FR: Resampler Parameter Controls.

WaveLab
1

First off, thank you PG for all you’ve done with the new version. It’s really fantastic: beautiful, logical, works great. Really amazing work.

And thanks for the new resampler. But I do have a request. I wanted to ask if it would be possible to add a “custom” preset to the resampler presets, that would have controls for all of the SoX parameters over their possible ranges.

Slider for Bandwidth -b 74-99.7
Slider for Phase -p 0-100
Checkbox for Aliasing -a
Radio button or selector to select VHQ (-v) or HQ (-h)

I’ve tested the existing WL9 presets with the infinitewave test files and the “Best” seems to attenuate from 21800-22050 (VHQ 99?), down to the “Standard” preset that attenuates from 20300-22050 (maybe HQ 95?). Both no aliasing, and linear phase I think.

But I’d like to try other settings with aliasing, something like VHQ, -b 97.5, Linear Phase (-p 50), and Aliasing enabled. With those settings, the charts would look very much like Pyramix Apodizing and Weiss Saracon at infinitewave, running from about 21500-23700. I’d like to try something like that (vs. the normal steep filter being the ideal), to see why they chose gentler filtering and allowed aliasing.

Alternately, for a perfect steep curve, afaik nobody else has put the maximum -b 99.7 in a SoX preset within a program, but 99.7 should look very much like the Izotope RX High Steepness “perfect” curve, more so than the slightly less steep SoX in the Ableton preset or the SoX VHQ Linear Phase, (and probably the Wavelab 9 “Best” preset, which I think will probably look exactly like both of those).

The full range of settings might be a little extreme, but you could possibly put “not recommended” above the bandwidth range 74-85, and phase range 51-100. But at least we’d have all the options of the command line.

I know we should be listening and not looking at the pictures, but I like looking at the pictures, and a lot of other people do too, and if the options are there, it would be great if they were made available.

2

Sorry, I don’t want to do that, so that to keep the user interface simple.
You mention a bandwidth of 99.7, but I found that anything from 99.0 could cause artifacts. Hence WaveLab stays below this.

3

PG, I really hope you reconsider this. Foobar SoX and Izotope RX both have parameter controls, in addition to presets. Saracon and Pyramix Apodizing both have aliasing artifacts (their choice I would guess), and they’re considered the best available by some people. If we don’t have parameter controls, after testing with the command line vs. other SRCs, and choose parameters not available in Wavelab, we can’t use what’s available in Wavelab, and will have to use the command line or Foobar or Izotope for SRC instead, which kills the whole idea of SRC integration. I don’t know why anyone would not want available parameters, and I don’t think an additional “custom” selection below the current presets would complicate things, it would only make Wavelab that much more powerful and unique. A selection that would possibly bring up a small parameters window.

I don’t know that I’d end up using settings with aliasing, or 99.7 steepness, but I think the settings should be available. Foobar SoX can allow gentler filters with aliasing. Izotope can go to 99.7 steepness.
SoX SRC Foobar.png
Izotope RX SRC.png

4

we can’t use what’s available in Wavelab

Why?

5

I mean, we can use what’s available in Wavelab, but the presets are fixed parameters. Maybe the “Best” preset IS the best all around settings to use in most cases, but that’s to taste. The presets don’t cover all the possible parameters, with no conrol of aliasing or phase, or the possibility to try the steepest filter setting. There was just a post here from bushwick, who’s using Izotope with its parameter controls, that could possibly be substituted in Wavelab if there were parameter controls, and maybe chosen “as good as”, or possibly even “better”, to bushwick’s taste.

6

Hello Phillipe!

I think Bob is really on to something here. I understand the logic to keep the software clean and also, that for many people the settings already included may be enough. But it would be a fantastic option to include izotope’s resampler or something that allows control over the filter parameters. Having spent a lot of time playing with izotope’s options for example, I have several settings that I use that allow me to choose trade offs that best suit the material. I would certainly view that level of control a very professional option.

7

PG,

I’m bringing this back because I really think Wavelab Pro should have SRC parameter controls. Foobar 2000 has SoX parameter controls (although slightly limited in range)(screenshot earlier in this thread). Foobar is a free program. Wavelab Pro is not free.

If I have a client who claims they can tell the difference in different filter slopes, or aliasing, or phase in an SRC, (or if I want to change my default settings) there’s nothing I can do to change those in Wavelab. I have to resort to the SoX command line to get full control of all of the available parameters, and in doing lose all the workflow benefits of Wavelab integration.

Izotope has parameter controls, out to their steepest filter setting (which probably also exhibits the artifacts you’re talking about), but they offer the steepest setting because it looks ‘perfect’ on Infinitewave. And to some it probably sounds good that way. Wavelab 9 would look perfect on Infinitewave too if the steepest SoX filter parameters were made available, and pictured there as well as the “Best” setting. I know there are other considerations in SRC, but closer settings are probably much closer between different SRCs than no control at all.

I really think it’s limiting not to offer this, at least in Wavelab Pro. It would be a good selling point, and as far as I can tell from Foobar, it just can’t be all that complicated to implement.

I do think the existing Wavelab presets are probably the best to use in general. Izotope’s CD preset doesn’t use the steepest filter setting either. But I think a ‘custom’ parameter control (in addition to the existing Wavelab 9 src presets) would allow much more control (and maybe even more importantly than steep filters, enable ability to use gentle filtering with aliasing).

8

Is the SoX integrated in WaveLab 9 linear phase or minimal phase?

9

linear phase

10

The stock settings of WL 8.5 on Infinitewave look pretty damn perfect to me, and I preferred the sound of Crystal Ultra to Izotope SRC on most material. If WL9’s SRC gives me that, I’m pretty happy. I’m not terribly obsessed with graphs, but am completely bananas over sound. I’ve gotten pretty good at hearing differences related to src, so when it’s not right I just use something else…

That said Bob’s request is quite valid, at least for Pro version. Leaving WL to use a different SRC is of course a pita, but in attended work a game changer. Clients hate any sideways motion on the clock. If exposing parameters enables us to stay in WL9 by selecting a different setting that’s a big plus for professionals. I have been in situations where the DSP load was too great, and needed to drop my src quality temporarily in WL8.5 to make tweaks.

Is there a middle ground here, PG: Maybe stash SRC controls in preferences, with a “preset editor/builder” option in there to retain the simplicity and clarity on the front end in the GUI? Only advanced users and pros will dig that deep to make their own different presets. Most users will never touch it.

I understand from a development perspective that last sentence reads like a deal breaker. However, I contend “most” in this case applies mostly to Elements users, and facility installations (schools, broadcast etc). Virtually ALL professional mastering engineers (read: full time, not side gig or occasional operators) will appreciate the presence. For most of us, sample rate sound and flexibility is very very high on the feature punch list when we shop. And many of us will indeed spend the time tweaking parameters to work well on the corner cases that resist one-size-fits-all solutions.

People pay us for our unique expertise – Bob’s willingness to work this out for himself is a big part of his business, and why his clients like working with him. As PG states the speed and clarity of the workflow is key to WL, and certainly the priority. I agree that these controls may not belong in the master section’s src menu, as more harm than good can come from tweaking them in real time. In truth we’re comparing results to other tools, and metering results as well, on our own time outside of sessions. Letting us tweak such parameters in preferences don’t harm or affect the workflow at all, but allow Bob and other pro masterers to customize your great code for our ears and work.

That’s what we’re selling, as users. That’s what enables us to pay for upgrades and new development. For me it’s not a critical omission, and nor a LOF (though I do miss the simple quality toggle). It’s a nice to have, and certainly worthy of inclusion in a . update of Pro, as a matter of principle and a nod to top line users…

Those nods are fairly frequent in WL btw. I really appreciate the steady improvements in spectrum editing, built-in metering and instruments, and encoder-checking and monitoring flexibility. All have been around awhile but keep getting more accessible and better in function. I find it ever harder to NOT use built in plugs and processors… those bits too keep getting better (not sure if sound is changing but interface for them is wonderful). If I were starting over in the business today, I could get by pretty easily with WL9 and Ozone 7 alone and not jones much for the tools I currently use (including Sontec and the rest of the analog gear around here). PG’s done a great job making WL ever deeper, better and more addictive. Giving us some SRC preferences to tweak would be a wonderful mid-update nod. :wink:

11

Yes, some global settings, not local to the plugin gui, could be an option for a future wavelab.

12

I think that would be fine, considering the new project settings in WL9… but I’m not the person with the need so my opinion is of limited value.

13

Thank you Daved and PG. I do hope this happens because I think it’s one of the most important things lacking in Wavelab.

Even if I have to type numbers into boxes to get all of the available SoX command line parameter values, including a 99.7 filter, it would be worth it.

Izotope and Final CD offer such a steep filter, and I think Wavelab should offer the ability to select that too in SoX, as it’s an available value in the command line.

Izotope and Final CD don’t talk about the artifacts of such a filter, but I’ve seen nothing that indicates the artifacts are any worse in SoX. I’ve seen the SoX recommendation before (“greater than 99.0 steepness not recommended”) but everywhere I’ve seen it, it’s been repeated with no explanation, or any comparison to any other program that has similar steep filter settings, like Izotope and Final CD.

Regarding simplicity, I think simplicity could be kept, yet still have controls. Even a simple program like iTunes has a “Custom” selection along with its Factory Presets for encoder settings: a “custom” selection (see pic) that then opens another window to adjust those settings. Similar to the Foobar SoX SRC parameter control.

The ones in iTunes are for its encoder settings, but I think the same “simplicity” argument would apply between the programs. I don’t see how adding a “Custom” selection below the existing “Best” and “Standard” etc SRC presets complicates things. I think it’s a pretty common thing in a lot of programs.

I know adding anything involves a lot of work, but this particular thing seems pretty simple compared to a lot a things. I can already plug variables into the SoX src command line. The commands are already there and this mostly seems a matter of plugging in variables.

For steep 99.7 bandwidth and Linear Phase, I just type -b 99.7 and -p 50 in the command line, and have that setting in a drag and drop .bat file. For gentle with aliasing, I just type -b 97.5 -p 50 -a. For minimum or intermediate phase I just type in other numbers for the -p. It’s extremely flexible, but the BIG downside is no DAW integration.

Like I said, even typing parameter value numbers in boxes would be ok with me, if all the passband, phase, aliasing, quality numbers and switches could be available.

I sound like a broken record, but Foobar has done a SoX SRC paramenter interface, and Foobar is a free program, so I think at least the same level of control should be available in Wavelab. Whether with a GUI like in Foobar, or not.
iTunes Custom Menu Selection.png
iTunes Custom Parameters.png
SoX SRC Foobar.png

14

Bumping this again to request parameter controls for the SRC, covering the entire range of the SOX command line.

To create gentler filter and aliasing like Saracon and Pyramix.

Or steeper filter like Final CD and available in Izotope.

Or minimum phase.

If it covered the entire ranges of the available parameters, it would make Wavelab unique among the programs that use SOX. As it is, Wavelab just has the same presets they do. So who can tell how SOX might compare if the parameters are adjusted, because right now you can’t.