Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.pro,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
LAME conversion to MP3
This message follows on from a previous message to this forum. I need
confirmation that I have used the right parameters saving to MP3, and that the audio quality of the MP3 file is as good as that of the WAV file. This message pertains to; http://c-compiler.com/myfiles/a-mp3.zip The original WAV is at; x.wav I have converted this file to MP3. Please listen to; x.mp3 According to Windows Media Player, the bit rate of the source file is 192 Kbps, see "windows-media-player.jpg" According to VLC, the source file has sample rate 48,000 Hz and bits per sample 16. This particular codec (IMA WAV ADPCM Audio) actually has 4 bits per sample, but this is decompressed to 16 bits per sample. See "vlc.jpg". According to MediaInfo, the source file has sample rate 48,000 Hz and bit rate 192 kb/s, with a bit depth of 4 bits (which is decompressed to 16 bits, as noted above), see "mediainfo.jpg". According to Total Recorder, the source file has sample rate 48,000 Hz and bit depth 4 bits, see "totalrecorder.jpg". I use the LAME encoder with Total Recorder to convert the WAV to MP3, see "totalrecorderA.jpg". The media format in Total Recorder specifies sample rate 48,000 Hz and bit rate 192. This is in keeping with the parameters for the source WAV file, see "totalrecorderB.jpg". Finally, opening the new MP3 file (converted from WAV) gives the screen shown in "totalrecorderC.jpg". Bit rate for the MP3 is 192 kbit/s and sample rate is 48,000 Hz. There are essentially two questions I need to ask. (1) I have used the parameters for the source WAV file when creating the MP3 file. Is this a sensible approach? Audio quality is top priority. (2) Please tell me if the audio in the MP3 file is as clear as with the WAV. I think it is, but I would like to be re-assured. The words on the recording are, "people like that should be .... I know, they should be homeless". Thank you for responses. |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.pro,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
LAME conversion to MP3
|
#3
Posted to rec.audio.pro,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
LAME conversion to MP3
On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 11:04:04 +1300, geoff
wrote: On 20/02/2020 10:48 am, lid wrote: This message follows on from a previous message to this forum. I need confirmation that I have used the right parameters saving to MP3, and that the audio quality of the MP3 file is as good as that of the WAV file. An MP3 can *never* have as good quality as its source WAV file. That said 192kHz can be pretty much 'as good' for most people on average playback systems. Yeah, the bit rate of the source file is 192 Kbps, so creating an MP3 file with the same bit rate is obviously the best thing to do. Surely you are still over-thinking this. S I'm not an expert at computer audio, and value the thoughts of people more knowledgeable than myself. (1) I have used the parameters for the source WAV file when creating the MP3 file. Is this a sensible approach? Audio quality is top priority. Yes. (2) Please tell me if the audio in the MP3 file is as clear as with the WAV. I think it is, but I would like to be re-assured. Probably not quite the same, but nothing glaringly different. Most people wouldn't know or care. The words on the recording are, "people like that should be .... I know, they should be homeless". Thank you for responses. Given the quality of the source material, does it matter ? Or is the objective to enable people to have the best shot at picking out the words. Yes, I want good audio quality, to allow people to hear on the MP3 the same words which are on the source WAV. Also if the WAV is 83KB and the resultant MP3 93KB, what is the point of making it an MP3 in the first place - player compatibility maybe ? Exactly. The source WAV doesn't work with MS Edge and other browsers, whereas the created MP3 should work with everything. |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.pro,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
LAME conversion to MP3
One of the big problems you see are many cycles of conversion, and this
then adds some awful artefacts such as a gritiness or a modulation in out tones and the swizzle effect in stereo where the phase is mangled in a similar way to what happens to treble on a stretched cassette tape as it snakes across the head. Another issue is just dull and uninteresting audio. Its fine for non critical stuff, but I'd not want it to be used in a very dynamic situation. Brian -- ----- -- This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from... The Sofa of Brian Gaff... Blind user, so no pictures please Note this Signature is meaningless.! "geoff" wrote in message ... On 20/02/2020 10:48 am, lid wrote: This message follows on from a previous message to this forum. I need confirmation that I have used the right parameters saving to MP3, and that the audio quality of the MP3 file is as good as that of the WAV file. An MP3 can *never* have as good quality as its source WAV file. That said 192kHz can be pretty much 'as good' for most people on average playback systems. Surely you are still over-thinking this. S (1) I have used the parameters for the source WAV file when creating the MP3 file. Is this a sensible approach? Audio quality is top priority. Yes. (2) Please tell me if the audio in the MP3 file is as clear as with the WAV. I think it is, but I would like to be re-assured. Probably not quite the same, but nothing glaringly different. Most people wouldn't know or care. The words on the recording are, "people like that should be .... I know, they should be homeless". Thank you for responses. Given the quality of the source material, does it matter ? Or is the objective to enable people to have the best shot at picking out the words. Also if the WAV is 83KB and the resultant MP3 93KB, what is the point of making it an MP3 in the first place - player compatibility maybe ? geoff |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.pro,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
LAME conversion to MP3
|
#7
Posted to rec.audio.pro,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
LAME conversion to MP3
On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 09:56:39 +0000, John Williamson
wrote: On 19/02/2020 22:19, lid wrote: Yes, I want good audio quality, to allow people to hear on the MP3 the same words which are on the source WAV. To be honest, the only way I can tell what is being said on either file wile listening on the laptop speakers is by reading the text. Do the two files sound the same? Can you detect any loss of quality between the source WAV and destination MP3? You might try using earphones, that will aid comprehension. |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.pro,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
LAME conversion to MP3
On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 08:05:25 -0000, "Brian Gaff \(Sofa 2\)"
wrote: You will not ever get the same quality from any lossy compression as you do from a wav or flac compressed file, alac on Apple, but the lower the bitrate etc the worse it will get of course. Some of the variable bit rate mp3s do a good job especially at level 3 very 44.1khz and 256kbits/sec max or greater. Brian I've used the source WAV parameters; sample rate 48,000 Hz and bit rate 192 kb/s; when converting to the MP3. I don't know if this is proper for the destination MP3 file. Advice? Thank you. What I really want to know is whether the two files sound similar. I think they do. Again, thanks for advice. |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.pro,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
LAME conversion to MP3
On 20/02/2020 12:00, lid wrote:
On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 09:56:39 +0000, John Williamson wrote: On 19/02/2020 22:19, lid wrote: Yes, I want good audio quality, to allow people to hear on the MP3 the same words which are on the source WAV. To be honest, the only way I can tell what is being said on either file wile listening on the laptop speakers is by reading the text. Do the two files sound the same? Can you detect any loss of quality between the source WAV and destination MP3? You might try using earphones, that will aid comprehension. By the way, I just opened your original .wav file in Adobe Audition, and it was a compressed file anyway before you started processing it. Filename: x.wav Folder: F:\Downloads\a-mp3 (1) File Type: 48000Hz, 16-bit, Mono Uncompressed Size: 374.71 KB (383,708 bytes) File Format: ACM Waveform Microsoft ACM: IMA ADPCM Size on Disk: 94.05 KB (96,316 bytes) Last Written (local): 2/20/2020 12:53:29.780 Length: 0:03.996 191,854 samples This page explains what it has already done to your original recording. https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/win...ession-manager Not all .wav files are uncompressed, or even the same format if not compressed. -- Tciao for Now! John. |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.pro,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
LAME conversion to MP3
John Williamson wrote:
I just opened your original .wav file in Adobe Audition, and it was a compressed file anyway before you started processing it. Filename:*** x.wav Folder:*** F:\Downloads\a-mp3 (1) File Type:*** 48000Hz, 16-bit, Mono Uncompressed Size:*** 374.71 KB (383,708 bytes) File Format:*** ACM Waveform ****Microsoft ACM: IMA ADPCM Maybe it was originally recorded with ATRAC compression, if originated on Mike's minidisc recorder? |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.pro,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
LAME conversion to MP3
On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 15:36:51 +0000, John Williamson
wrote: On 20/02/2020 12:00, lid wrote: Do the two files sound the same? Can you detect any loss of quality between the source WAV and destination MP3? They sound as near to identical as makes no difference on these speakers. Good. Thank you for the re-assurance. When I listen to the audio file in WAV and MP3, on earphones, it sounds exactly the same. I am unable to detect any loss of quality. Perhaps we could have one or two more people offering opinions on this? For a conversion that is as close to the original as possible, I use 320kbps as the MP3 bit rate, starting with 24 or 16 bit depth .wav files, and most people can't tell the difference even when the original contains noise sources such as cymbals as well as musical instruments. 192 kbps is good enough for normal listening on domestic equipment or in a car, in my experience. The bit rate of the source file is 192 Kbps, and the source file has sample rate 48,000 Hz. I have kept the same parameters when converting to MP3, so the MP3 file has bit rate 192Kbps and sample rate 48 KHz. Is this the right approach to take with the conversion? Intuitively I would think the bit rate and sample rate should be the same for both, but my intuition may be wrong. You might try using earphones, that will aid comprehension. I can hear more clearly through earphones than laptop speakers. |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.pro,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
LAME conversion to MP3
On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 15:35:35 +0000, John Williamson
wrote: By the way, I just opened your original .wav file in Adobe Audition, and it was a compressed file anyway before you started processing it. Filename: x.wav Folder: F:\Downloads\a-mp3 (1) File Type: 48000Hz, 16-bit, Mono Uncompressed Size: 374.71 KB (383,708 bytes) File Format: ACM Waveform Microsoft ACM: IMA ADPCM Size on Disk: 94.05 KB (96,316 bytes) Last Written (local): 2/20/2020 12:53:29.780 Length: 0:03.996 191,854 samples This page explains what it has already done to your original recording. https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/win...ession-manager Not all .wav files are uncompressed, or even the same format if not compressed. You are correct. The file uses ADPCM compression, I believe, so it is not CD quality. It uses a bit depth of 4 bits, which is de-compressed when playing to 16 bit. It's really just a practical question, is the MP3 audio quality as good as the (compressed) source WAV. I would keep the oriiginal WAV file, but web browsers can't play this particular type of WAV file. |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.pro,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
LAME conversion to MP3
If I were you I'd try to do some processing to improve intelligibility rather
than worrying about fidelity. High pass everything below 200 Hz or so, then low-pass everything above maybe 6KHz, and consider sticking a presence boost in there. You might then consider an expander and fiddling with the threshold on the expander to try and boost the voice out of the noise. I think you are worried about entirely the wrong thing here. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.pro,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
LAME conversion to MP3
wrote:
You are correct. The file uses ADPCM compression, I believe, so it is not CD quality. It uses a bit depth of 4 bits, which is de-compressed when playing to 16 bit. ADPCM is not lossy compression at all, it is a sort of encoding method intended to get more usable dynamic range with fewer bits but it's still straight PCM... just not linear PCM. I had no idea you could do it with as few as 4 bits, but 8-bit u-law encoding is typical telephone quality today. I would keep the oriiginal WAV file, but web browsers can't play this particular type of WAV file. Have you considered retracking this with proper encoding and microphone placement? --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.pro,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
LAME conversion to MP3
On 21 Feb 2020 12:33:06 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
I would keep the oriiginal WAV file, but web browsers can't play this particular type of WAV file. Have you considered retracking this with proper encoding and microphone placement? --scott The recording device only produces WAV files with sample rate 48 KHz and bit rate 192 kb/s. The WAV files it produces cannot be read by MS Edge and other web browsers. Can you download and unzip the file http://c-compiler.com/myfiles/a-mp3.zip and listen to the files x.wav and x.mp3 ? Are they similar? The audio files are 4 seconds each, and to my untrained ear they sound much the same. What do you think, is the encoding scheme I chose for conversion from WAV to MP3 fit for purpose? |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.pro,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
LAME conversion to MP3
|
#18
Posted to rec.audio.pro,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
LAME conversion to MP3
wrote:
On 21 Feb 2020 12:33:06 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote: I would keep the oriiginal WAV file, but web browsers can't play this particular type of WAV file. Have you considered retracking this with proper encoding and microphone placement? The recording device only produces WAV files with sample rate 48 KHz and bit rate 192 kb/s. The WAV files it produces cannot be read by MS Edge and other web browsers. Have you considered retracking this with proper encoding and microphone placement? What do you think, is the encoding scheme I chose for conversion from WAV to MP3 fit for purpose? The problem is what you're starting out from. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.pro,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
LAME conversion to MP3
wrote:
On 21 Feb 2020 12:30:08 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote: If I were you I'd try to do some processing to improve intelligibility rather than worrying about fidelity. High pass everything below 200 Hz or so, then low-pass everything above maybe 6KHz, and consider sticking a presence boost in there. You might then consider an expander and fiddling with the threshold on the expander to try and boost the voice out of the noise. I think you are worried about entirely the wrong thing here. The actions on the source WAV file must be such as to maintain authenticity. If I start changing and deleting parts of the audio file, that would render the output file as different from the source file, and make it untrustworthy. I don't know about UK law, but as soon as you have made a transfer to MP3, or even a transfer to flat PCM, your file is no longer admissible in court. Rules of evidence in the UK are likely different but you can hire any one of a number of excellent forensic audio people there who can create an audition file which is separate from the traceable reference file (which is what is normally done for courtroom proceedings in the US). Sorry to bug you, but; I've used the source WAV parameters; sample rate 48,000 Hz and bit rate 192 kb/s; when converting to the MP3. I don't know if this is proper for the destination MP3 file. What is your view? My view is that you are looking at totally the wrong thing, but since you refuse to explain why you want to do any of this, it's hard to know. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.pro,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
LAME conversion to MP3
On 22/02/2020 6:30 am, Scott Dorsey wrote:
If I were you I'd try to do some processing to improve intelligibility rather than worrying about fidelity. High pass everything below 200 Hz or so, then low-pass everything above maybe 6KHz, and consider sticking a presence boost in there. You might then consider an expander and fiddling with the threshold on the expander to try and boost the voice out of the noise. I think you are worried about entirely the wrong thing here. --scott Yeah, the source media content is the only thing getting in the way of intelligibility. Unfortunately most of the extraneous clutter is not too far removed from the vocal frequencies. Looks like more of a job for Spectral Layers, or a Mac or Linux equivalent, to edit out the unwanted noises. Arduous fiddly work, but if the content is really that important .... geoff |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.pro,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
LAME conversion to MP3
On 22/02/2020 8:38 am, lid wrote:
On 21 Feb 2020 12:33:06 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote: I would keep the oriiginal WAV file, but web browsers can't play this particular type of WAV file. Have you considered retracking this with proper encoding and microphone placement? --scott The recording device only produces WAV files with sample rate 48 KHz and bit rate 192 kb/s. The WAV files it produces cannot be read by MS Edge and other web browsers. Can you download and unzip the file http://c-compiler.com/myfiles/a-mp3.zip and listen to the files x.wav and x.mp3 ? Are they similar? Yes they are similar, almost if not totally indistinguishable, not helped by of the overall clutter or extraneous sounds. The audio files are 4 seconds each, and to my untrained ear they sound much the same. What do you think, is the encoding scheme I chose for conversion from WAV to MP3 fit for purpose? Kind of depends what your purpose is. The only unsatisfactory part is the incredibly poor recording. geoff |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.pro,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
LAME conversion to MP3
Scott Dorsey wrote: since you refuse to explain why you want to do any of this, it's hard to know. I suspect the answer to that is somewhere between "prove that mindcontrol is real" and "show that MI5 are out to get me" |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.pro,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
LAME conversion to MP3
On 22/02/2020 4:33 am, Scott Dorsey wrote:
wrote: You are correct. The file uses ADPCM compression, I believe, so it is not CD quality. It uses a bit depth of 4 bits, which is de-compressed when playing to 16 bit. ADPCM is not lossy compression at all, it is a sort of encoding method intended to get more usable dynamic range with fewer bits but it's still straight PCM... just not linear PCM. I had no idea you could do it with as few as 4 bits, but 8-bit u-law encoding is typical telephone quality today. Yes, and he never said "lossy compression". However there is plenty of loss already inherent in those low bit encoding schemes anyway. The whole point of MP3 etc was to *reduce* the audible loss at low data rates. I'm sure you know this, but the old compression Vs compression Vs compression linguistic problem raises it's head once again. |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.pro,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
LAME conversion to MP3
On 22/02/2020 4:30 am, Scott Dorsey wrote:
If I were you I'd try to do some processing to improve intelligibility rather than worrying about fidelity. High pass everything below 200 Hz or so, then low-pass everything above maybe 6KHz, and consider sticking a presence boost in there. You might then consider an expander and fiddling with the threshold on the expander to try and boost the voice out of the noise. I think you are worried about entirely the wrong thing here. --scott Yes he seems to keep ignoring the fact the recording is lousy in the first place and therefore worrying so much about MP3 settings is rather pointless. |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.pro,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
LAME conversion to MP3
On Sat, 22 Feb 2020 16:02:44 +1100, Trevor wrote:
On 22/02/2020 4:33 am, Scott Dorsey wrote: wrote: You are correct. The file uses ADPCM compression, I believe, so it is not CD quality. It uses a bit depth of 4 bits, which is de-compressed when playing to 16 bit. ADPCM is not lossy compression at all, it is a sort of encoding method intended to get more usable dynamic range with fewer bits but it's still straight PCM... just not linear PCM. I had no idea you could do it with as few as 4 bits, but 8-bit u-law encoding is typical telephone quality today. Yes, and he never said "lossy compression". However there is plenty of loss already inherent in those low bit encoding schemes anyway. The whole point of MP3 etc was to *reduce* the audible loss at low data rates. I'm sure you know this, but the old compression Vs compression Vs compression linguistic problem raises it's head once again. Can you download and unzip the file http://c-compiler.com/myfiles/a-mp3.zip and listen to the files x.wav and x.mp3 ? Are they similar? They are only 4 seconds in length, there is very little work involved in listening to these two files. I am looking for one or two more opinions as to whether the source WAV file and destination MP3 file are similar to the ear. You might try listening through earphones, for better clarity. Sorry to keep harping on about this, but I am trying to obtain re-assurance that the conversion to MP3 gives a file which is effectively the same to the ear as the source WAV. |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.pro,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
LAME conversion to MP3
|
#27
Posted to rec.audio.pro,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
LAME conversion to MP3
On 21 Feb 2020 16:24:46 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
wrote: On 21 Feb 2020 12:30:08 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote: If I were you I'd try to do some processing to improve intelligibility rather than worrying about fidelity. High pass everything below 200 Hz or so, then low-pass everything above maybe 6KHz, and consider sticking a presence boost in there. You might then consider an expander and fiddling with the threshold on the expander to try and boost the voice out of the noise. I think you are worried about entirely the wrong thing here. The actions on the source WAV file must be such as to maintain authenticity. If I start changing and deleting parts of the audio file, that would render the output file as different from the source file, and make it untrustworthy. I don't know about UK law, but as soon as you have made a transfer to MP3, or even a transfer to flat PCM, your file is no longer admissible in court. Rules of evidence in the UK are likely different but you can hire any one of a number of excellent forensic audio people there who can create an audition file which is separate from the traceable reference file (which is what is normally done for courtroom proceedings in the US). I need this audio file for two purposes. 1) to present to a court or tribunal in support of proceedings, as evidence. For this I would submit the source WAV file, unedited, apart from being clipped. 2) to post to a web page in a public-facing role. This should be an MP3 file, preferably indistinguishable to the average human ear from the WAV, Thank you for your advice re US law. I don't know what the situation is in the UK regarding this sort of evidence. Sorry to bug you, but; I've used the source WAV parameters; sample rate 48,000 Hz and bit rate 192 kb/s; when converting to the MP3. I don't know if this is proper for the destination MP3 file. What is your view? If you could provide some advice regarding parameters for the target MP3 file, as in the above quoted paragraph, it would be appreciated. |
#28
Posted to rec.audio.pro,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
LAME conversion to MP3
|
#29
Posted to rec.audio.pro,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
LAME conversion to MP3
On 23/02/2020 8:02 am, lid wrote:
On 21 Feb 2020 16:24:46 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote: wrote: On 21 Feb 2020 12:30:08 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote: If I were you I'd try to do some processing to improve intelligibility rather than worrying about fidelity. High pass everything below 200 Hz or so, then low-pass everything above maybe 6KHz, and consider sticking a presence boost in there. You might then consider an expander and fiddling with the threshold on the expander to try and boost the voice out of the noise. I think you are worried about entirely the wrong thing here. The actions on the source WAV file must be such as to maintain authenticity. If I start changing and deleting parts of the audio file, that would render the output file as different from the source file, and make it untrustworthy. I don't know about UK law, but as soon as you have made a transfer to MP3, or even a transfer to flat PCM, your file is no longer admissible in court. Rules of evidence in the UK are likely different but you can hire any one of a number of excellent forensic audio people there who can create an audition file which is separate from the traceable reference file (which is what is normally done for courtroom proceedings in the US). I need this audio file for two purposes. 1) to present to a court or tribunal in support of proceedings, as evidence. For this I would submit the source WAV file, unedited, apart from being clipped. 2) to post to a web page in a public-facing role. This should be an MP3 file, preferably indistinguishable to the average human ear from the WAV, Thanks for finally explaining the context. But careful - Surely # 2) would compromise # 1) ? geoff |
#30
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
LAME conversion to MP3
Trevor wrote:
I'm sure you know this, but the old compression Vs compression Vs compression linguistic problem raises it's head once again. That's why, in both professional and layman circles, I refer to compression ONLY in the context of dynamics and dynamics processing, and 'data size reduction' or 'data reduction' in the context of lossy file conversion. If someone else uses the term 'compression' or 'compressed', I automatically ask what threshold, ratio, and attack and release speeds they used. When they say 'No, I mean compressed down to a smaller file size' I respond, 'Oh, you mean data-reduced, or data reduction. When they ask me why I don't use 'compression to mean the same thing, I just look at them, expressionless and tell them: Think about why. That usually convinces them. |
#31
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
LAME conversion to MP3
wrote:
Trevor wrote: I'm sure you know this, but the old compression Vs compression Vs compression linguistic problem raises it's head once again. That's why, in both professional and layman circles, I refer to compression ONLY in the context of dynamics and dynamics processing, and 'data size reduction' or 'data reduction' in the context of lossy file conversion. The thing is, the nonlinear encoding used by ADPCM isn't really either of these things. You -might- refer to it as "companding" if you had to, but really that's still pushing it. "Nonlinear encoding" is as good as it gets. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#32
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
LAME conversion to MP3
Scott Dorsey wrote:
The thing is, the nonlinear encoding used by ADPCM isn't really either of those things. Then what is it?? Come on, I'm black & white here, no time for fuzziness, lol! |
#33
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
LAME conversion to MP3
Cat got your tongue, Scottso?
|
#34
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
LAME conversion to MP3
wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote: The thing is, the nonlinear encoding used by ADPCM isn't really either of those things. Then what is it?? Come on, I'm black & white here, no time for fuzziness, lol! It's a nonlinear encoding. Amplitude step is log(n) instead of n, so the size of step 0 is smaller than the size of step 127. If you look for an explanation of u-Law online, that is the most common method used in the real world. But it's still straight PCM. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#35
Posted to rec.audio.pro,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
LAME conversion to MP3
Andy Burns wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote: since you refuse to explain why you want to do any of this, it's hard to know. I suspect the answer to that is somewhere between "prove that mindcontrol is real" and "show that MI5 are out to get me" I thought that's what MI5's job was? --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#36
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
LAME conversion to MP3
|
#37
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
LAME conversion to MP3
geoff wrote:
Compressed files, as in ZIP, FLAC, etc do not involve any data reduction whatsoever. geoff I will still use 'data reduction' to describe them, because too many idiots out there assume that doing so equates to reducing the dynamics of the audio. Ninety-percent of the general public - my audience - think that MP3 and other lossy formats reduce dynamic range and contributed to the current loudness war. That's what I'm trying to untrain. |
#38
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
LAME conversion to MP3
theckmah @ shortbus . edu wrote in message
... geoff wrote: Compressed files, as in ZIP, FLAC, etc do not involve any data reduction whatsoever. I will still use 'data reduction' to describe them, because too many idiots out there assume that doing so equates to reducing the dynamics of the audio. So you'll still use incorrect terminology, because you're a ****ing idiot. True to form. Ninety-percent of the general public - my audience - think that MP3 and other lossy formats reduce dynamic range and contributed to the current loudness war. That's what I'm trying to untrain. It's hilarious that a dumb**** like you thinks you're "untraining" anyone by gibbering about things you refuse to understand. But that's life as a ****ing retard, isn't it, li'l buddy? You dont even know what "ninety-percent" means, do you? Numbers are just gibberish to you. FEDJB. |
#39
Posted to rec.audio.pro,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
LAME conversion to MP3
On Sun, 23 Feb 2020 11:09:41 +1300, geoff
wrote: On 23/02/2020 6:45 am, lid wrote: I am looking for one or two more opinions as to whether the source WAV file and destination MP3 file are similar to the ear. You might try listening through earphones, for better clarity. Sorry to keep harping on about this, but I am trying to obtain re-assurance that the conversion to MP3 gives a file which is effectively the same to the ear as the source WAV. For **** sake ! The files are effectively the same. Thank you for confirming my opinion, that the source WAV and target MP3 sound exactly the same to my untrained ear. Regarding the conversion parameters. When I use Total Recorder to open the WAV file, and save to MP3, the parameters of the created MP3 file are obtained from the parameters of the WAV file. So if the source WAV has sample rate 48 KHz and bit rate 192 Kbps, the default for the created MP3 file will also be sample rate 48 KHz and bit rate 192 Kbps. This ends the questions I had regarding the conversion. Thank you for your help. |
#40
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
LAME conversion to MP3
On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 3:48:45 PM UTC-6, wrote:
(2) Please tell me if the audio in the MP3 file is as clear as with the WAV. I think it is, but I would like to be re-assured. To the human ear, the MP3 sounds every bit as clear as the WAV file. I seriously doubt anyone would be able to reliably distinguish between the two. |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
another lame claim | Audio Opinions | |||
another lame claim | Audio Opinions | |||
Any LAME experts here? | Pro Audio |