Hi Matt:

Not sure what you mean there. The algorhythm that "Spoon" (the head of dBPowerAmp) and JRiver and 
Foobar use is this open-source SSRC. Here's more with "Spoon" explaining things to dBPowerAmp users:

Interesting that the foobar converter doesn't test quite as well as dBPowerAmp, so there must be 
some variables as to how this SSRC code is plugged into digital audio rippers and players.

I highly recommend trying out the dBPowerAmp converter vs. what's built into whatever DAW program 
you're using out there. See if you hear differences, and which one you prefer. As I said, the 
dBPowerAmp program is so dirt-cheap that it's silly not to try it out, especially if your DAW 
program tested badly. One thing I noticed that was surprising -- the somewhat wide variance of how 
the different DAW programs perform in those different tests. Some do fine with some tasks but badly 
on others. I'm not a computer scientist by any means, but there seems to be a common problem of 
ringing and related distortion. Does that mean bad implementation of the brickwall filter for 44.1 
sample rate?

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Matthew Sohn" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 6:56 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Downsample

> Wouldn't the keywords here be 'high precision'?
>     On Thursday, March 19, 2015 5:19 PM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> For what it's worth, the CEO of dbpoweramp, who I would guess is also the programmer, verified 
> that
> the results shown for his software are correct. I asked him why his software passed those tests so
> well. His reply:
> " --------------------------
> Because we use SSRC high precision as our resampler, it is one of the best.
> _______________________________________________
> Mr S.Elkins | Illustrate CEO |
> ---------------------------- "
> I _think_ this is the guy who authors SSRC, which is apparently an open-source software tool:
> If I'm not misinterpreting the results, dBPowerAmp is the ONLY perfect conversion software for 
> going
> from 96/24 to CD resolution. At its ridiculously low price, it's the bargain of the century. I
> don't know if there are other tests or specs that matter more or less to conversion audio quality.
> I'm assuming the guy in Canada who took the time to perform all those tests thought they revealed
> audible differences between the SRC's, audible with real music in real studio/production 
> situations.
> By the way, dBPowerAmp's CD ripper software is also superior to all others I've tried. I've built 
> a
> digital library of FLAC files with accurip verfication quite efficiently using dB's CDRipper.
> -- Tom Fine
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "John Chester" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 3:31 PM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Downsample
>> On 3/19/15 2:57 PM, Richard L. Hess wrote:
>>> Longer answer: Samplitude Pro X2 and iZotope RX4 both do a credible job, but there are audible
>>> limitations (albeit minor) when downsampling from 96/24 to 44.1/16. Both are semi-reasonably
>>> priced in their base configuration and both contain resampling in their base configuration
>>> (please confirm before laying out money).
>> Last time I looked, the RX4 resampler was included in the base version, but the advanced version
>> provides additional controls. The base version could only use default settings. I prefer to use
>> a lower filter slope and reduced pre-ringing. I set the filter cutoff to keep aliasing better
>> than 100 dB down. Losing the last kHz of frequency response seems a small price to pay for
>> reduced filter ringing.
>> -- John Chester