob. I guess I misunderstood an earlier thread about this. FWIW, I consider BWF a valuable tool.

Mark

[Rail Jon Rogut]

I've sent Rail a sample of one of my files to look at, so hopefully it's just something I'm doing wrong.

I just sent you an updated version (Version 1.1) -- please try it and report back. I could not duplicate the behaviour you described.

Please note.. the BWF file specification is clear that BWF files should have the extension .WAV ... if you have an app which creates .BWF files, you should refer them to the spec:

http://www.ebu.ch/en/technical/publications/userguides/bwf_user_guide.php

http://www.aes.org/standards/b_reports/b_meeting-reports/aes114-sc-06-01-report.cfm

From the BWF Spec FAQ:


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is the file extension for a BWF file ".bwf"?

No, even if this is what you might expect. The extension should be ".wav" because this is mandatory for all WAVE files. The BWF is a special WAVE file. If you use any other extension, some computers may not be able to play out the audio. This also implies that any earlier extensions have to be replaced.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Rail

[Mark Stebbeds]

I am considering writing the BWF code for 4.0... we'll see if it makes it in.



One more note. In Pro Tools, BWF is the only wav session option available. Makes it easy not to make a mistake and select standard wave. Of course you can import standard wave.

I'm not aware of any app that will not play BWF, or recognize it as wave, even if it doesn't recognize it's time stamp.

Mark

[TotalSonic]

Converting to correct sample rate on import is a no brainer in other apps, making mixed sample rates of little importance in my opinion.

Mark

I'll heartily disagree with this. Recently I was able to continue working on mixing and editing a multitrack 88.2 session using a laptop system that only supported 44.1/48 - and then just took it back to my main system with all files still at their hi-res 2xfs rate to complete it. Being forced to src on import would have completely defeated the purpose of working on it on the road. SAWStudio's options for multiple sample rates open up a lot of possibilities in terms of work flow - and the highest quality src option when bouncing to disc now sounds very good.

If I need to src on import there are a number of converters such Voxengo's r8brain-pro or the new Weiss SARACON - http://www.weiss.ch/p2d/p2d.html - that do much better sounding jobs of src than apps such as PT, Samplitude or Nuendo for that matter.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[mghtx]

SAWStudio's options for multiple sample rates open up a lot of possibilities

Yes it does. I love it. But I would like to see support for BWF.

[TotalSonic]

Yes it does. I love it. But I would like to see support for BWF.

I agree this would be great also. Currently import IS available via Rail's BWF Helper or Cuibono Soft
s EDL Convert Pro - and export is available via those two apps noted and also JMS Audioware's BFG. And as Bob has stated - he is looking into adding it for an update.

Just noting that it isn't an "either/or" situation.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[mghtx]

And as Bob has stated - he is looking into adding it for an update.

You know? That Bob fella is a pretty cool dude.

[Mark Stebbeds]

I'll heartily disagree with this. Recently I was able to continue working on mixing and editing a multitrack 88.2 session using a laptop system that only supported 44.1/48 -

And perhaps only 16 bit. Yes, there are advantages for those who lower their standards to that of laptop soundcards.:eek: :D

mark

[TotalSonic]

And perhaps only 16 bit. Yes, there are advantages for those who lower their standards to that of laptop soundcards.:eek: :D

mark

Yup - it was indeed 16bit playback for monitoring.
But because of SAWStudio's real time src though I didn't have to lower my standards one single bit. I could do some time consuming edits on the road and then bring the edl back to my main workstation, and tweak anything that was missed by a less than ideal monitoring situation while on the road - and then bounce my mix - with all of the original source files still at 24bit/88.2kHz. This way of working is simply not available on a lot of other DAW apps.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[mghtx]

But because of SAWStudio's real time src though I didn't have to lower my standards one single bit.

Whoo.....nothin' but net. :p :)

[Mark Stebbeds]

This way of working is simply not available on a lot of other DAW apps.


So what?

I'm just having fun with ya. If real time SRC tickles your willie, then have a good time.

I just don't see the lack of real time SRC in the other apps you are referring to as a detriment, with conversion on import being an acceptable solution. The only time it's generally used is ripping SFX off of CD and importing into a 48K session. Doesn't the highest quality SRC eat up CPU power?

Your senario of recording at 88K, 24bit with hi res converters and editing at 44/16 on a laptop with cheesy soundcard is certainly not a feature the industry is screaming out for.

Mark

[Dave Labrecque]

So what?

I'm just having fun with ya. If real time SRC tickles your willie, then have a good time.

I just don't see the lack of real time SRC in the other apps you are referring to as a detriment, with conversion on import being an acceptable solution. The only time it's generally used is ripping SFX off of CD and importing into a 48K session. Doesn't the highest quality SRC eat up CPU power?

Your senario of recording at 88K, 24bit with hi res converters and editing at 44/16 on a laptop with cheesy soundcard is certainly not a feature the industry is screaming out for.

Mark

I'd think anyone wanting to do general editing of high-rez projects on the road on a laptop as Steve said would be screaming for it, if they even knew it existed. :) Then again, a lot of times people unknowingly settle for whatever the market monopolizer has defined as the "standard".

[Rail Jon Rogut]

Okay, here's a link to a fully functional demo of BWF Helper:

http://www.railjonrogut.com/SS%20BWF%20Helper%20Setup.zip

Rail

[West End]

Rail,

Thanks you're the man. It was all about the extension name. My 744T creates a .BWF file instead of a .WAV so after changing all of the file extensions everything worked fine.

Also thanks for the new version 1.1 and the links to the EBU specs., that was super helpful. I'll be calling Sound Devices and informing them of the spec. and hopefully they'll change their format, they're really nice people and very open to user input.

Thanks for your effort and time, this is the difference between working in the SAW environment and other DAW's, the people.... ya just can't beat it.

Ken

[Mark Stebbeds]

[QUOTE=Dave Labrecque]I'd think anyone wanting to do general editing of high-rez projects on the road on a laptop as Steve said would be screaming for it, if they even knew it existed. :)

The quality of audio from a typical laptop onboard soundcard certainly has got to be the lowest quality of 44k digital audio known to mankind. I recommended talking to a mirror if you're trying to convince somebody otherwise.:) Those who seek out this feature instead of an outboard soundcard are in the minority, even less than minority.


Then again, a lot of times people unknowingly settle for whatever the market monopolizer has defined as the "standard".

"Unknowingly" would be a word better used to describe those who comment negatively on the market monopolizer, but have never used it. Those who have, don't seem to share your opinion of "settling".:) The "standard" is created with input by the hundreds of thousands of users of with feature requests that appear in every update, just like SS.

If and when our industry shifts to more 88/96k work, I'm sure we'll see some changes, but so far the high res niche is a small niche, and nobody is srceaming to hear that out of a laptop onboard soundcard.

Mark

[Mark Stebbeds]

Rail,

Thanks you're the man. It was all about the extension name. My 744T creates a .BWF file instead of a .WAV so after changing all of the file extensions everything worked fine.



Wow, that really surprises me. I've haven't heard of any other app supporting BWF that used .bwf as an extension.

mark

[UpTilDawn]

[QUOTE]

The quality of audio from a typical laptop onboard soundcard certainly has got to be the lowest quality of 44k digital audio known to mankind. I recommended talking to a mirror if you're trying to convince somebody otherwise.:) Those who seek out this feature instead of an outboard soundcard are in the minority, even less than minority.
Mark

I believe the idea that Steve is trying to get across, Mark, is that while on the road, he can use any ol' soundcard available on his laptop to monitor while he does EDITS..... the quality of the original session files is not diminished whatsoever while doing this. When he gets back to the studio, he can then return to working at full "fidelity" with the newly edited work.... therefore utilizing valuable free time while on the road.

Monitoring at a lower bitrate doesn't affect the files that have already been recorded..... It's a very nice feature of Saw to be able to switch the resolution at will and know that your session files are safe. I do it all the time as well.

Sorry for any misuse of the terminology...... I'm fried tonight.

DanT

[Mark Stebbeds]

I believe the idea that Steve is trying to get across, Mark, is that while on the road, he can use any ol' soundcard available on his laptop to monitor while he does EDITS..... the quality of the original session files is not diminished whatsoever while doing this.

I'm know what he's saying. I just don't buy it.

If you read his post again, you will see that he "does it again" at high res to correct any mistakes made by the bad monitoring situation. He also says he's "mixing".

No, I don't buy doing it twice, and yes, plenty is missed at crappy laptop soundcard quality, particularly with acoustic instuments and ambience at 16 bits.

I think it's cool that SS does SRC for those who need to sling a few rough SFX around, but don't buy into the "record at 96/24 and edit and mix at 24/16" out of a laptop soundcard.

It's sounds to me like something to do when you're bored on the road and the hotel bar is closed.;)

Mark

[TotalSonic]

I'm know what he's saying. I just don't buy it.

If you read his post again, you will see that he "does it again" at high res to correct any mistakes made by the bad monitoring situation. He also says he's "mixing".

No, I don't buy doing it twice, and yes, plenty is missed at crappy laptop soundcard quality, particularly with acoustic instuments and ambience at 16 bits.

I think it's cool that SS does SRC for those who need to sling a few rough SFX around, but don't buy into the "record at 96/24 and edit and mix at 24/16" out of a laptop soundcard.

It's sounds to me like something to do when you're bored on the road and the hotel bar is closed.;)

Mark

Mark -
The scenario was:
1) go visit some friends out of town, miss deadline
2) cancel visit and just stay at home in order to make deadline
3) take my laptop (and, yeah, I've been meaning to get an external card for it, & actually would like to get a faster one at this point too), a pair of headphones, and excuse myself a few hours to listen during the weekend through a number of takes and then edit to comp out the best parts. Don't know what the big deal is - I can hear issues like intonation & time, and intensity just fine even with a junky onboard 16bit card. Didn't bother doing any eq or any other processing at this point as the monitoring was obviously not accurate enough for that - but where the time was spent was listening through takes and comping the best of them. Got this done in time to come back Monday and do some overdubs. Although to be fair there were a couple of crossfades I touched up after hearing them in the studio - I didn't have to "do the work twice" as you are inferring .

Anyway - it's no big deal to me whether you "buy it" - and frankly don't give a darn whether this will ever be a need for others - just trying to point out one incident where having SAW's real time src abilities allowed me to have my cake and eat it too.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[Mark Stebbeds]

[QUOTE=TotalSonic] Didn't bother doing any eq or any other processing at this point as the monitoring was obviously not accurate enough for that - but where the time was spent was listening through takes and comping the best of them.

Well, you actually said you were mixing as well as editing.


and frankly don't give a darn whether this will ever be a need for others - just trying to point out one incident where having SAW's real time src abilities allowed me to have my cake and eat it too.

My response to "the need" was to another poster who indicated the industry was screaming for the ability to work with 96/24 product in 44/16 format, monitoring through a laptop soundcard output.

SRC aside, it's as low quality digital audio as one can go.

Mark

[TotalSonic]

[QUOTE]

Well, you actually said you were mixing as well as editing.

To be perfectly clear, yes, I did rough in general levels. Required some tweaking later - but the basic balances were pretty much there. This did not in fact stretch out the mix process for me as my usual work flow is to get levels set in a "coarse" way initially and then fine tune things after all processing is in place.




My response to "the need" was to another poster who indicated the industry was screaming for the ability to work with 96/24 product in 44/16 format, monitoring through a laptop soundcard output.

It happened to fill a need of my own and was very happy to have this ability. SRC on import simply doesn't making things any quicker than doing src on export as far as my work flow goes. And the apps that force src on import certainly are not the best options out there for the job (i.e. I don't know of a single decently equipped dedicated mastering studio using PT for src).

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[Mark Stebbeds]

[QUOTE=Mark Stebbeds]

And the apps that force src on import certainly are not the best options out there for the job (i.e. I don't know of a single decently equipped dedicated mastering studio using PT for src).



Nor are they using Saw Studio for SRC, which is hardly used at all for anything, anywhere, if you're making comparisons.

Most of the decently equipped dedicated mastering studios I'm aware of use D/A and A/D converters if SRC is required.

Where are going with this? Do you use a laptop soundcard for mastering? How about those little mylar speakers? :)

Mark

[Bob L]

Mark,

You might want to try the High Quality SRC in SS if you haven't yet or for a while... it may surprise you... the FFT results are quite impressive compared to many other options.

Bob L

[TotalSonic]

Nor are they using Saw Studio for SRC, which is hardly used at all for anything, anywhere, if you're making comparisons.

Most of the decently equipped dedicated mastering studios I'm aware of use D/A and A/D converters if SRC is required.

To date I've just played out at whatever rate I'm given and capture back from my analog process chain at the rate of delivery -
- but I think if you did a survey actually at this point the Weiss SFC-2 would probably be found in the majority of mastering studios and quite a number of ME's are saying that they find various dedicated hardware is doing a more transparent job than loopback at this point. I personally want to investigate this further and want to check out the new Mytek src box, along with the Weiss, against all of the software options that are out there too.


Where are going with this?

Where I'm going is that I think being forced to use the built in src on a lot of apps is a poor choice if the absolute best sound quality is your desire. So using dedicated external applications (i.e. most Mac guys I know go for Barbabatch long before they would use PT) or hardware seems to be the best way to go unless you are concerned with "convenience." If convenience is indeed a factor - then SAW's real time src along with its high quality conversion on export actually allows you to get to work quicker and offers a number of options in terms of flexibility of work flow that is not available on many other apps.

I think getting some blind shootouts posted using various hardware and software options, including SAW's highest quality option, would be a really nice thing and will try to get this happening in a couple months after I've gotten my business fully back up.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[Rail Jon Rogut]

Rail,

Thanks you're the man. It was all about the extension name. My 744T creates a .BWF file instead of a .WAV so after changing all of the file extensions everything worked fine.

Also thanks for the new version 1.1 and the links to the EBU specs., that was super helpful. I'll be calling Sound Devices and informing them of the spec. and hopefully they'll change their format, they're really nice people and very open to user input.

Thanks for your effort and time, this is the difference between working in the SAW environment and other DAW's, the people.... ya just can't beat it.

Ken

You're welcome Ken

I just wish you'd emailed me about your problem earlier... You've had BWF Helper for a while.

Cheers,

Rail

[Mark Stebbeds]

Where I'm going is that I think being forced to use the built in src on a lot of apps is a poor choice if the absolute best sound quality is your desire. So using dedicated external applications (i.e. most Mac guys I know go for Barbabatch long before they would use PT) or hardware seems to be the best way to go unless you are concerned with "convenience." If convenience is indeed a factor - then SAW's real time src along with its high quality conversion on export actually allows you to get to work quicker and offers a number of options in terms of flexibility of work flow that is not available on many other apps.


Well you've tried to turn this into a thread about mastering, and/or the quality of SRC, which has nothing to do with what we were talking about...which was the value of mixing very high res material SRC'd down to lower res while monitoring a laptop soundcard. Tallk amongst yourselves.

But since you want to go there...of course the highest possible SRC should be used while mastering CD, whether it be the Weiss app or hardware, and last I checked, hardware was the preferred choice in pro mastering houses around here.

But neither SS or PT or Nuendo, or any other multi-track editors were designed to be mastering apps, although they certainly have been used as such in project studios where mastering budgets may be non existant, including mine.

But the most common use of SRC in multi track apps is in post production, and since SS cannot slave to SMPTE, the whole conversation is a moot point. Once again, I'm not an expert here, but I would imagine clocking issues to stay syncronized and resolved to external sources might have something to do with it all.

So from a post production point of view, what difference does it make if an app has real time SRC if you can't chase a video master to layback?...and in PRO post production, video master is king. So much for work flow.

Other than that, I'm sure real time SRC to use mixed sample rates has it's conveniences, and I'm sure there are a few that use it from time to time. I just don't see the practical application other that that, and don't see the work flow advantages you keep referring too. I guess I could consider it a bonus, but it certainly would be at the bottom of my list of a necessary feature in any app.

Mark

[Mark Stebbeds]

So using dedicated external applications (i.e. most Mac guys I know go for Barbabatch long before they would use PT) or hardware seems to be the best way to go unless you are concerned with "convenience."

One more thing...

Barbabatch is a batch converter, hence it's name. The PT algo for SRC on import sounds as good as anything else I've heard, certainly as good as Barbabatch.

I think the "most Mac guys" you know are blowing smoke if they say they are hearing a difference, and most PT guys I know don't even own it. I haven't even heard that name years.

Mark

[Naturally Digital]

Barbabatch is a batch converter, hence it's name. The PT algo for SRC on import sounds as good as anything else I've heard, certainly as good as Barbabatch. There were a bunch of measurements posted on one of the forums (can't remember which one, maybe Brad Blackwood's) of a number of SRC options... The differences between them were substantial. Of course, as we know, the Voxengo was one of the best. I can't remember if Pt was there or not.

Anyway... I'm looking forward to some of the new import/export options that Bob is implementing for 4.0. It would be nice if BWF were included but personally I haven't needed it much... yet.

[Naturally Digital]

Other than that, I'm sure real time SRC to use mixed sample rates has it's conveniences, and I'm sure there are a few that use it from time to time. I just don't see the practical application other that that, and don't see the work flow advantages you keep referring too. I guess I could consider it a bonus, but it certainly would be at the bottom of my list of a necessary feature in any app.This is a feature I've made extensive use of and really appreciate... and... it has nothing to do with editing on a laptop!:p

Gee, can't you guys just learn to get along?? :rolleyes:

[TotalSonic]

There were a bunch of measurements posted on one of the forums (can't remember which one, maybe Brad Blackwood's) of a number of SRC options... The differences between them were substantial. Of course, as we know, the Voxengo was one of the best. I can't remember if Pt was there or not.

Anyway... I'm looking forward to some of the new import/export options that Bob is implementing for 4.0. It would be nice if BWF were included but personally I haven't needed it much... yet.

David -
I believe the shootout you are referring to is at http://src.infinitewave.ca/
Based on this sites measurements Barbabatch does indeed spec out better than PT HD7's "Tweakhead". fwiw - Both spec out way way better than Nuendo's & Wavelabs src also.

Of course measurements are useless without listening tests, and the author of the Voxengo software had some questions regarding the accuracy of some of their testing methods. Still - worth taking a look/listen at what they've posted there.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[Pedro Itriago]

Of course is a plus. Is giving you the choice of doing the SRC whenever you want. If you want all your files at the same SR/BD, you can use an external batch/converter. If you want to do it in the end, same thing; you could use a plug-in or and external converter or hardware.

It's not forcing you to do that. As far as I know, it is not a choice on other DAW's, it's an imposition. The fact that there are people OK with that imposition wether because they don't see otherwise nor they don't need it, doesn't take away the freedom of being able to decide for yourself, even if it takes 5 more clicks. The convertion process would take a lot less time with an stereo file or a pair of mono files than a bunch of files so, worst case scenario, they will take the same ammount of time.


Other than that, I'm sure real time SRC to use mixed sample rates has it's conveniences, and I'm sure there are a few that use it from time to time. I just don't see the practical application other that that, and don't see the work flow advantages you keep referring too. I guess I could consider it a bonus, but it certainly would be at the bottom of my list of a necessary feature in any app.

[Mark Stebbeds]

Anyway... I'm looking forward to some of the new import/export options that Bob is implementing for 4.0. It would be nice if BWF were included but personally I haven't needed it much... yet.

Now BWF is a feature that expands the usefulness of SS to a much higher degree, and ALL of the other popular apps support it.

Mark

[Mark Stebbeds]

This is a feature I've made extensive use of and really appreciate... and... it has nothing to do with editing on a laptop!:p



What do you use it for and why?

Do you exchange sessions with the rest of the industry, with mixed sample rates in the same audio folder? If you were going to hand off a session, would you have to redo the session to accomodate the receipient?

SS compatability, and problems associated with it, are VERY common threads on this forum. A session with mixed sample rates is not compatable with anything else. So what you consider a bonus (you use it extensively) is restrictive when sharing files.

Mark

[Mark Stebbeds]

[QUOTE=TotalSonic]David -
I believe the shootout you are referring to is at http://src.infinitewave.ca/
Based on this sites measurements Barbabatch does indeed spec out better than PT HD7's "Tweakhead".

OK Steve, now you are just making a fool of yourself. There is little or no difference below the cutoff frequency between Barb and PT in the 96 to 44k conversion.

If what's above 22K means something to you, the frequency of PT is much flatter, although the differences are meaningless at levels WELL below the noise thresehold on any electronics on the planet.

If those tests show anything, it's that the extended frequency response of Sound Forge 8.0 smokes everybody, being flat out to 50K, where the others drop like a rock at the cutoff frequency of 22K or so.

Mark

[TotalSonic]

[QUOTE]

OK Steve, now you are just making a fool of yourself. There is little or no difference below the cutoff frequency between Barb and PT in the 96 to 44k conversion.

Cutoff freq and filter transition is only one part of the test.
Look at the other graphs. The "overall response" test showing base starting at above audible range is due to the initial upsampling to 14.1MHz (the common multiple of 44.1 & 96kHz). This gets downsampled back into the audible range. Click the "Help" button on that page to bring up that gives a better understanding of what we're looking at.



If what's above 22K means something to you, the frequency of PT is much flatter, although the differences are meaningless at levels WELL below the noise thresehold on any electronics on the planet.

The "tweakhead" setting on PT HD7 indeed tests on this site as one of the better ones. Regardless - Barbabatch tests out better. Is it a big deal? I'll agree for most it might not be. If I had a piece of music that's fidelity was crucial for me I'd go for the best option available though.



If those tests show anything, it's that the extended frequency response of Sound Forge 8.0 smokes everybody, being flat out to 50K, where the others drop like a rock at the cutoff frequency of 22K or so.

Mark

Mark - you're completely misreading the graph then. You WANT the filter to cut off at 22.05kHz!!!! The filter flat out to 50k shows that it's incorrectly implemented - although with the a/a filter in then SF8.0 performs ok although lower than many of the other examples. GoldWave was the worse of all them - the Weiss stuff (especially the new SARACON algorithm) & the new Izotope src among the best. Adobe Audition & r8brain Pro version surprisingly were among the top also. Nuendo & Wavelab are pretty darn bad.

Anyway - the site was posted by Alexey Lukin, who is the developer of the Megabitmax dithering algorithm. I'm going to try and contact him to see if we get SAW's highest quality src algorithm also included in this test.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[Dave Labrecque]

Rhetoric aside (for the moment ;)) (i.e., "screaming for") one doesn't need a high-end interface to do simple initial ballpark organizing, editing, even effects configuation and mixing on a project. And I really don't think a high-end sound card is going to be of much advantage while doing these things on a plane, train, or automobile. :)

I think this is the kind of work Steve was referring to. And if I understand right, SAW allows him to do this without altering the high-rez source audio files, so that the project can be finished on high-end hardware back at home. Which is nice. And which other apps won't allow. That's all.

[Dave Labrecque]

[quote=TotalSonic]

...Saw Studio ... is hardly used at all for anything, anywhere...

You and your rhetoric, Mark. Get ahold of yourself, man! ;)

[Naturally Digital]

What do you use it for and why?For the longest time I've been monitoring through a digital console that maxed out at 48kHz SR. When I've been given files at 96kHz, SAWStudio has allowed me to maintain the original files at the max rez during production (SRC down to 48kHz) and then do my buildmix at the full resolution of the original files.

It isn't simply about post production/sound design (even if that were the original intention)... It's really up to the creativity of the individual.

We've now successfully turned this into a thread about SRC. :(

[Naturally Digital]

Of course measurements are useless without listening testsSteve, you crack me up man! :D Where I come from, listening tests were pretty useless without measurements... Far too subjective (scientifically speaking). :)

[mikebuzz]

Hey are'nt the old Studors max freq response 50k+ ?????? wow a tape machine did that and there was a reason RIGHT ????? maybe the psycoacoustics ( speeel check ) or just that that is really the response we need to hear or feel like we hear !!!

Humm this old argument again , well if it's good enough for Studor than it's good enough for 90% of the world or something like that . Or maybe I should read the whole thread or NOT

Later
Buzz

PS: whatever works and sounds good is the BOMB !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! regardless of specs but of course you need EARS !!! :D

[Mark Stebbeds]

[QUOTE=TotalSonic][QUOTE=Mark Stebbeds]

Cutoff freq and filter transition is only one part of the test.
Look at the other graphs. The "overall response" test showing base starting at above audible range is due to the initial upsampling to 14.1MHz (the common multiple of 44.1 & 96kHz). This gets downsampled back into the audible range. Click the "Help" button on that page to bring up that gives a better understanding of what we're looking at.

Yeah, I know how it works smart guy.;) And the artifacts you are referring to are not demonstrated in the test, if they even exist, making the point moot...or the test.


The "tweakhead" setting on PT HD7 indeed tests on this site as one of the better ones. Regardless - Barbabatch tests out better. Is it a big deal? I'll agree for most it might not be. If I had a piece of music that's fidelity was crucial for me I'd go for the best option available though.

I don't see Barbabatch testing out better at all, and in reality, who gives a flying ****. It's a batch converter.

If I had a piece of music who's fidelity was crucial to me, I certanly would not consider Barbabatch as the best option. and.. I would trust my ears. Your senario is not a realistic one. Having said that, I'm not experienced in your practice of downsampling to facilitate mixing out of a crappy laptop soundcard. Maybe it tests out better in that format.:eek: :D


Anyway - the site was posted by Alexey Lukin, who is the developer of the Megabitmax dithering algorithm. I'm going to try and contact him to see if we get SAW's highest quality src algorithm also included in this test.

Make sure he includes the real time SRC, and not just offline "build to mix" algo. That's what started this converstion... and your need to mix 96k on a laptop sound card. Did you at least use headphones, or are you digging those speakers?:)

Mark

[SoundSuite]

OK Steve, now you are just making a fool of yourself.
Quite the opposite.



Did you at least use headphones, or are you digging those speakers?
Do NOT answer this question... it's a setup!

If you answer Headphones, Mark's going to insult your connector and cabling because its not on the Digidesign parts list and nobody uses it.
:D

[mghtx]

Gee, can't you guys just learn to get along??

Where's the fun in that? :p Someone needs to put more smiley faces in their post so they're not misunderstood. :D Besides we all know that Saw sucks so why do we waste our time? :p

Personally I go by the best looking developer. And I've seen the PT and Steinberg guys. :eek:

[Mark Stebbeds]

Do NOT answer this question... it's a setup!


As if every question or statement in this thread wasn't.;)

mark

[Mark Stebbeds]

We've now successfully turned this into a thread about SRC. :(

It's your's and Steve's fault.:)

Mark

[TotalSonic]

[QUOTE][QUOTE=TotalSonic]

Yeah, I know how it works smart guy.;) And the artifacts you are referring to are not demonstrated in the test, if they even exist, making the point moot...or the test.

I don't see Barbabatch testing out better at all, and in reality, who gives a flying ****. It's a batch converter.

Mark -
Seriously - are you trying to make a point that you can't thoroughly browse a website or that you simply don't know how to read a graph??? On the site linked without a question Barbabatch does indeed measure out better than PT HD7's Tweakhead. The improvements are subtle - but definitely significantly measureable. As far as it being an audible difference - we need to download the files and give it a listen.

I was seriously disappointed when a soundtrack I provided for a film I scored had it's sound to my ear audibly flatenned out by what were to me two avoidable steps of PT5 src by the post production engineer. I feel casual use of src and not using the best possible algorithms is one of the areas where digital audio is potentially degraded. There's been a ton of strides in the past few years in making src algorithms a ton more transparent - so I feel getting educated regarding better options out there can lead to overall better practice by the recording industry as a whole.

As far as the sound of PT HD7's src - I've yet to hear it (although I am going to download the examples posted on that site) - but it certainly looks like they've made some very big improvements based on the very good measurements on the linked site. Still - fwiw - Weiss' SARACON & the yet unreleased new Izotope algorithm both measure out way better than it.

My interest in this is spurred by a number of ME's whose opinion I respect stating that they feel some digital processes sound better when applied at 2xFs than 1xFs - so they are capturing back from their analog process chains at 2xFs, applying the digital processing, and then downsampling to the delivery rate. In order to make a fair comparison as to what the better method is (capture back at 1xFs & then digital processing, vs. capture back at 2xFs, digital processing and then SRC) it is vital to use the most transparent possible src algorithm.



If I had a piece of music who's fidelity was crucial to me, I certanly would not consider Barbabatch as the best option. and.. I would trust my ears. Your senario is not a realistic one.

Your consideration based solely on brand name is not a good practice as far as I am concerned. Many people also will have budget considerations come into play as far as choice also - not many people want to spend over a G for SRC and as you noted in one of your posts some projects end up getting mastered by the track/mix studio due to limited budget. Don't you want to be able to make a choice of using the best possible tool that is still within your budget? Don't you want to save money if something that is just as good or better is available for less dollars? Based on the posted measurements there are indeed some surprises that some of the "big players" (i.e. Steinberg) algortithms measure much worse than some of the smaller co's algorithms (such as Barbabatch).


Having said that, I'm not experienced in your practice of downsampling to facilitate mixing out of a crappy laptop soundcard. Maybe it tests out better in that format.:eek: :D

Mark - you're taking a page out of the tactics of our current administration of what I call "willfully being dense" in order to totally confuse the issue at hand. I've repeated over and over what my procedure was and you keep posting back the same misunderstanding of it. Let it go - ok - it's fun and all parlaying back and forth with you but at this point the repetition on the same thing is just getting annoying.



Make sure he includes the real time SRC, and not just offline "build to mix" algo. That's what started this converstion... and your need to mix 96k on a laptop sound card.

Nope - all the tests on that page are only of the highest quality settings available for each of the options - so I'm sure he'd have no interest in testing the lower quality setting. I certainly don't need a measurement to let me know that the real time src is not very accurate - but you are confusing a monitoring method (real time src) with a delivery method (the highest quality src on export).



Did you at least use headphones, or are you digging those speakers?:)


Actually - unfortunately I've found that the Sonata II's are not suitable for mastering as I've discovered the mids are attenuated in a couple of places, and modifying the crossover is not fixing things to the point I want. They're great for listening for pleasure but I need something a little more "in your face" and not as polite for my work - so I'm going to sell them and most likely pick up a pair of B&W Nautilus 802's.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[Tree Leopard]

(... sorry to interrupt - but it would be great to see BWF support in SAW sometime soon... )

Andre

[Mark Stebbeds]

I certainly don't need a measurement to let me know that the real time src is not very accurate -

Good. You are finally back on topic. I agree. And I think the disadvantages of having mixed sample rates in a session (compatablility, etc) outweigh the conveniences. especially with the convenience and availablilty of high quality batch conversion you've been telling us about on this thread.

Mixing sample rates was the design intention of Mr. Lentini, as he told us many times. Your senario of mixng 96k at 44k res was a bonus you were able to benefit from, so good for you, and maybe others will benefit too. But it certainly isn't the norm, as most folks working in high res prefer to stay there until mastering. If not they are wasting their time.

Mark

[Bob L]

There are some good measurement results right on my website concerning the new high-res SRC and they are pretty hard to beat... how does it sound... pretty darn hard to hear any differences on a blind test... and on most of todays machines it can still work in a realtime situation to allow the benfits of the multiple rates in a session....

So... Mark... please ... let it be... its a great feature that is not common... give me that ok... and it helps a lot of people do things that they can't do in other DAWS... and if they want... they don't have to use it... so I fail to see a down side... can we just put this discussion to rest. :)

Bob L

[Dave Labrecque]

There are some good measurement results right on my website concerning the new high-res SRC and they are pretty hard to beat... how does it sound... pretty darn hard to hear any differences on a blind test... and on most of todays machines it can still work in a realtime situation to allow the benfits of the multiple rates in a session....

Hey, Bob,

I've been assuming that the real-time SRC and the build mix SRC settings are the same. IOW, that we're hearing identical SRC in either case. Is this true?

[Bob L]

Dave... there are two settings... one for realtime in the MT and one for buildmix.... this gives you the option to keep the realtime at a slightly less quality while you work on the session... and then build the final mix with the highest quality setting when you render the finished project.

To be truthful... you really are kidding yourself to believe any human can hear the differences that would be caused by using the lesser settings while editing and setting up the mix.... they are still excellent.

So... setup the realtime to the highest quality setting that still allows the realtime manipulation of the MT for the density of your session... then use the highest settings in the buildmix option... and be ecstatic at the results without the need for expensive hardware SRC solutions... which by the way... would most likely be hard pressed to match or surpass the Spectral results demonstrated by the new high res SRC in SS.

Bob L

[Dave Labrecque]

Bob,

Yeah, that's what I do. In fact I have both real time and build mix settings to the max and haven't run into any CPU load problems yet. :)

But what I'm asking is... for identical SRC quality settings for real time and build mix -- are we hearing the identical SRC on MT playback vs. after-the-fact playback of a built mix?

[Bob L]

Yes... its the same code being used for both.

Bob L

[Dave Labrecque]

Yes... its the same code being used for both.

Bob L

As I suspected. Thanks. :)

[Mark Stebbeds]

So... Mark... please ... let it be... its a great feature that is not common... give me that ok... and it helps a lot of people do things that they can't do in other DAWS... and if they want... they don't have to use it... so I fail to see a down side... can we just put this discussion to rest. :)



Fine. I wasn't the one that brought it up.

Mark

[Bob L]

Thank you much.

Bob L