Better Foobar REsampler?
May 18, 2005 at 2:08 AM Thread Starter Post #1 of 23
Naga

Naga

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Dec 28, 2004
Posts
957
Likes
10
I use the foobar plugin to resample at 192k, but ive heard that its a relatively bad software resampler, what other options are out there, im using an using 0404
 
May 18, 2005 at 2:38 AM Post #2 of 23
The SSRC resampler is one of the best free resamplers out there. Compared to the resampler in the ASIO output plugin for Winamp (set to the highest quality mode) it isn't quite as good, but that resampler also uses much more CPU. The PPHS resampler for Foobar is slightly lower in sound quality than the SSRC resampler (though they're still very close, I can't tell the difference between them), but it's quite good for the amount of CPU it uses. The SRC resampler (one S) isn't very good compared to either the SSRC or PPHS resamplers, and it uses the most CPU.
 
May 18, 2005 at 6:56 AM Post #5 of 23
Why use resampler in the first place? You're not getting any added resolution.
 
May 18, 2005 at 6:52 PM Post #7 of 23
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.Radar
The SSRC resampler is one of the best free resamplers out there. Compared to the resampler in the ASIO output plugin for Winamp (set to the highest quality mode) it isn't quite as good, but that resampler also uses much more CPU. The PPHS resampler for Foobar is slightly lower in sound quality than the SSRC resampler (though they're still very close, I can't tell the difference between them), but it's quite good for the amount of CPU it uses. The SRC resampler (one S) isn't very good compared to either the SSRC or PPHS resamplers, and it uses the most CPU.


How are you determining which resampler is "good" or better? SSRC, PPHS, SRC all use different algorithms and give you different end-result as far as digital information, but subjective sound quality -wise, I don't know if one can be called better or worse. To my ears, they all sound different, and which one you prefer will depend on your tastes and the rest of your system synergy.

IME, PPHS has softest treble presentation, SSRC has the most "cool" tonality, and SRC somewhere in between. My current setup of choice with my tastes/system is SRC at 176.4kHz for example..
 
May 18, 2005 at 7:58 PM Post #9 of 23
Quote:

Originally Posted by Naga
I use the foobar plugin to resample at 192k, but ive heard that its a relatively bad software resampler, what other options are out there, im using an using 0404


The best option is to not use re-sampling. 44.1khz sounds best on the E-MU cards imo.
 
May 19, 2005 at 5:27 AM Post #10 of 23
for 1212m/1820/m yes, there should be no difference, but with 0404 there could be as it doesn't have dedicated oscillator for 44.1, so the clocks for 44.1 and 48 might be of different quality, whether it's audible that's another question.. but yes, with cards that have the same clocks for both 44.1 and 48, you're right..

halcyon, I also didn't catch you here, are you sure DACs run at different frequencies for different input samplerates?
 
May 19, 2005 at 5:06 PM Post #11 of 23
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon L
How are you determining which resampler is "good" or better?


What I'd do is route an RMAA test signal through it and capture the result on digital level. The best resampler should come up with the least THD and IMD throughout the spectrum. Bad resamplers (try Audacity's for a start) will have a nice assortment of harmonics and not so great high-frequency IMD. I actually thought an Audacity resampled file (44 -> 48) sounded better than the original once; when I saw the big 3rd harmonic the light went on... (BTW, headphones can also have interesting distortion spectra, look at HD555 vs. HD595 for example. A number of better to top-flight headphones appear to have added harmonics for subjectively better sound.)
 
May 19, 2005 at 5:40 PM Post #12 of 23
Quote:

Originally Posted by sgrossklass
What I'd do is route an RMAA test signal through it and capture the result on digital level. The best resampler should come up with the least THD and IMD throughout the spectrum. Bad resamplers (try Audacity's for a start) will have a nice assortment of harmonics and not so great high-frequency IMD. I actually thought an Audacity resampled file (44 -> 48) sounded better than the original once; when I saw the big 3rd harmonic the light went on... (BTW, headphones can also have interesting distortion spectra, look at HD555 vs. HD595 for example. A number of better to top-flight headphones appear to have added harmonics for subjectively better sound.)


Well, this test is beyond my means, but I'd love to see the results if you can post them at some point.

But honestly, THD and IMD figures never play a role for me when I'm choosing a component. In fact, if I did use these numbers, I would never have ended up with my tube amp and my previous tube preamp/CDP's. In the end, one must choose based on their subjective impressions, all the nice harmonic distortions and all..
 
May 19, 2005 at 6:32 PM Post #13 of 23
it's pretty darn easy in fact, just let RMAA generate test wave at 24/44.1, run it through any resampler you want and let RMAA analyze the new file..
 
May 19, 2005 at 9:02 PM Post #14 of 23
Like Glassman said. (Of course this involves some kind of WAV writing output plugin in Foobar, but apart from that it's a pretty straightforward test.)
 
May 22, 2005 at 11:01 AM Post #15 of 23
Should i be able to resample to 192Khz with my audigy 2 value? The highest options i'm given is 96Khz (i've heard that it's best just go without resampling but i'd like to at least try it out)

Also, when i set it to 24bit padded to 32 the music will decide to go fuzzy (crap desription
frown.gif
) whenever i move the tack progress bar, on other setings it's fine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top