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. |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.pro,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
LAME conversion to MP3
|
#5
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. |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.pro,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
LAME conversion to MP3
|
#8
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 |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.pro,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
LAME conversion to MP3
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 -- ----- -- This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from... The Sofa of Brian Gaff... Blind user, so no pictures please Note this Signature is meaningless.! wrote in message ... 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. |
#10
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. |
#11
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." |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.pro,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
LAME conversion to MP3
|
#13
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." |
#14
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 |
#15
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. |
#16
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. |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
LAME conversion to MP3
On 2/23/2020 10:54 PM, wrote:
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. I would describe it as the MP3 sounds just as unintelligible as the WAV file. If this recording was made in a controlled situation, it needs better mic placement. Since apparently the situation is uncontrolled, what it needs is a good forensic scrubbing with the proper tools and experience. Then, the high bit rate MP3 file and WAV file would be equally intelligible. And if it was a well crafted and well recorded song, the two file formats would be indistinguishable to most listeners. -- For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
LAME conversion to MP3
Mike Rivers wrote:
It needs better mic placement Any mic placement is better than what aounds like banging around in someone's pants pocket, or inside a book bag! |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
LAME conversion to MP3
|
#20
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
LAME conversion to MP3
John Williamson:
But this sounds like recorded evidence of something. To be used in a legal matter. Although, the pocket DAT audio recorded by a patron inside that RI nightclub seventeen years ago was much clearer - perhaps too clear, if you know what I mean. The tape - and DAT deck with scorched exterior - were found in its deceased owners closet several years later, was transferred by forensics to a functioning cassette, and was used at the victim settlement trials. Very little of it was made public. |
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 |