As far as I couldn’t detect any improvement in Cubase 9 concerning Sample Rate Conversion (SRC), I refresh the request from tedannemann from last year:
I’m still waiting to see improvements on this. I have to use a different program(that uses Izotopes SRC) just to do all of my conversions. Hoping to see a revamp SRC somtime in the near future.
+1
Again again
+1
+1, yes.
I use Izotope for all of my SRC work.
+1
+1000…0000000 pleases…
Illustrated by picture below we can see that Reaper(and all main daws like PT, Sonar, Samplitude, Digital Performer) have all black backgrounds, and just about no tinting/artifacts left.
Difference is in the range 30-40 dB or so less in other daws.
Cubase looks like a Scottish Kilt, kinda…
It even shows in distortion - thd and imd compared to other converters - see below:
What I did was to drop a 44k test pattern into 96k project or in the case of r8brain free two conversions.
Then do a 96k->44k render.
So converters used original rmaa, sonar 8.5 32-bit, voxengo r8brain free v1.9 and cubase pro 9.
Seen as numbers even in distortion.
Cleary 20 dB more IMD.
This starts with thd even from 1 Khz.
All the others are as original test pattern, or really, really close.
And this was from 96k, what if 48k->44k I dare not think about - but doing tests now.
And is it the same if importing 44k into 48k project that is to be processed a lot until done.
Please, some really good choices of algos would be nice - or a really good one.
Updated where my screenshots are now:
https://1drv.ms/f/s!Auw5dk599Qm6gR-fZfO7mmQ_HXUy\
The IMD and THD as I did with RMAA.
As far as there seems to be no improvement in this case in Cubase 9.5, I’m going to refresh the request once again. I know, artifacts below -110dBFS seem not to be a big issue at first sight. But if you are doing a lot of compression and using a lot of samples with different sample-rates, which (I heard of) is quite common in today’s music, this might become audible. But maybe it is just pickiness… Anyway, I would feel better if I drop a audio-file to cubase and have not to fear that there might be a audible change. So, please…
Just curious … does anyone know if Wavelab does this (does it to the standard desired by the OP)? If so, that certainly suggests that Steinberg has the technology (and even the code!) in house.
HUGE+1
Using an external program is major workflow killer and time waster. Cubase should be better at this.
+1
+1! This is a big one.
+1!!
+1
+1
It’s been reported (Sound On Sound? … https://redirect.viglink.com/?format=go&jsonp=vglnk_152261986166611&key=e4fd14f5d7f2bb6d80b8f8da1354718c&libId=jfhcju8o01024e3t000MA6aukkw83&subId=96da0d780eb78a049c91c2d4428eb2ca&loc=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.steinberg.net%2Fforums%2Fviewtopic.php%3Ff%3D228%26t%3D101561%26p%3D558649%26hilit%3Dsample%2Brate%2Bconversion%23p558649&v=1&out=http%3A%2F%2Fsrc.infinitewave.ca%2F&ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.steinberg.net%2Fforums%2Fviewtopic.php%3Ff%3D252%26t%3D119671%26p%3D731407&title=New%20%2F%20Improved%20%2F%20Better%20Sample%20Rate%20Conversion%20(SRC)%20-%20www.steinberg.net&txt=http%3A%2F%2Fsrc.infinitewave.ca ?) that Wavelab’s src is indeed different, and way better than Cubase’s. Looking at the plots of each at that site, it certainly seems like that would be true.
Here is an other thread about the same problem
https://www.steinberg.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=250&t=134663
it has a link to a comprehensive test about different daws and audio tools SRC handling.
+1 add SOX to cubase
i never use cubase src, i always export and do any src in wavelab
i believe wavelab uses sox … (which is what cubase should use!)
+1 SOX
SOX seems to be better than cubase, but Izotope does it even better. Go for the best!