Best dithering/noise shaping software
- Thread starter Henrik
- Start date
sjoko2
New member
I think its important to differentiate between the them and regard them as related, but seperate items.
I am not a fan of most noise shaping software and of the opinion that the artifacts created by noise-shaping processes such as UV22 (which is totally outdated) are worse than what they try to achieve. I know this is somewhat controversial, but I'm not the only one to hold this opinion.
As far as the best dithering down software? I'm afraid I don't know the answer. I have used the dithering program in Pro Tools and various others, but have found them all to be inferior to the hardware sample rate converter I normally use (yeah come on, tell me I'm spoiled).
I can only go back to my stock answer, which is very applicable in this, as well as every other case in digital audio -
Clock your system right - use good converters. Then you can record quality sound, which leads to a quality track if mixed properly. Do that, and there is no need for using a fix like a UV22.
I am not a fan of most noise shaping software and of the opinion that the artifacts created by noise-shaping processes such as UV22 (which is totally outdated) are worse than what they try to achieve. I know this is somewhat controversial, but I'm not the only one to hold this opinion.
As far as the best dithering down software? I'm afraid I don't know the answer. I have used the dithering program in Pro Tools and various others, but have found them all to be inferior to the hardware sample rate converter I normally use (yeah come on, tell me I'm spoiled).
I can only go back to my stock answer, which is very applicable in this, as well as every other case in digital audio -
Clock your system right - use good converters. Then you can record quality sound, which leads to a quality track if mixed properly. Do that, and there is no need for using a fix like a UV22.
Henrik
Member
And your hardware sample rate converter - lemme guess - a $2000 Lucid? 
Actually, the thing here is that I'm FINALLY about to upgrade my Cubase to version 5. UV22 is included in the update to VST/32 - but that upgrade costs about $300 more than the upgrade to "normal" Cubase 5. So is it worth the extra $300? Can I get an equally good or better noise shaping/dithering tool for less?
Any input on this is most appreciated!
Cheers
/Henrik
Actually, the thing here is that I'm FINALLY about to upgrade my Cubase to version 5. UV22 is included in the update to VST/32 - but that upgrade costs about $300 more than the upgrade to "normal" Cubase 5. So is it worth the extra $300? Can I get an equally good or better noise shaping/dithering tool for less?
Any input on this is most appreciated!
Cheers
/Henrik
sjoko2
New member
Noiseshaping is a means of encoding which attempts to preserve the detail of a high resolution digital recording, like 24 /96 when you bring it down (dither) it to the standard 16 / 44.1 for a CD.
and thats the most simple version. It encoded the 16 bit signal in such a way that the detail of the higher bitrate is not altogether lost.
Things like the UV22 were all the rage up to a couple of years ago, when the possibilities of recording quality digital music became more widely available, making things like UV22 encoding superfluous.
and thats the most simple version. It encoded the 16 bit signal in such a way that the detail of the higher bitrate is not altogether lost.
Things like the UV22 were all the rage up to a couple of years ago, when the possibilities of recording quality digital music became more widely available, making things like UV22 encoding superfluous.
Eurythmic
majordomo plasticomo
Hm, that's interesting. But it isn't really worth it, you're saying. Yeah?
What about recording at 24/96, anyway? Is it the best alternative even for people with non-top of the line equipment and software? I've been thinking about getting a 24/96 card, but I'm not convinced that artifacts wouldn't be added in the conversion process back to 16/44.1. Maybe it's not the same concept exactly, but I always heard artifacts back when I had a little portable Sony DAT recorder (the D8, I think it was called?), and I transfered 16/48 recordings to my computer at 16/44.1.
If you're using, say, the Delta Audiophile (or insert comparable "prosumer" card here) and Cakewalk Pro Audio, and recording at 24/96 for a 16/44.1 mixdown, is it just one step forward, two steps back?
What about recording at 24/96, anyway? Is it the best alternative even for people with non-top of the line equipment and software? I've been thinking about getting a 24/96 card, but I'm not convinced that artifacts wouldn't be added in the conversion process back to 16/44.1. Maybe it's not the same concept exactly, but I always heard artifacts back when I had a little portable Sony DAT recorder (the D8, I think it was called?), and I transfered 16/48 recordings to my computer at 16/44.1.
If you're using, say, the Delta Audiophile (or insert comparable "prosumer" card here) and Cakewalk Pro Audio, and recording at 24/96 for a 16/44.1 mixdown, is it just one step forward, two steps back?
Henrik
Member
sjoko2 said:
So what are you saying? Do you mean that if I record with good A/D/A converters and clocks, I could just truncate the files?
Eurythmic,
Sjoko has made many valuable contributions to the 24/96 discussion in numerous other threads. Here's a link to my favourite, but you'll find more if you make a search. Be prepared to lose all confidence in your digital gear:
https://homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30520&highlight=converters+AND+lucid
Cheers
/Henrik
sjoko2
New member
Henrik said:
No! I'm talking about using noise shaping programs .
Its difficult trying to explain this without getting to technical, but you have to take into consideration that converters have noise shaping in them already. The noise shaping within converters and sample rate converters plays a very large factor in the "sound" of converters. That is why for instance you can have 2 converters build around the same chip, with one sounding different from the other.
It therefore entails that using a good converter reduces the loss of audio detail when encoding to any bitrate or format.
To go back to trying to explain noise shaping programs like the UV22, which are programs designed to encode a file so as to allow it to retain the detail it has when recorded at a higher bitrate - when that file has to be transferred to a lower bitrate.
Basically, they take the digital noise inherant in low bitrate encoding, lumps it all together, and moves it to an area in the frequency range where it is less likely to be heard
I said earlier, I don't know what is available!
Henrik
Member
Well, yeah it has, and to be honest I have never A/B'd it to other dithering facilities. I was just assuming there would be higher quality ones - particularly since Steinberg are including UV22 in their top of the line version, instead of their own "standard" dithering. Maybe it's just a marketing scam, what do I know.
Hmm... we have both versions at my school, I could do a li'l shootout by dithering the same 24/48 soundfile in the different dithering algorithms.
Hmm... we have both versions at my school, I could do a li'l shootout by dithering the same 24/48 soundfile in the different dithering algorithms.