# Foobar + SoX resampler



## Flognuts

Its Amazing!

 set to 96000khz and enjoy. 

 If you got a xonar essence set that to 96000khz too.

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...howtopic=67373

 things I noticed:

 Vocals clearer and much more smooth. 
 bigger sound stage
 taken some of the aggressiveness out of the xonar essence and ad900 highs
 not as fatiguing


----------



## Speex

Didn't hear a difference.... maybe it's because I use onboard audio and a crappy (by Head-Fi standards) pair of cans.


----------



## khaos974

Nice resampler, it works very well, has loads of options to satisfy you inner tweaker and uses much computing power than PPHS ultra to run.


----------



## khaos974

More to add after a dozen hours living with the SoX resampler, compared to the internal resampling of the UA-25/or PPHS Ultra, I get subjectively:

 - a clearer image, the melodies are easier to follow, especially with complex and heavily charged songs.
 - better timbres for the different instruments.

 I just hope it's not placebo.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 PS: I use the following settings Passband 95%, Aliasing not allowed, Linear


----------



## Flognuts

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *khaos974* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_More to add after a dozen hours living with the SoX resampler, compared to the internal resampling of the UA-25/or PPHS Ultra, I get subjectively:

 - a clearer image, the melodies are easier to follow, especially with complex and heavily charged songs.
 - better timbres for the different instruments.

 I just hope it's not placebo.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 PS: I use the following settings Passband 95%, Aliasing not allowed, Linear_

 

what do you resample too?


----------



## khaos974

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Flognuts* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_what do you resample too?_

 

96 kHz and therefore bypassing the internal SRC of the Edirol.
 To be exact it sounds better than:
 44.1 kHz => Foobar Wasapi => Edirol UA-25 (It probably has an internal oversampling procedure)
 44.1 kHz => 96 kHz via PPHS Ultra => Foobar Wasapi => Edirol UA-25

 Now, it's 
 44.1 kHz => 96 kHz via Sox Resampler => Foobar Wasapi => Edirol UA-25


----------



## Shahrose

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Flognuts* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Its Amazing!

 set to 96000khz and enjoy. 

 If you got a xonar essence set that to 96000khz too.

A new resampler DSP for foobar2000 - Hydrogenaudio Forums

 things I noticed:

 Vocals clearer and much more smooth. 
 bigger sound stage
 taken some of the aggressiveness out of the xonar essence and ad900 highs
 not as fatiguing_

 

I found similar improvements resampling to 96khz at VHQ, aliasing allowed, 95% passband.

 PROS:
 -Slightly smoother treble, and definitely less grainy
 -Clearer low-level details and easier to hear ambience of the recording
 -Larger soundstage (because of the above point)
 -Blacker background
 -Better dynamics

 CONS:
 -Slightly less bass


----------



## Hybrys

I've always been a big fan of the SoX resampler. Usually have it set to 176k (or whatever the higher multiple of 44.1 is).


----------



## dex85

i gave it a try, i second the better focus, clearer vocals, deeper soundstage, better imaging, ambience details retrieval and a sense of "faster" sound and musical flow. but i noticed the sound significantly lost on the weight, cello and violins immediately struck me as too thin sounding and unnatural. i don't doubt it has to do with headphones, equipment and recordings' characteristics as well. with some songs i preferred it with Sox but with most i didn't.


----------



## Shahrose

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dex85* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_i gave it a try, i second the better focus, clearer vocals, deeper soundstage, better imaging, ambience details retrieval and a sense of "faster" sound and musical flow. but i noticed the sound significantly lost on the weight, cello and violins immediately struck me as too thin sounding and unnatural. i don't doubt it has to do with headphones, equipment and recordings' characteristics as well. with some songs i preferred it with Sox but with most i didn't._

 

Matches my findings exactly. SoX makes the sound a bit thinner and less bassy, but makes it faster. Depending on the setup, this could be a good or bad thing. In my case, it wasn't a positive change, though it was outweighed by the benefits.


----------



## sagatman

I had the same improvement for sound after upsampling to 96kHz using Asus Xonar Essence ST。 Whether the upsampling to 96kHz is done in foobar by SOX resampler or xonar contral panel, the sound is better than 44.1hKz


----------



## Hybrys

If you can, everyone in the thread, try 88.2 instead of 96, and tell me what you think. (Resampled from 44.1 source.)


----------



## ninjikiran

Bumping an old thread,
   
  Personally I didn't get any improvement, if anything only a slight degradation of the sound.  I found not messing with my sample rate and letting my dac handle that mess is usually better.  But I still like to mess around with this stuff just in case I find some kind of magic.
   
  Nothing happens to SQ in x2 increments for the above poster.


----------



## yugiyao

Erm...guys u all know which mod is better? b'cos it have 3 mod: normal, mod, mod 2.
   
  Also what setting to do to make the tunes sound right?
   
  Thx in advance.
   
  Cheers


----------



## khaos974

normal: It resamples everything to the desired frequency.
 mod: It *doesn't* resample the frequencies that you enter in the text field.
 mod2: It resamples *only* the frequencies that you enter in the field.


----------



## fenixdown110

Using SoX here as well and it's amazing for the same reasons the OP stated. However, how does this compare to the Secret Rabbit resampler?


----------



## thuantran

@fenix: http://src.infinitewave.ca/ . It's one of the best at Very High setting. BTW you should not use any lower quality setting, I found that it barely made a difference in speed compared tio the quality you compromised (on paper, whether that is noticable is a different matter).


----------



## fenixdown110

Thanks. However, it's a 96 to 44.1 resample. I guess I should have specifically asked for the differences in upsampling.


----------



## bmcelvan

Quick question here...when downsampling from 24bit either 96/192kHz to 16bit either 44.1/48kHz...should I enable aliasing/imaging or keep it off? Or does it really not matter at all because any difference between the two are going to be differences above 20kHz hence I won't hear them?

The full settings I'm using are 50% (linear), 95% passband, and dithering. Are these the recommended/best settings? Obviously dithering is because of the bit change.

I'm asking these questions because I've been reading a bunch of posts about aliasing and right when I think I shouldn't use it because a great encoder should not introduce much noise, I read 5-10 posts in a row about how it does add noise but in doing so it actually reduces a bunch of bad noise, ringing, etc.. So then I think I should use it. So I guess my above question is the most important...does it doing anything noticeable at all or is it above the hearing threshold anyway and so it doesn't matter (to me) who will only be listening to it.

Thanks
Ben


----------



## Yuri Korzunov

bmcelvan said:


> Quick question here...when downsampling from 24bit either 96/192kHz to 16bit either 44.1/48kHz...should I enable aliasing/imaging or keep it off? Or does it really not matter at all because any difference between the two are going to be differences above 20kHz hence I won't hear them?
> 
> The full settings I'm using are 50% (linear), 95% passband, and dithering. Are these the recommended/best settings? Obviously dithering is because of the bit change.
> 
> ...


 

 Hi Ben,
  
 All aliases that above 1/2 sample rate as input as output must be suppressed. Otherwise it will be mirrored to audible range:
  
 http://samplerateconverter.com/content/how-convert-sample-rate-divide
  
 http://samplerateconverter.com/content/how-convert-sample-rate-oversampling
  
 Pro resampling algorithms has supresion level -160 ... -180 dB and more (for 32- and 64-bit float bit depth).
  
 When you convert 24-bit and more to 16-bit, dither must be turned ON.
   
More about dithering in pictures:

  
 http://samplerateconverter.com/content/what-dithering-audio
  
 If you have anything in ultrasound frequency range, it may be shifted/mirrored to audible range too, due non-linearity analog part of apparatus.
  
 Ultrasound components may appear due not proper filtration of DAC (as analog as digital).
  
 Check shifting/mirroring troubles we can on hear with sweep sine 0 ... 1/2 sample rate of test signal.
  
 We can check all components (player software - operation system driver - DAC) as system.
  
 If system work properly we must hear only growing pure tone from zero to 17....20 kHz.
  
 If we listen growing tone again (after disappearing sound at 17 .. 20 kHz) - it's shifted ultrasound. If we hear downward tone, it's mirroring.
  
 Here need be careful with ultrasound. We don't hear it, but ultrasound can damage our ears.
  
 Best regards,
 Yuri


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

Hello guys, I'm resampling some hi-res flac (88, 96, 176, 192khz - 24bit) to 44.1 or 48khz - 16bit files on foobar. I'm using SOX resampler which I've heard has built-in dither (please confirm). 

Question is if SOX resampler plugin does have built-in dither, do I need to apply dither at the file output setting as well (pic below) or is that redundant and not necessary? If the latter, how does it affect sound quality?


----------



## Dobrescu George

soundsgoodtome said:


> Hello guys, I'm resampling some hi-res flac (88, 96, 176, 192khz - 24bit) to 44.1 or 48khz - 16bit files on foobar. I'm using SOX resampler which I've heard has built-in dither (please confirm).
> 
> Question is if SOX resampler plugin does have built-in dither, do I need to apply dither at the file output setting as well (pic below) or is that redundant and not necessary? If the latter, how does it affect sound quality?


 
 You should never apply dither in that point of conversion, it will worsen SQ most of times.
  
 Theoretically, there should have been applied a layer of dithering earlier, and applying one more adds noise, and sometimes it is quite audible.


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

So you're saying that SOX resampler does add dither? 





dobrescu george said:


> You should never apply dither in that point of conversion, it will worsen SQ most of times.
> 
> Theoretically, there should have been applied a layer of dithering earlier, and applying one more adds noise, and sometimes it is quite audible.


----------



## Dobrescu George

soundsgoodtome said:


> So you're saying that SOX resampler does add dither?


 
 I am not sure about this. But if you use a normal music file, already recorded and extracted from a CD, your original file should already have a layer of dither from what I know. Adding dither over dither degrades SQ generally. The best way to test is to do it 2 times, with the same file and see if you hear the differences, if you do not hear or with dither sounds worse, avoid dither. (dither basically adds noise to mask any artifacts that were induced by processing, but resampling generally should not add artifacts).


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

soundsgoodtome said:


> Hello guys, I'm resampling some hi-res flac (88, 96, 176, 192khz - 24bit) to 44.1 or 48khz - 16bit files on foobar. I'm using SOX resampler which I've heard has built-in dither (please confirm).
> 
> Question is if SOX resampler plugin does have built-in dither, do I need to apply dither at the file output setting as well (pic below) or is that redundant and not necessary? If the latter, how does it affect sound quality?





-------------:--------------

The files are originally 24bit 88-192khz not from CD. I don't apply dither to CD extracted files. 





dobrescu george said:


> I am not sure about this. But if you use a normal music file, already recorded and extracted from a CD, your original file should already have a layer of dither from what I know. Adding dither over dither degrades SQ generally. The best way to test is to do it 2 times, with the same file and see if you hear the differences, if you do not hear or with dither sounds worse, avoid dither. (dither basically adds noise to mask any artifacts that were induced by processing, but resampling generally should not add artifacts).


----------



## Reggy

Shahrose said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *dex85* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> ...


Really interesting you _found_ any difference let alone significant. What USB driver output do you have? I am using Combo384 Amanero which my DAC takes. 
Settings I have are:
Upsample x4
44100;48000;88200;96000
Allow aliasing/imaging. 

I found no difference in using aliasing. I can not really compare to without resampling but I can say the sound is "technically" 99.9% transparent to my ears without any added tubes or added color in the chain or what not. Very clear and accurate transient sound absolutely no veil for excellent recordings to say, soundstage is phenomenal, I could imagine a very slightly coherent one in my imagination though (I don't have any Hifi Speakers to compare to). 

I'm guessing the differences your hearing could be to some other limitation your experiencing. Just curious how.


----------

