Tom,
It is true that some SRCs (Sample Rate Converters) are
better than others. Some SRCs leave behind digital
artifacts, and others are effectively transparent. The
better SRCs often are computationally slower - no such
thing as a free lunch.
You can actually compare SRC quality at the following
website:
http://src.infinitewave.ca/
There are over 80 SRCs available to compare.
Eric Jacobs
The Audio Archive, Inc.
tel: 408.221.2128
fax: 408.549.9867
mailto:[log in to unmask]
http://www.TheAudioArchive.com
Disc and Tape Audio Transfer Services and Preservation Consulting
-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Tom Fine
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 5:04 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Sound Forge issues
PS -- I'm a big advocate of standardizing on 88.2/24 as the archival transfer format due to the very
simple computer math of down-sampling the long-established and heavily entrenched CD standard for
playback and general-use copies. The Grammy Foundation demands 96/24 as a minimum, so most grant
recipients must adhere to this since most grant givers seem to adopt Grammy Foundation standards. I
don't think it's a huge issue, but making something future proof, it seems to me, includes making
conversion to common-use formats as simple as possible. I'm not saying computing is likely to take a
step back to where it's "hard math" to down-sample from 96 to 44.1, but it's not outside of all
possibilities, so why create a small risk for no reason. Is there a science-based argument where 96
vs 88.1 makes any difference in the audible frequencies?
-- Tom Fine
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Fine" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 7:55 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Sound Forge issues
> Hi Guys:
>
> I've been using SoundForge since V4 (pre-Sony). Now using V9 in the studio. In my Windows XP Pro
> systems, 2gig seems to be the limit, not time of audio. As a rule, when I'm transferring in 96/24
> or 88.1/24, which is most of the time, I have to keep file-running time to 58 minutes for 2
> channels, just under 2 hours for mono.
>
> This formula seems to work:
>
> ----------------------------------------
> size = sample rate * number of channels * (bits per sample /8) * time in seconds.
>
> So a 44.1 hHz, stereo 16 bit wav file lasting 60 seconds should be :
>
> Size = (44.1 * 2 * (16/8) * 60) / 1024 [the division by 1024 is to get megabytes]
> Size = 10,3359 MB
> ------------------------------------------
>
> But I am not a mathematics person by any stretch!
>
> Using this formula, 58 minutes of 96/24 2-channel creates 1.9575 gig of data. Soundforge file
> headers and metadata stuff don't take up more than a few bits, so this is a safe outer limit, in
> my experience.
>
> Using 88.2/24, you can go just over 1 hour within the file size.
>
> -- Tom Fine
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Peter Alyea" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 7:29 AM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Sound Forge issues
>
>
>> Hi Steve,
>>
>> I tried to save data in Sound Forge v10 to the WAV format that would
>> result in a file that was larger than 2GB and the warning dialog box
>> popped up telling me that I was trying to save an illegal file size.
>> Unless you have uncovered an unusual bug in Sound Forge, I would guess
>> that the files that you have been able to save are legal WAV files. Is
>> it possible you are reading the "size on disk" value for these files?
>> The "size on disk" value can be larger than the actual file size and
>> might account for the files appearing to be larger than 2GB.
>>
>> Anyway, the symptoms you described during playback of these files all
>> sound like clocking problems. You might want to run some tests to make
>> sure your clock is accurate and stable.
>>
>> Peter
>>
>>>>> Steven Smolian <[log in to unmask]> 11/17/09 2:06 PM >>>
>> Hi, Peter,
>>
>> The client specified 96/24 WAV. Not much flex here.
>>
>> Steve
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Peter Alyea" <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 10:50 AM
>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Sound Forge issues
>>
>>
>>> Hi Steve,
>>>
>>> Are you saving the files in WAV format? I don't think Sound Forge will
>>> allow you to save a file beyond the legal limit for the file type.
>> Also,
>>> what makes you state that the files are saving reluctantly? Is there a
>>> warning dialog box that pops up?
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>
>>>>>> Steven Smolian <[log in to unmask]> 11/16/09 5:41 PM >>>
>>> Hello, Peter et al, (Al, are you out there?)
>>>
>>> I'm formatted in NTFS. It seems to be saving files, albeit
>> reluctantly,
>>>
>>> above 2G but not by much- the longest is 2123xxxkb, It played back ok-
>>> this
>>> times.
>>>
>>> To be on the safe side, I think I'll divvy them up into .1 and .2
>>> halves. -
>>> unless you think I can safely avoid the nuisanace. Thoughts?
>>>
>>> Steve
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Peter Alyea" <[log in to unmask]>
>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 10:40 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Sound Forge issues
>>>
>>>
>>>> If you are having problems, you might want to check that your hard
>>> drive
>>>> is formatted as NTFS and not FAT32. Also, more recent versions of
>>> Sound
>>>> Forge will record to a buffer beyond the 2GB limit, but will not
>> allow
>>>> you to save the data out to a 2GB limited file format. WAV64 and RAW
>>> do
>>>> not have the file size limit. RF64 would work as well, but I don't
>>> know
>>>> if it is implemented yet.
>>>>
>>>> Best
>>>>
>>>> *******************************
>>>> Peter Alyea
>>>> Digital Conversion Specialist, Preservation Reformatting Division
>>>> Library of Congress
>>>> (202) 707-5343
>>>> [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>> Raphaël Parejo-Coudert
>>>> <[log in to unmask]> 11/16/09 9:58 AM >>>
>>>> Hello!
>>>>
>>>> Many sound editors limit the files to two hours in length. I'm using
>>>> Peak pro 6.1.1 on Mac OS X, I get the same results!
>>>>
>>>> Best regards.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> R. PAREJO-COUDERT
>>>>
>>>> Ethnomusicologue / Ethnomusicologist / Etnomusicólogo
>>>>
>>>> Anthropologie visuelle et sonore
>>>> Visual and Sound Anthropology
>>>> Antropología visual y sonora
>>>>
>>>> Archives sonores - Archivos sonoros - Sound Archives
>>>>
>>>> °°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Le (El) Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:38:21 +0200, Shai Drori, wrote me / m'a
>>>> écrit / me escribió:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>It has to do with an old windows file limit of 2Gb. New systems can
>>>>>record longer files but it's a try and see what happens deal. You
>>>>>shouldn't have a problem with 1 hor tapes.
>>>>>Shai
>>>>>
>>>>>Steven Smolian wrote:
>>>>>> I recall seeing on line the comment that Sound Forge files are
>>>> limited
>>>>>to two hours in length. I can't find anything about this is the SF 8
>>>>>book, but I seldom think of the same words for a problem as does the
>>>>>index maker. I'm using SF 10.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am working with a group of tapes of about one hour in length
>> being
>>>>>saved as 96/24 files, c. 2.5 times the size of 44.1/16 files.
>>>>>> Am I correct in assuming the 2 hour limit relates to files at the
>>>>>44.1/16 type and those requiring greater real estate have to fit this
>>>> limit?
>>>>>> I've noticed that one I saved played back first at regular speed
>> but
>>>>>in all subsequent playbacks at half speed. The one I recorded next
>>>> quit
>>>>>recording about half-way through and, though peaking at -4, crackled
>>> in
>>>>>playback as if levels were past zero.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The storage medium showed two-thirds of the disc remained unused.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Should I divide these 1 hour, 96/24 files to accommodate the
>> nominal
>>>>>limit of Sound Forge?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Steve Smolian
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
|