Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.

Poll

What resampler do you use the most?

SSRC 1.31-1.33 (latest command line versions from author Naoki Shibata)
[ 1 ] (14.3%)
dbPowerAmp/SSRC Foobar embedded
[ 1 ] (14.3%)
SoX (command line and/or Foobar embedded)
[ 5 ] (71.4%)
PPHS Foobar embedded
[ 0 ] (0%)
FinalCD
[ 0 ] (0%)
other (you can specify which one in replies)
[ 0 ] (0%)

Total Members Voted: 7

Voting closed: 2016-06-24 11:58:52

Topic: Resampler usage (Read 15781 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Resampler usage

Hi,

I would like to know what resamplers (if any) the people here use. I personally much prefer SSRC (now version 1.33) from Naoki Shibata, normal profile settings for most conversions (if they are required). You can specify further in replies and also e.g. specify the settings you use if the resampler is configurable (such as SoX - passband/aliasing/phase).

Thank you for answering!

Re: Resampler usage

Reply #1 –
I'm not really surprised that SoX is the winner in this poll, though I just don't understand why. I admit I also used it for a while, but it gets on my nerves after a while. I much prefer the foobar2000 included dBPoweramps/SSRC resampler. It is absolutely transparent, while SoX almost sounds like some exciter VST. Don't tell me that resamplers are transparent in generell. They are not. Use some good headphones (I use my +20 year old Stax) and make a A/B comparision of voices.

PS: I am aware this is old. I thought I'd still share my thoughts. DON'T USE SoX! :)

Re: Resampler usage

Reply #2 –
Show us ABX proof before you confidently spread BS.

Re: Resampler usage

Reply #3 –
I don't have to show you anything. If you want to use that inferior SoX resampler, then do it, because I don't give a damn how your music sounds. Just do a comparision yourself. If you can't hear the difference between them then your stereo is just crap. And now go and play with your SoX settings.

Re: Resampler usage

Reply #4 –
Oh, it doesn't work that way here. By making account here, you agreed to Terms Of Service, and TOS 8 is one of them:

TOS 8. All members that put forth a statement concerning subjective sound quality, must -- to the best of their ability -- provide objective support for their claims.  Acceptable means of support are double blind listening tests (ABX or ABC/HR) demonstrating that the member can discern a difference perceptually, together with a test sample to allow others to reproduce their findings.  Graphs, non-blind listening tests, waveform difference comparisons, and so on, are not acceptable means of providing support.

We are science-based forum, and price of equipment or hi-fi "age" doesn't matter here; if you put a claim like this one, you have to prove you are right by making scientific tests.
TAPE LOADING ERROR

Re: Resampler usage

Reply #5 –
These days many resamplers simply work. Differences in sound are imaginary. Full stop.
Is troll-adiposity coming from feederism?
With 24bit music you can listen to silence much louder!

Re: Resampler usage

Reply #6 –
Quote from: mrsoul4470 on
I don't have to show you anything. If you want to use that inferior SoX resampler, then do it, because I don't give a damn how your music sounds. Just do a comparision yourself. If you can't hear the difference between them then your stereo is just crap. And now go and play with your SoX settings.

It is like you say the Earth is flat, and if I ask for evidence, I have to prove it is not flat.

You should take your claims somewhere else. This tries to remain a sane forum.

Re: Resampler usage

Reply #7 –
Cool, and bumping a poll from 2016, whose creator was banned almost that long ago.
 

Re: Resampler usage

Reply #8 –
shhhh, don't disturb the genius at work ...

... whether "work" means stubbornly repeating ABXes until getting spurious significance or "work" means putting fingers in ears and singing aloud, remains to see. But I am sure it is hard work and I am sure it is genius.