True in a generic sense, but I still use SF9, so this is a perfect comparison for my purposes.
-- Tom Fine
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Smolian" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 9:55 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Sample rate conversion question
> Please note that Soundforge is presently at Version 11. Any comparison
> using version 9 is stale. The apple (small "a") has become an orange for
> present day purposes.
> I don't know what "under the hood" changes Sony has made in its two
> iterations subsequent to Version 9, but any manufacturer's
> technology-driven product should not have its rating penalized without
> testing its most recent version.
> Steve Smolian
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Fine
> Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 9:34 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [ARSCLIST] Sample rate conversion question
> I found this set of comparisons of sample rate converters online:
> First of all, does anyone know anything about the author of this website? Is
> the test data reliable?
> I compared the SSRC converter, which is built into dbPowerAmp batch
> converter software, with Sony
> Soundforge 9 with anti-aliasing, which is what I assume is used when a
> Soundforge 96/24 file is fed
> to Sony CD Architect Red Book authoring program. It appears that the SSRC
> converter behaves more
> like an ideal filter as defined by these tests. So, what kind of sonic
> problems should I be
> listening for with the Sony software? Are we talking about "problems" below
> the threshold of
> audibility with music, are would there be audible distortions produced by
> Sony's apparent deviations
> from an ideal filter?
> -- Tom Fine