Audirvana + How to select Izotope settings?

[RunHomeSlow]

Hello again copy_of_a 

Since you don't come here often, i reread your settings and try to understand it more...

 

Here is what i've done to have your extreme settings for better separations and transients

Did i understand you well? do i have to touch the low pass filter or default is where it should stay...

I always had a little bass for my room correction, so i put that on the second row after the low pass filter...

 

[copy_of_a]

Hello RunHomeSlow.

 

Sorry for the late reply… in fact I don’t visit the forum frequently.

 

Basically you are right: the SRC settings (intentionally) produce a large amount of artifacts („images“) due to the very low steepness of the filter. Afterwards you have to filter out the images with a lowpass filter in the AU plugin section.

Then again the steepness of Apple’s built in lowpass filter is really not sufficient.
Too, in your screenshot it’s set to around 7kHz or 8kHz… which is extremely low.

 

Fabfilter Pro Q2 for instance features a -96db/octave lowpass filter and you can stack it.
Attached a screenshot of a 44.1kHz file upsampled with the „extreme“ settings (3 - 1.25 - 50 - 0.36) with and without lowpass filtering (the two filters are set at 18kHz and 19.5kHz… both -96db/octave). There are still some images … but they do not exceed -100db… so really nothing to worry about.

 

Personally I’ve skipped the adventure of upsampling my entire library offline … because it takes ages. I still think it would be the best approach, but it’s simply too much work.
Instead I’ve tuned my „online“ settings in A+ to work with all source sample rates … if you want so, my „set it and forget it“ settings that reliably filter out images with a lowpass filter starting to set in at 18kHz (referring to 44.1kHz source files) and with pretty low ringing and moderate pre-ringing. It’s a compromise (as always) but I am happy with it…
The settings are:
Steepness: 22
Filter: 500,000
Cutoff: 0.95
Anti-Aliasing: 100
Pre-Ringing: 0.86

 

... hope that helps...

 

[Piano Man]

Hello copy_of_a,

 

Thanks for your great posts, helped me a lot!

So if I understand correctly, your latest "set it and forget" allround settings are run without further lowpass filter, right? Lowering the cutoff frequency by 1 kHz  or so relaxes filter steepness requirements sufficiently?

 

I don't completely understand yet the other approach with a very low steepness and subsequent low-pass filtering to remove aliases. Why doesn't this low-pass filter introduce the same problems as a steep Izotope filter setting, i. e. ringing, loss of stage depth and instrument separation?

[copy_of_a]

11 hours ago, Piano Man said:

if I understand correctly, your latest "set it and forget" allround settings are run without further lowpass filter, right?

correct

 

Quote

Lowering the cutoff frequency by 1 kHz  or so relaxes filter steepness requirements sufficiently?

Yes. Not sure it's just 1kHz, though (can't check right now)..

 

Quote

I don't completely understand yet the other approach with a very low steepness and subsequent low-pass filtering to remove aliases. Why doesn't this low-pass filter introduce the same problems as a steep Izotope filter setting, i. e. ringing, loss of stage depth and instrument separation?

Very good question! I'll come back to you later this week when I am back home at my computer...

[Piano Man]

9 hours ago, copy_of_a said:

Yes. Not sure it's just 1kHz, though (can't check right now)..

 

I derived that from your setting: Cutoff = 0.95 (instead of 1) * Nyquist frequency = 20.9 kHz (instead of 22 kHz) at 44 kHz sampling frequency.

Looking forward to your answer regarding the additional low-pass filter...

 

[copy_of_a]

On 6.6.2017 at 9:05 PM, Piano Man said:

Looking forward to your answer regarding the additional low-pass filter...

Here's a single pluse usampled in iZotope with above mentioned "extreme settings" and high cut filtered with FabFilter Pro Q2 in so called "natural phase" mode.

 

the original pulse (44.1kHz):

 

uspsampled to 176.4kHz:

 

Lowpass filtered with Fabfilter (2 filters at 18kHz and 19050kHz, both high cut -96db/octave):

 

The ringing is very low and there are absolutely no images (artifacts above the nyquist limit of the source file).

 

A settings with as low ringing as possible and a roll off of high frequencies also starting at around 18kHz is

steepness: 22 and cutoff 0,95 (and pre-ringing 0,36). Actually it still produces quite some images but they get filtered out reasonably good with Audirvana's Anti-Aliasing filter (set to 100).

The comparsion is a bit unfair, since this second setting actually would need a much steeper filter to act as effective aigainst images as FFQ2 above. However, even when I try to keep the ringing as low as possible and the lowpass filter even gentler than above (steepness only at 22) it still shows more ringing than above:

 

That comparison falls a bit short, of course. But I hope it shows the interrelationship.

 

The whole adventure also depends on 2 things: low pre-ringing settings generally produce a larger amount of images (heavy spikes above the nyquist limit of the source file that are harder to filter out). So with moderate pre-ringing settings or linear upsampling the lowpass filter does not have to be super strong.

Secondly it depends on the kind of filter used in the additional lowpass filter. Linear phase mode EQs can produce a pretty high amount of (pre- and post-) ringing (depends). But Fabfilter Pro Q2 features a filter mode that keeps the ringing generally very low. Here's a quote from Fabilter's manual:

Quote

Natural Phase
Pro-Q 2's unique Natural Phase mode (...) not only perfectly matches magnitude response of analog EQ'ing, but also closely matches the analog phase response. So it delivers the most accurate frequency response and best sound quality, even at the lowest frequencies and highest Q settings, without introducing noticable pre-ring or long latency!

 

Hope that helps ...

[Piano Man]

I see. Thanks a lot! It's the performance (or the mode) of the Fabfilter that appears to make the difference. I thought that digital filtering is known and standard...

Apparently the Fabfilter is not suitable as plug-in for on-the-fly processing with Audirvana, otherwise you would use it (?).

I don't have the Fabfilter. Not cheap. And pre-processing all my CDs is not an option, not enough memory on my old Mac Mini. It also wouldn't work for streaming with Qobuz.

 

So I'll try to find the optimum with the iZotope settings.

At the beginning of this thread you, copy_of_a, included a link to another thread on that topic which does not work any more. Has this thread been moved?

[copy_of_a]

19 minutes ago, Piano Man said:

Apparently the Fabfilter is not suitable as plug-in for on-the-fly processing with Audirvana, otherwise you would use it (?).

FFpQ2 works great in Audirvana Plus. But every time the sample rate of a file you are playing is changing you would have to set an approriate lowpass filter setting for FFpQ2, which is really cumbersome. Alternatively you could use the filter for 44.1kHz source files (so also when the source is 48kHz, 96kHz or whatever)... but that doesn't really make sense to me.

 

Quote

So I'll try to find the optimum with the iZotope settings.

At the beginning of this thread you, copy_of_a, included a link to another thread on that topic which does not work any more. Has this thread been moved?

 

 

->

 

 

[Chipless]

On 5/28/2017 at 5:54 AM, copy_of_a said:

Personally I’ve skipped the adventure of upsampling my entire library offline … because it takes ages. I still think it would be the best approach, but it’s simply too much work.
Instead I’ve tuned my „online“ settings in A+ to work with all source sample rates … if you want so, my „set it and forget it“ settings that reliably filter out images with a lowpass filter starting to set in at 18kHz (referring to 44.1kHz source files) and with pretty low ringing and moderate pre-ringing. It’s a compromise (as always) but I am happy with it…
The settings are:
Steepness: 22
Filter: 500,000
Cutoff: 0.95
Anti-Aliasing: 100
Pre-Ringing: 0.86

 

... hope that helps...

 

 

Several questions here, so anyone who is confident and competent, please chime in: 

-Just to clarify, are these the "correct" "set it and forget it" settings per the above recommendation without any AudioUnits enabled (see attached)?

-I read in an earlier post that forced Power of 2 oversampling was being used: Is that the case with the aforementioned "set it and forget it" settings"? If my DAC supports DSD, should I force oversample to DSD? If so, do the aforementioned settings stay the same, and which DSD filter should I use?

-In general, is it better to force oversampling to the DAC? This article on xiph.org makes it sounds like it's good idea within the paragraph titled "Oversampling", but also makes it sound like this happens within DACs automatically. Not sure if I am understanding it correctly...for all I know it's saying that forced oversampling is bad.

 

 

 

[copy_of_a]

12 hours ago, Chipless said:

-Just to clarify, are these the "correct" "set it and forget it" settings per the above recommendation without any AudioUnits enabled (see attached)?

 

 

-I read in an earlier post that forced Power of 2 oversampling was being used: Is that the case with the aforementioned "set it and forget it" settings"?

- the settings are correct

- power of 2 or upsampling to max. rate... personally I prefer power of 2

 

Quote

If my DAC supports DSD, should I force oversample to DSD? If so, do the aforementioned settings stay the same, and which DSD filter should I use?

the iZotope SRC settings stay the same.

Whether or not it makes sense to upsample to DSD depends on your DAC, your CPU power and your personal taste.

 

Quote

-In general, is it better to force oversampling to the DAC? This article on xiph.org makes it sounds like it's good idea within the paragraph titled "Oversampling", but also makes it sound like this happens within DACs automatically. 

DACs do oversample. Upsampling in the playback software transfers the upsampling from the DAC to the software, where you can adjust the settings to your liking. Too, the quality of the software resampler might be superior over the DACs bulit-in resampler.

[Chipless]

7 hours ago, copy_of_a said:

- the settings are correct

- power of 2 or upsampling to max. rate... personally I prefer power of 2

 

the iZotope SRC settings stay the same.

Whether or not it makes sense to upsample to DSD depends on your DAC, your CPU power and your personal taste.

 

DACs do oversample. Upsampling in the playback software transfers the upsampling from the DAC to the software, where you can adjust the settings to your liking. Too, the quality of the software resampler might be superior over the DACs bulit-in resampler.

 

Thank you so much for clearing this up!

[buonassi]

brand new member to CA.  Been on headfi for a bit now, but found myself reading more here recently.  Not only have I been messing with these settings in this thread, but have gone through all 25 pgs of the izotope thread (about 3 times now). 

 

While I can't measure like some of you, I can certainly hear the effect of the preringing, especially on the bass kick drum, and have been obsessing with the izotope settings for over a month now.  many thanks to @copy_of_a .  I just so happened to already have FFPQ2 and can confirm his 'extreme' settings work well.  

 

I can clearly hear an improvement when upsampling 44.1 content to 176.4.  It's also amazing to have this control over the presentation of my DAC.  Because of this thread, you guys have saved me about 2 thousand bucks, as I was ready to drop some serious coin on a new DAC.

 

now I'm reading about the benefits of PCM>DSD upsampling - gotta love the journey!  Again, many thanks and I'll see you around the threads.

[OneNoteSam]

Thanks to the posters in this thread, very useful information!

 

I have optimised Audirvana according to the above. These are the settings I ended up with:

 

 

Maximum upsampling (192kHz) works best with my Bel Canto 1.7 DAC. To control the ringing I used two of the AULowPass filters, at 19 and 20 kHz. I also added a high pass filter at 20 Hz, which to me made a subtle improvement in clarity. Wish I had better EQs than the AU units, but I find the results passable:-)

 

Using the iZotope upsampling really bring an improvement to the sound!

 

Svein

[Giacomino]

Il 28/5/2017 alle 13:54, copy_of_a ha detto:

Ciao RunHomeSlow.

 

Scusate la risposta tardiva ... in effetti non visito il forum frequentemente.

 

Fondamentalmente hai ragione: le impostazioni SRC (intenzionalmente) una grande quantità di artefatti ("immagini") a causa della bassa pendenza del filtro. Devi filtrare le immagini con un filtro passa basso nella sezione plugin AU.

Inoltre, la ripidità del filtro passa-basso di Apple non è davvero sufficiente.
Inoltre, nel tuo screenshot è impostato su circa 7kHz o 8kHz ... che è estremamente basso.

 

Per esempio, Fabfilter Pro Q2 presenta un filtro passa-basso da -96db / ottava e puoi impilarlo.
In allegato uno screenshot di un file a sovracampionato 44.1kHz "estreme" (3 - 1.25 - 50 - 0.36) con e senza filtro passa-basso (i due filtri sono impostati a 18kHz e 19.5kHz ... entrambi -96db / ottava) . Ci sono ancora alcune immagini ... ma non superano i -100db ... quindi davvero niente di cui preoccuparsi.

 

Personalmente ho saltato l'avventura di sovracampionare la mia intera libreria offline ... perché ci vuoi secoli. Continuo a pensare che sarebbe l'approccio migliore, ma è semplicemente troppo lavoro.
Ho invece regolato le mie impostazioni "online" in A + per lavoro con le frequenze di campionamento della sorgente ... se lo si desidera, le mie impostazioni "imposta e dimentica" filtrano in modo affidabile le immagini con un filtro passa-basso che inizia un programma a 18kHz (facendo riferimento a un file sorgente a 44.1 kHz) e con squilli piuttosto bassi e pre-suoneria moderata. È un compromesso (come sempre) ma sono contento ...
Le impostazioni sono:
Ripetibilità: 22
Filtro: 500.000
Cutoff: 0.95
Anti-Aliasing:
Pre-suoneria: 0.86

 

... Spero possa aiutare ...

 

 

Grazie per aver condiviso i parametri di iZotope  @copy_o f_a

[Whitigir]

How come there is no Izotope for Windows 10 ? Or is it not implemented yet 

[copy_of_a]

Since this thread is referred to and quoted from time to time I think it's about time to update some things from above.
To keep it simple: forget the „extreme“ settings and the use of an EQ in the AU Plugin section to filter out images when upsampling.

Here are some settings that should cover more or less all needs and may serve as a reference (also for further tweaking if desired).

I’ve mainly selected settings that roughly replicate the transition / filter shape of other SRC softwares.

 

In conjunction with Audirvana’s „Anti Aliasing“ setting in the iZotope module I’d consider all the settings below as „safe“ regarding aliasing/imaging with real world music (which, of course, is already low pass filtered).

These values apply to all the settings:
filter length: 512.000
Anti Aliasing: 100
pre-ringing: „1“ for linear phase or „0“ for minimum phase

Pick your poison …

 

_____________________________

Short Filter / Slow Roll off

 

steepness: 16 / cutoff: 0.93
filter starts around 18.0kHz / attentuation @ Nyquist: ~ -27db
(transition similar to HQP poly sinc short)

steepness: 22 | cutoff: 0.95
filter starts around 19.0kHz / attentuation @ Nyquist: ~ -26db
(my favorite for a slow roll off filter in A+/iZotope)

_____________________________

Moderate (average) Filter

 

steepness: 28 | cutoff: 0.956
filter starts around 19.5kHz / attentuation @ Nyquist: ~ -30db
(transition similar to HQP poly sinc)

steepness: 31 | cutoff: 0.96
filter starts around 19.7kHz / attentuation @ Nyquist: ~ 30db
(iZotope preset „CD“)

steepness: 35 | cutoff: 0.95
filter starts around 19.6kHz | attentuation @ Nyquist: ~ -50db
(transition similar to Sonic HD preset „gentle“ = Amarra 4)

steepness: 36 | cutoff: 0.965
filter starts around 20.0kHz / attentuation @ Nyquist: ~ -30db
(my favorite for a moderate filter)

_____________________________

Steep Filter

 

steepness: 68 | cutoff: 0.96
filter starts around 20.5kHz / attentuation @ Nyquist: ~ -120db
(transition similar to SoX preset "VHQ")

steepness: 80 | cutoff: 0.96
filter starts around 20.5kHz / attentuation @ Nyquist: -180db
(iZotope preset „Steep, No Aliasing“ / transition similar to HQP poly sinc ext2)

_____________________________

Ultra Steep Filter

 

steepness: 200 | cutoff: 0.985
filter starts around 21.5kHz / attentuation @ Nyquist: ~ -180db
(transition similar to SSRC = JRiver)

 

 

 

[Chipless]

On 1/17/2019 at 1:31 PM, copy_of_a said:

Since this thread is referred to and quoted from time to time I think it's about time to update some things from above.
To keep it simple: forget the „extreme“ settings and the use of an EQ in the AU Plugin section to filter out images when upsampling.

Here are some settings that should cover more or less all needs and may serve as a reference (also for further tweaking if desired).

I’ve mainly selected settings that roughly replicate the transition / filter shape of other SRC softwares.

 

In conjunction with Audirvana’s „Anti Aliasing“ setting in the iZotope module I’d consider all the settings below as „safe“ regarding aliasing/imaging with real world music (which, of course, is already low pass filtered).

 

Excellent post! Thank you so much for creating an updated reference for us! Quick question: Do you think the iZotope module is superior to the SoX one?

[copy_of_a]

19 hours ago, Chipless said:

Quick question: Do you think the iZotope module is superior to the SoX one?

In generell I don't know.

Within Audirvana iZotope provides more control than SoX - most notably the steepness setting. Therefore I prefer iZotope.

[johnnystar]

On 1/17/2019 at 3:31 PM, copy_of_a said:

Since this thread is referred to and quoted from time to time I think it's about time to update some things from above.
To keep it simple: forget the „extreme“ settings and the use of an EQ in the AU Plugin section to filter out images when upsampling.

Here are some settings that should cover more or less all needs and may serve as a reference (also for further tweaking if desired).

I’ve mainly selected settings that roughly replicate the transition / filter shape of other SRC softwares.

 

In conjunction with Audirvana’s „Anti Aliasing“ setting in the iZotope module I’d consider all the settings below as „safe“ regarding aliasing/imaging with real world music (which, of course, is already low pass filtered).

These values apply to all the settings:
filter length: 512.000
Anti Aliasing: 100
pre-ringing: „1“ for linear phase or „0“ for minimum phase

Pick your poison …

 

_____________________________

Short Filter / Slow Roll off

 

steepness: 16 / cutoff: 0.93
filter starts around 18.0kHz / attentuation @ Nyquist: ~ -27db
(transition similar to HQP poly sinc short)

steepness: 22 | cutoff: 0.95
filter starts around 19.0kHz / attentuation @ Nyquist: ~ -26db
(my favorite for a slow roll off filter in A+/iZotope)

_____________________________

Moderate (average) Filter

 

steepness: 28 | cutoff: 0.956
filter starts around 19.5kHz / attentuation @ Nyquist: ~ -30db
(transition similar to HQP poly sinc)

steepness: 31 | cutoff: 0.96
filter starts around 19.7kHz / attentuation @ Nyquist: ~ 30db
(iZotope preset „CD“)

steepness: 35 | cutoff: 0.95
filter starts around 19.6kHz | attentuation @ Nyquist: ~ -50db
(transition similar to Sonic HD preset „gentle“ = Amarra 4)

steepness: 36 | cutoff: 0.965
filter starts around 20.0kHz / attentuation @ Nyquist: ~ -30db
(my favorite for a moderate filter)

_____________________________

Steep Filter

 

steepness: 68 | cutoff: 0.96
filter starts around 20.5kHz / attentuation @ Nyquist: ~ -120db
(transition similar to SoX preset "VHQ")

steepness: 80 | cutoff: 0.96
filter starts around 20.5kHz / attentuation @ Nyquist: -180db
(iZotope preset „Steep, No Aliasing“ / transition similar to HQP poly sinc ext2)

_____________________________

Ultra Steep Filter

 

steepness: 200 | cutoff: 0.985
filter starts around 21.5kHz / attentuation @ Nyquist: ~ -180db
(transition similar to SSRC = JRiver)

 

 

 

I followed the recipe for your ‘extreme’ settings using the FFQ2 cutoff filters and was quite happy with the sound (with all source sample rates, not only 44.1). Your description of very low ringing and excellent separation of instruments made sense to me. However, your latest settings above leave me confused. I havent tried any of these settings yet because your accompanying descriptions go right over my head (I.e., comparing the sound signatures to other SRC software which I am not familiar with). Is it possible for you to humor folks like me and elaborate with descriptions more suited to the layman? It would be much appreciated.

[copy_of_a]

19 hours ago, johnnystar said:

I followed the recipe for your ‘extreme’ settings using the FFQ2 cutoff filters and was quite happy with the sound (with all source sample rates, not only 44.1). Your description of very low ringing and excellent separation of instruments made sense to me. However, your latest settings above leave me confused. I havent tried any of these settings yet because your accompanying descriptions go right over my head (I.e., comparing the sound signatures to other SRC software which I am not familiar with). Is it possible for you to humor folks like me and elaborate with descriptions more suited to the layman? It would be much appreciated.

I would like to refrain from descriptive speech regarding the „sound“ of SRC.
I also wasn’t referring to something like „sound signature“ of other softwares - really only to the roll off / filter transition.

In general me personally I would say: the shorter (less steep) the filter the better the instrumental separation the more „open“ the sound.
But we are talking tiny differences here! Not about differences anyone could easily tell in a blind test (unless you compare 2 extremes - so a really short filter that starts to roll off as low as 15kHz to a really steep filter that preserves everything up to 21kHz or so…).
But: with a short filter you may produce heavy aliasing/imaging artefacts. Which should be avoided IMO (at least to a reasonable degree). So it’s always a tradeoff between preserving as much as possible from the audible spectrum of the source versus avoiding aliasing.
Simplified speaking the trick with really steep filters is to shift the ringing (which is actually only audible in the transition band of the filter) to frequencies too high to be audible (above 21kHz or so). Then again I feel the filter-energy pushed back into the audible band due to the steepness of the filter still makes a difference (at least with iZotope and SoX). This is why me personally I prefer moderate filters… as yet.

 

 

[johnnystar]

17 hours ago, copy_of_a said:

I would like to refrain from descriptive speech regarding the „sound“ of SRC.
I also wasn’t referring to something like „sound signature“ of other softwares - really only to the roll off / filter transition.

In general me personally I would say: the shorter (less steep) the filter the better the instrumental separation the more „open“ the sound.
But we are talking tiny differences here! Not about differences anyone could easily tell in a blind test (unless you compare 2 extremes - so a really short filter that starts to roll off as low as 15kHz to a really steep filter that preserves everything up to 21kHz or so…).
But: with a short filter you may produce heavy aliasing/imaging artefacts. Which should be avoided IMO (at least to a reasonable degree). So it’s always a tradeoff between preserving as much as possible from the audible spectrum of the source versus avoiding aliasing.
Simplified speaking the trick with really steep filters is to shift the ringing (which is actually only audible in the transition band of the filter) to frequencies too high to be audible (above 21kHz or so). Then again I feel the filter-energy pushed back into the audible band due to the steepness of the filter still makes a difference (at least with iZotope and SoX). This is why me personally I prefer moderate filters… as yet.

 

 

Thank you for your reply. I personally find that your extreme settings result in more openness than any other settings I’ve tried (with any source sample rates). Do you still recommend those for folks that have the Fab Filter AU plugin?

[copy_of_a]

10 hours ago, johnnystar said:

extreme settings (...)

Do you still recommend those for folks that have the Fab Filter AU plugin?

no

[johnnystar]

6 minutes ago, copy_of_a said:

no

Ok, thanks. Let me know when you change your mind.