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.
Topic: Scaling down 96 kHz/24 bit to 44.1 kHz/16 bit? (Read 22391 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Scaling down 96 kHz/24 bit to 44.1 kHz/16 bit?

Reply #25 –
Quote from: solarflare on
Interesting. So it's a kind of lossy algorithm that meets the average ear? Can it be adjusted a bit lower within the source code so that it would meet those golden ears as well?

You can only change the "shape" by modifying the noise shaping filter (*). The average level (logarithmic) will always be the same unless you change the target bit depth as well.

(* you can also increase the level by using non-minimum-phase filters. But that'd be a stupid idea.)

Cheers!

Scaling down 96 kHz/24 bit to 44.1 kHz/16 bit?

Reply #26 –


I started to sketch a Mac OS X GUI frontend for the Shibatch sampling rate converter command line tool. One question. What does that p.d.f. in the commandline help text actually stand for?

Code: [Select]
          --pdf <type> [<amp>]       select p.d.f. of noise
                                       0 : rectangular
                                       1 : triangular
                                       2 : Gaussian

Scaling down 96 kHz/24 bit to 44.1 kHz/16 bit?

Reply #29 –
It's not clear what actually happens if you set the slider under "attenuation" to -0.3 dB.
Is the signal attenuated by -0.3 dB (= +0.3 dB boost) or attenuated by 0.3 dB (= -0.3 dB gain change)?

AFAIK SSRC increases the gain when you attenuate "by negative values".
This is probably not what you had in mind.

Sebastian
 

Scaling down 96 kHz/24 bit to 44.1 kHz/16 bit?

Reply #30 –
Quote from: solarflare on
Ok, I changed the label to »Likelihood dither signal» now.
AFAIK that's a very unusual term in the audio world and will likely cause confusion.
Why not simply use "Dither type", as described in wikipedia?

Scaling down 96 kHz/24 bit to 44.1 kHz/16 bit?

Reply #31 –
Quote from: SebastianG on
AFAIK SSRC increases the gain when you attenuate "by negative values".
This is probably not what you had in mind.

No, I didn't. In fact that behaviour was quite a surprise given that there is the normalize function as well.

Quote from: Kees de Visser on
AFAIK that's a very unusual term in the audio world and will likely cause confusion.
Why not simply use "Dither type", as described in wikipedia?

Changed that »Dither signal type» now.