#Xrecode 3 alternative software#
#Xrecode 3 alternative Pc#

Honestly the 2, 3 order probablyy varies a lot. but it seems a lot of the 2-track mixdowns on DVD-A's were rush jobs. In my non-rigorous tests I observe that people order these 4 > 2 > 3 > 1.

48 ALAC via 96 to 48 (DVD-A) - the 5.1 version from the DVD-A mixed down by me to two-track.

48 ALAC via 96 tp 48 (DVD-A) - the two-track version (when there is one on the DVD-A).

The same track, from a redbook CD, also available on a DVD-A version, where the liner notes indicate it really is hi res. Having said that, I really should do a blind test. I hope) quite remarkably to these tracks on my iMod + iCube. alas, a long time ago, but I haven't lost much. But I do know that lots of people react (yes, I realize this is not rigorous DBT, but still sample-size-one biased experiments when replicated do tell us something, contrary to popular opinion in the Sound Science forum, and I really do know what I am talking about when it comesto statistics, trust me, I won the Journal of American Statistical Assoication's Theory and Methods award . I assume the Wolfson DACs are best at 48. You have a good point though - I should really go from 44.1 to some HUGE multiple of 48, then decimate. This is a kind of oversampling, really it is - I didn't mean to imply it is like Wadia's or others that go way way up.

Indeed there must be one filter involved. And - again the math is simple - to go from 44.1 to 48 you have a choice, and my way - 44.1 to 96 then decimate - may in fact be better than someone else's direct interpolation from 44.1 to 48. When I go from 96 to 48 I am degrading the signal exactly as much as I have to, no more. You may be right in common practice, indeed, but that doesn't stop me from doing my own exact sub-sample. I don't know what is actually done, but I know what I can do. Exact decimation is much easier than interpolation, since you know the exact readings at the to-be-converted-to-sample points.

#Xrecode 3 alternative software#

Well I can't speak to what is done in actual firmware in specific gear, nor in third-party commercial or free software packages (I guess I could read the code for those packages in the public domain I haven't) but I do know my math. I'm just doing it first, doing it for them, off-line with a superior algorithm, much more computing power, and no hard real-time constraint on the computation. But think this way: a lot of DACs internally upsample as a first step in their elaborate algorithm to produce an analog interpolate. This is controvesial, people tell me I'm crazy. I think it sounds better on the iMod than the 44.1 original. More: I love this so much that when I rip redbook CDs at 44.1, I upsample with careful antialiasing control to 96, then decimate to 48 ALAC. Then downcovert to 48 ALAC.Īt meets people drop their jaws when they hear these tracks - I get comments like 'what recording is that? I've never head Metallica sound so good' etc. I basically buy 96 off the web, or rip DVD-A's at 96. The 48 ALACs sound fantastic on my iMods with Wolfson DACs.

#Xrecode 3 alternative Pc#

I use xrecode II on the PC (this is NOT free, but well worth the small fee IMHO) and it nails the job.

But don't despair - 96 and 192 are exact multiples of 48 (not the case with redbook 44.1), so the down conversion is merely a decimation, not a messy interpolation. Now here's the thing - the iPod family only supports ALAC thru 48. I have observed the same, both with 192 and 96.