I believe George Blood is on this list. George, could you share your test results? I'd be interested
to know your methodology. Given all the bit-mangling that seems to go on in various hardware and
software, I will say that at first glance I am not surprised, unfortunately. But I'd like to know
the science behind the claims.
-- Tom Fine
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard L. Hess" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2008 10:33 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] The Hope of Audacity Was--Re: [ARSCLIST] Seeking recommendations for oral
history digitization equipment (fwd)
> At 09:14 AM 2008-08-17, Mike Hirst wrote:
>>However, reading Goran Finnberg's comments re the work do[n]e by George Blood, I am surprised to
>>find that different combinations of software and hardware can produce different results. Am I to
>>understand that Adobe Audition, for example, will capture audio differently when used with an
>>M-Audio card, for example, than it would when combined with an E-MU or SoundBlaster card? does it
>>then follow that the same card combined with different software would produce different results?
>>Is this something I should worry about? What is the extent of this discrepancy and how best can I
> Hello, Mike,
> I, too, found this interesting. It lends some credence to the comments from a friend of mine that
> he thinks Samplitude sounds better than WaveLab -- a result I don't (yet?) hear. He has a
> Benchmark D-A converter and I have an RME Multiface (now version II on the main channels, though I
> did the original listing on an original Multiface).
> On another note:
> I am actually glad that I invested in WaveLab as it does some things that Samplitude doesn't. The
> tools that I have used several times are:
> - compare to audio files: it will not only say if the AUDIO is the same or different
> (independent of the metadata) it will also attempt to clarify the difference, so that would be
> easy to detect the 0.2 dB level shift that was commented on earlier in this thread.
> - split WAV files on cue marks. With Samplitude working in a virtual mode, CDs come out as one
> file with track marks. It is convenient in WaveLab to break the one long file into individual
> files for distribution of individual selections on the Web. I then run a batch MP3 convert in
> Samplitude to generate the individual MP3s, but it's faster to take the marked WAV file into
> WaveLab to do the split than to do it in Samplitude.
> The reason that I invested in WaveLab was that version 6.0 refused to read some files that
> Samplitude 10.0.1 produced and it seems that there were errors on both sides as WaveLab 6.1 read
> the files that 6.0 could not, and Samplitude 10.1 appears to have fixed the BEXT chunk errors that
> were causing the issue with WaveLab 6.0 (a terminating CR/LF pair or something like that was
> omitted by Samplitude). Between the cost of WaveLab and my time, that was probably a $1500
> software glitch for me!
> Richard L. Hess email: [log in to unmask]
> Aurora, Ontario, Canada (905) 713 6733 1-877-TAPE-FIX
> Detailed contact information: http://www.richardhess.com/tape/contact.htm
> Quality tape transfers -- even from hard-to-play tapes.