What are the maximum necessary settings for the audio quality I can achieve?

[Steven O.]

Before my Dad died, about ten years ago, I did a series of interviews
with him on cassette tapes -- the large ones, that measure about three
by five inches. I'm sure the recording was mono, and the tape
recorder was not very expensive. I now want to transfer that to .wav
files, but I notice the files get large fast -- a test recording, at
16 KHz, using 16 bit sound, created a 4 Megabyte file for under three
minutes of recording time.

My question is, is 16 KHz and 16 bit recording overkill? Will I be
retrieving and saving essentially all the available audio information
if I step down to 11 or 12 KHz (or even 8 KHz)? I assume the bit size
refers to the magnitudes that are recorded, with 8-bit sound giving
256 magnitudes, and 16 bit giving 65,000 magnitudes. For voice, is
8-bit really good enough?

Thanks in advance for all replies.
Steve O.


Standard Antiflame Disclaimer: Please don't flame me. I may actually *be* an idiot, but even idiots have feelings.

[Scott Dorsey]

Steven O. > wrote:
>Before my Dad died, about ten years ago, I did a series of interviews
>with him on cassette tapes -- the large ones, that measure about three
>by five inches. I'm sure the recording was mono, and the tape
>recorder was not very expensive. I now want to transfer that to .wav
>files, but I notice the files get large fast -- a test recording, at
>16 KHz, using 16 bit sound, created a 4 Megabyte file for under three
>minutes of recording time.

That is a really low sample rate. With a 16 ksamp/sec rate, you get nothing
above 8 KHz. You can hear a difference on a voice. It's not an amazing
difference, but it's a difference.

>My question is, is 16 KHz and 16 bit recording overkill? Will I be
>retrieving and saving essentially all the available audio information
>if I step down to 11 or 12 KHz (or even 8 KHz)? I assume the bit size
>refers to the magnitudes that are recorded, with 8-bit sound giving
>256 magnitudes, and 16 bit giving 65,000 magnitudes. For voice, is
>8-bit really good enough?

No, it's not. I'd go up to 44.1/16. But the question is really what you
want to use the recordings for. Use whatever sample rate the thing you
want to put them on requires.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[James Boyk]

I suggest doing that test recording in several possible formats and
listening for yourself.


Storage space on hard drives is very cheap; so why not use the format
that gives the best quality sound? If the original's any good at
all--and it may well be quite good on voice--it's a shame to throw it
away, when the subtleties of the sound may matter to you in retrospect.


James Boyk

[DaveDrummer]

this is why mp3 was developed! im sure none of us can honestly tell a
difference detween 192-320kbs mp3 and a uncompressed 44khz wav
"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> Steven O. > wrote:
> >Before my Dad died, about ten years ago, I did a series of interviews
> >with him on cassette tapes -- the large ones, that measure about three
> >by five inches. I'm sure the recording was mono, and the tape
> >recorder was not very expensive. I now want to transfer that to .wav
> >files, but I notice the files get large fast -- a test recording, at
> >16 KHz, using 16 bit sound, created a 4 Megabyte file for under three
> >minutes of recording time.
>
> That is a really low sample rate. With a 16 ksamp/sec rate, you get
nothing
> above 8 KHz. You can hear a difference on a voice. It's not an amazing
> difference, but it's a difference.
>
> >My question is, is 16 KHz and 16 bit recording overkill? Will I be
> >retrieving and saving essentially all the available audio information
> >if I step down to 11 or 12 KHz (or even 8 KHz)? I assume the bit size
> >refers to the magnitudes that are recorded, with 8-bit sound giving
> >256 magnitudes, and 16 bit giving 65,000 magnitudes. For voice, is
> >8-bit really good enough?
>
> No, it's not. I'd go up to 44.1/16. But the question is really what you
> want to use the recordings for. Use whatever sample rate the thing you
> want to put them on requires.
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Kurt Albershardt]

DaveDrummer wrote:

> this is why mp3 was developed!

As a distribution format, not an archiving format.



> im sure none of us can honestly tell a
> difference detween 192-320kbs mp3 and a uncompressed 44khz wav

Speak for yourself, please.

[Scott Dorsey]

DaveDrummer > wrote:
>this is why mp3 was developed! im sure none of us can honestly tell a
>difference detween 192-320kbs mp3 and a uncompressed 44khz wav

You might want to consider better monitors.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Rob Adelman]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> DaveDrummer > wrote:
>
>>this is why mp3 was developed! im sure none of us can honestly tell a
>>difference detween 192-320kbs mp3 and a uncompressed 44khz wav
>
>
> You might want to consider better monitors.

Or a new set of ears..

[Steven O.]

Okay. But is there a shareware program that converts .wav files to
MP3s?

Thanks,
Steve


On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 21:24:16 -0400, Luke Kaven
> wrote:

>Do you have a lack of storage resources? It doesn't seem to require
>much effort to archive the original recordings at 44.1/16. CD-R
>blanks are cheap and plentiful, hard drive space is easy to come by.
>I'd probably suggest archiving at the best quality you can within
>reason. If you need to have more compact, playable files
>*afterwards*, then you could always create MP3 versions, which I'm
>sure are quite listenable, and will be quite small.
>
>Luke
>
>Steven O. > wrote:
>
>>Before my Dad died, about ten years ago, I did a series of interviews
>>with him on cassette tapes -- the large ones, that measure about three
>>by five inches. I'm sure the recording was mono, and the tape
>>recorder was not very expensive. I now want to transfer that to .wav
>>files, but I notice the files get large fast -- a test recording, at
>>16 KHz, using 16 bit sound, created a 4 Megabyte file for under three
>>minutes of recording time.
>>
>>My question is, is 16 KHz and 16 bit recording overkill? Will I be
>>retrieving and saving essentially all the available audio information
>>if I step down to 11 or 12 KHz (or even 8 KHz)? I assume the bit size
>>refers to the magnitudes that are recorded, with 8-bit sound giving
>>256 magnitudes, and 16 bit giving 65,000 magnitudes. For voice, is
>>8-bit really good enough?
>>
>>Thanks in advance for all replies.
>>Steve O.

>>
>>Standard Antiflame Disclaimer: Please don't flame me. I may actually *be* an idiot, but even idiots have feelings.


Standard Antiflame Disclaimer: Please don't flame me. I may actually *be* an idiot, but even idiots have feelings.

[Luke Kaven]

Luke Kaven > wrote:
>CoolEdit 2000 [...]

Correction -- sadly, it looks like you can't get CoolEdit 2000 any
more. Wish they had left it around as unsupported freeware.

Luke

[Les Cargill]

"Steven O." wrote:
>
> Before my Dad died, about ten years ago, I did a series of interviews
> with him on cassette tapes -- the large ones, that measure about three
> by five inches. I'm sure the recording was mono, and the tape
> recorder was not very expensive. I now want to transfer that to .wav
> files, but I notice the files get large fast -- a test recording, at
> 16 KHz, using 16 bit sound, created a 4 Megabyte file for under three
> minutes of recording time.
>
> My question is, is 16 KHz and 16 bit recording overkill? Will I be
> retrieving and saving essentially all the available audio information
> if I step down to 11 or 12 KHz (or even 8 KHz)? I assume the bit size
> refers to the magnitudes that are recorded, with 8-bit sound giving
> 256 magnitudes, and 16 bit giving 65,000 magnitudes. For voice, is
> 8-bit really good enough?
>
> Thanks in advance for all replies.
> Steve O.
>
>
> Standard Antiflame Disclaimer: Please don't flame me. I may actually *be* an idiot, but even idiots have feelings.

80 gigabyte harddrives are about/under $100 these days, and 650 meg'll
fit on a CD, which is like $0.35. Bytes are all but free. Use
the full rate.

--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill]

"Steven O." wrote:
>
> Okay. But is there a shareware program that converts .wav files to
> MP3s?
>

http://www.mp3dev.org/mp3/

It's free.

> Thanks,
> Steve
>
>
> On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 21:24:16 -0400, Luke Kaven
> > wrote:
>
> >Do you have a lack of storage resources? It doesn't seem to require
> >much effort to archive the original recordings at 44.1/16. CD-R
> >blanks are cheap and plentiful, hard drive space is easy to come by.
> >I'd probably suggest archiving at the best quality you can within
> >reason. If you need to have more compact, playable files
> >*afterwards*, then you could always create MP3 versions, which I'm
> >sure are quite listenable, and will be quite small.
> >
> >Luke
> >
> >Steven O. > wrote:
> >
> >>Before my Dad died, about ten years ago, I did a series of interviews
> >>with him on cassette tapes -- the large ones, that measure about three
> >>by five inches. I'm sure the recording was mono, and the tape
> >>recorder was not very expensive. I now want to transfer that to .wav
> >>files, but I notice the files get large fast -- a test recording, at
> >>16 KHz, using 16 bit sound, created a 4 Megabyte file for under three
> >>minutes of recording time.
> >>
> >>My question is, is 16 KHz and 16 bit recording overkill? Will I be
> >>retrieving and saving essentially all the available audio information
> >>if I step down to 11 or 12 KHz (or even 8 KHz)? I assume the bit size
> >>refers to the magnitudes that are recorded, with 8-bit sound giving
> >>256 magnitudes, and 16 bit giving 65,000 magnitudes. For voice, is
> >>8-bit really good enough?
> >>
> >>Thanks in advance for all replies.
> >>Steve O.
>
> >>
> >>Standard Antiflame Disclaimer: Please don't flame me. I may actually *be* an idiot, but even idiots have feelings.
>
> Standard Antiflame Disclaimer: Please don't flame me. I may actually *be* an idiot, but even idiots have feelings.


--
Les Cargill

[Kurt Albershardt]

John Washburn wrote:

> Andy Eng wrote:
>
>> After polishing up the session, I've found saving the wav in ADPCM
>> format (4,000 Hz, 4-bit mono) to be adequate in maintaining clarity
>> with minimal size (example, a 5 minute 52 meg WAV after going to said
>> format results in a file size of 1.2 megs). I guess the question is
>> what's your intended target? Archiving? Streaming audio on the web?
>> etc...
>>
>> LOL - For grins, I ran the 1.2 meg ADPCM sample through an MP3
>> converter and it ballooned to 4.6 megs!
>
>
> I bet. I'd also bet that if you saved yer original 52 meg WAW as even a low
> rate MP3 it would not be a whole lot bigger than yer 4bit/4k mono file and
> sound more better than you could shake a stack of sticks at.
>
> 4 bit/4k. Sheesh! Yay, you can tell what the words are!
>
> Someday you might want to play those tracks for his children or
> grandchildren. At 4bit/4k you might as well just have them transcribed.

For reference, telephone lines use 7 or 8 bits with an 8k samplerate.

[Romeo Rondeau]

I can, any day of the week, with a head cold, and listening on jambox
speakers :-)

"DaveDrummer" > wrote in message
...
> this is why mp3 was developed! im sure none of us can honestly tell a
> difference detween 192-320kbs mp3 and a uncompressed 44khz wav

[Romeo Rondeau]

Go get him, Arny! :-)

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "DaveDrummer" > wrote in message
>
>
> > this is why mp3 was developed! im sure none of us can honestly tell a
> > difference detween 192-320kbs mp3 and a uncompressed 44khz wav
>
> I recently reported here a time-synched, level-matched, double-blind
> listening test in which I easily detected the degradation due to MP3
coding
> at 180 Kbps. The tools for doing this sort of thing are free at my
> www.pcabx.com web site. Nobody thought that my results were the least bit
> unusual, and of course they weren't.
>
> However, when weighing the alternatives, I'd take 128 Kbps MP3 done right
> over PCM sampling at significantly less than 32 KHz and 14 bits.
>
> > "Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
> > ...
>
> >> Steven O. > wrote:
>
> >>> Before my Dad died, about ten years ago, I did a series of
> >>> interviews with him on cassette tapes -- the large ones, that
> >>> measure about three by five inches. I'm sure the recording was
> >>> mono, and the tape recorder was not very expensive. I now want to
> >>> transfer that to .wav files, but I notice the files get large fast
> >>> -- a test recording, at 16 KHz, using 16 bit sound, created a 4
> >>> Megabyte file for under three minutes of recording time.
>
> So what? This is the day of 120 GB hard drives and fractional-terabyte
DAWs.
>
> A regular CDROM holds over 500 megabytes, and DVD-ROMs with almost 10
times
> the space are cheap and readily available.
>
> >> That is a really low sample rate. With a 16 ksamp/sec rate, you get
> >> nothing above 8 KHz. You can hear a difference on a voice. It's
> >> not an amazing difference, but it's a difference.
>
> A slight jump up to 22 KHz reduces that difference a goodly amount. But
> let's pinch ourselves, this is an interview, not a string quartet.
>
> >>> My question is, is 16 KHz and 16 bit recording overkill?
>
> No. It's only a tad better than AM radio, all things considered.
>
> >>> Will I be retrieving and saving essentially all the available audio
> >>> information if I step down to 11 or 12 KHz (or even 8 KHz)?
>
> We are now talking sub AM-radio quality. With a 5.5 KHz bandpass you're
> still not losing intelligibility, but things definately sound muted. This
is
> for interviews, right? When you are chopping off this much data to save
bits
> (why????), perceptual coding (MP3, WMA) starts looking really good.
>
> >>> I assume the bit size refers to the magnitudes that are recorded,
> >>> with 8-bit sound giving 256 magnitudes, and 16 bit giving 65,000
> >>> magnitudes. For voice, is 8-bit really good enough?
>
> If you want to squish data this hard, you lose less quality for a given
data
> savings by going to MP3, WMA or other perceptual coding.
>
> However, I don't know why you feel pressured to worry about a few
megabytes
> of audio data.
>
>

[Marc Wielage]

On Wed, 3 Sep 2003 18:34:38 -0700, DaveDrummer wrote
(in message >):

> im sure none of us can honestly tell a
> difference detween 192-320kbs mp3 and a uncompressed 44khz wav...
>-----------------------------<snip>----------------------------<

Jesus H. Christ. I can hear a difference between an MP3 file and an
uncompressed WAV file with a godammned PILLOW over my head!

If you can't tell the difference, then I'd say you either a) can't hear, b)
have very bad monitoring gear, or c) have been putting your ear much too
close to your drums over the years.

Jesus...

--MFW