Need a quick and efficient way to convert 96 kHz -> 44.1 kHz

[Shabdahbriah]

Voxengo R8Brain works fine
Anyway, people say that Voxengo R8Brain has some of the finest quality where it comes to converting samplerates - is it true or are people just overly positive about it?

Three of the people recommending it, have years of experience making sample libraries and/or virtual instruments that use samples, so ~ I'd say it is "true". [2c]

[hebb]

http://src.infinitewave.ca/

Take a look at R8brain, and how it compares to other high regarded commercial software or DAWs.

I think it's the best thing you'll find.

[eidenk]

Voxengo R8Brain works fine

I also found a good software that could convert to AIFF (except converting samplerates), that actually works and doesn't lag:
http://www.nch.com.au/switch/ (NCH Switch it's called)

Anyway, people say that Voxengo R8Brain has some of the finest quality when it comes to converting samplerates - is it true or are people just overly positive about it?
I mean, if there's no difference in quality between Voxengo R8Brain and the NCH Switch I might as well uninstall R8Brain and only focus on using NCH Switch since it's more simple to only have to deal with 1 software

Check it out by yourself by converting a 10s sine sweep with both and listen to the results. You can also look at the spectrograms of those results with free software such as Spek or Spectro or Sox.

It shouldn't take you long to figure out what's best doing that unless you've got very bad ears and very poor eyesight.

AFAIK SoX, SRC and r8brain are far better than anything else free and better than many commercial solutions. All three have dead easy to use GUI batch conversion options, the former two through the use of the SoXrDrop and SRCDrop programs I mentioned in a post above.

I have no doubt that the NCH Switch is quite bad at it considering the spectrogram results of several other NCH programs that can be seen on the SRC Comparisons website.

http://src.infinitewave.ca/

[steffeeH]

Sounds good. I'll stick to the R8Brain for samplerate conversion, and only use the NCH Switch to take care of the wav -> aiff conversion.

Would you recommend exporting tracks from the DAW at 92+ kHz, and then resample it down to 44.1 kHz using the R8Brain conversion, instead of exporting tracks at 44.1 kHz directly from the DAW? I mean if the CPU let me of course...

[hebb]

Do you mean 192 or 96 khz? And what would be the point of rendering at such a high sample rate then down-sampling to 44.1?
Are you still burning music on CD?

What sample rate do you mix in? I'd say it's better to render at the same rate you use to mix.

For example, I mix at 48 khz, 24bit and I use the same quality to render my final mix. If I were to send my tracks for mastering (or stems for mixing) I'd send them at the same sample rate I rendered it in, and I'd let them do the down-sampling (I'd also ask for a 48 khz and 44.1 khz copy of the master).

[steffeeH]

Sorry, meant 96+ kHz (96 and above).
The reason I asked about the rendering is because R8Brain seem to have a little bit better conversion quality than my DAW, so if I rendered my track at a higher samplerate, then downsample it to 44.1, shouldn't the final quality be better than if I would have rendered to 44.1 directly from the DAW?

[hebb]

I'd probably do a sine sweep test if I were you.
Do more than 2 renders if you can (ex. 44.1, 96, 192 khz) then down sample the higher sample rates, and compare them in a wave editor. If you don't see any noticeable differences then I don't think it's worth worrying about it.