converting WAV file to MP3

[[email protected]]

I need help from the specialists on this group.


Please download and examine the following WAV file;

http://www.c-compiler.com/myfiles/stgeorges-201219.WAV

I want to convert this to an MP3 file.

Please tell me what settings I should use for the MP3 file, eg; MP3
Fraunhofer IIS MPEG Layer-3 Codec (professional), attributes eg 128
kbit/sec, 48.000 Hz, Mono

Please try to give specfic advice, because my understanding of audio
formats is poor, and I need guidance as to the best MP3 parameters for
this conversion.

Thank you for your help.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Fri, 03 Jan 2020 21:05:35 +0000, wrote:

>I need help from the specialists on this group.
>
>
>Please download and examine the following WAV file;
>
>http://www.c-compiler.com/myfiles/stgeorges-201219.WAV
>
>I want to convert this to an MP3 file.
>
>Please tell me what settings I should use for the MP3 file, eg; MP3
>Fraunhofer IIS MPEG Layer-3 Codec (professional), attributes eg 128
>kbit/sec, 48.000 Hz, Mono
>
>Please try to give specfic advice, because my understanding of audio
>formats is poor, and I need guidance as to the best MP3 parameters for
>this conversion.
>
>Thank you for your help.

Whatever programme you are using for the conversion, just let it use
its default settings. It will work just fine.

d

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 1/3/2020 4:05 PM, wrote:
> I want to convert this to an MP3 file.
>
> Please tell me what settings I should use for the MP3 file, eg; MP3
> Fraunhofer IIS MPEG Layer-3 Codec (professional), attributes eg 128
> kbit/sec, 48.000 Hz, Mono

If you take Don's advice to use the defaults (and his advice is
perfectly reasonable) you'll likely end up with a stereo file with the
same audio on both channels. There's nothing wrong with that other than
that the file is twice as big as it needs to be. So if you want a mono
MP3 file, you'll need to find the setting for it.

As far as bit rate is concerned, 128 kbps is roughly equivalent in
quality to a high quality cassette, though distortion characteristics
are different. Sadly, that's good enough for most listeners, and better
than a good many of them get through streams and downloads. In many
listening tests, all but the most skilled listeners, when comparing a CD
with a 192 kbps 44.1 or 48 kHz MP3 file, can't accurately identify which
is which.

When I make MP3 files to listen to in my car or on a plane, I use 128
kbps. I usually use Audacity by importing the WAV file, then exporting
it as an MP3. It gives you the choice of stereo or mono and a choice of
bit rates. I don't think it converts sample rate (you can't import a
44.1 kHz WAV file and export it as a 48 kHz MP3).

Bit rate can either be fixed (64, 128, 192, 256, etc kbps) or variable.
Variable can provide slightly better fidelity - the encoder gives you a
little extra resolution when it thinks it's advantageous, but saves
space by not running at a high bit rate all the time. I use fixed bit
rates because I know everything can play them.

So for "plenty good enough" use 128 kbps, fixed rate, or for the peanut
gallery, they won't know the difference, other than in time it takes to
download or space it takes on a drive, between 64 and 128 kbps.


--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Woody[_7_]]

On Fri 03/01/2020 21:05, wrote:
> I need help from the specialists on this group.
>
>
> Please download and examine the following WAV file;
>
> http://www.c-compiler.com/myfiles/stgeorges-201219.WAV
>
> I want to convert this to an MP3 file.
>
> Please tell me what settings I should use for the MP3 file, eg; MP3
> Fraunhofer IIS MPEG Layer-3 Codec (professional), attributes eg 128
> kbit/sec, 48.000 Hz, Mono
>
> Please try to give specfic advice, because my understanding of audio
> formats is poor, and I need guidance as to the best MP3 parameters for
> this conversion.
>
> Thank you for your help.
>
Download Audacity - its free and will do everything you need.

Import the wav file, highlight it all, got to Tracks/Mix/Mix stereo down
to mono, then export the finished product and set the bit rate to
whatever you want at that point. Job done.

--
Woody

harrogate three at ntlworld dot com

[[email protected]]

Real Player Converter is also good - if still available.

Converts WAV, AIFF, etc to MP3, etc.

I've had it for nearly ten years, but since the last five years,
it converts video files only to audio, for some reason.

[Scott Dorsey]

> wrote:
>I need help from the specialists on this group.
>
>
>Please download and examine the following WAV file;
>
>http://www.c-compiler.com/myfiles/stgeorges-201219.WAV
>
>I want to convert this to an MP3 file.
>
>Please tell me what settings I should use for the MP3 file, eg; MP3
>Fraunhofer IIS MPEG Layer-3 Codec (professional), attributes eg 128
>kbit/sec, 48.000 Hz, Mono
>
>Please try to give specfic advice, because my understanding of audio
>formats is poor, and I need guidance as to the best MP3 parameters for
>this conversion.

This is basically what a mastering engineer does. The mastering engineer
will listen to different codecs and make encoding adjustments (each of the
codecs has several hundred settings) in order to get the encoding as
transparent as possible.

It sounds to me like you are asking someone to do the job of a mastering
engineer for you, without paying them. This is not likely to happen.

My suggestion is that if you don't care about streaming that you just
use the highest bit rate available, use the LAME encoder, and it won't
be horrible. If you care about streaming and want compromises to be made
in a reasonable fashion, you will get what you pay for.
--scott

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

[Brian Gaff \(Sofa 2\)]

It very much depends on the reason you are compressing it.
If its mono and does not need to be very good, just passable then the lower
bit rates work fine. However you can get some good results using variable
bit rate mp3 that sound less gritty than the normal ones do.
I'd convert it several times and decide for yourself. Audacity or Goldwave
might be handy tools but if you have a good codec pack installed on the pc
its usually those which do the work.
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
...
>I need help from the specialists on this group.
>
>
> Please download and examine the following WAV file;
>
> http://www.c-compiler.com/myfiles/stgeorges-201219.WAV
>
> I want to convert this to an MP3 file.
>
> Please tell me what settings I should use for the MP3 file, eg; MP3
> Fraunhofer IIS MPEG Layer-3 Codec (professional), attributes eg 128
> kbit/sec, 48.000 Hz, Mono
>
> Please try to give specfic advice, because my understanding of audio
> formats is poor, and I need guidance as to the best MP3 parameters for
> this conversion.
>
> Thank you for your help.

[Brian Gaff \(Sofa 2\)]

You can also change the sample rate down on Goldwave, and I'd actually
suggest 192kbits for reasonable stuff, but if you want quality avoid mp3,
use Flac but this does have issues as not all devices can play them due to a
much larger memory demand at decode time.
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.!
"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
...
> On 1/3/2020 4:05 PM, wrote:
>> I want to convert this to an MP3 file.
>>
>> Please tell me what settings I should use for the MP3 file, eg; MP3
>> Fraunhofer IIS MPEG Layer-3 Codec (professional), attributes eg 128
>> kbit/sec, 48.000 Hz, Mono
>
> If you take Don's advice to use the defaults (and his advice is perfectly
> reasonable) you'll likely end up with a stereo file with the same audio on
> both channels. There's nothing wrong with that other than that the file is
> twice as big as it needs to be. So if you want a mono MP3 file, you'll
> need to find the setting for it.
>
> As far as bit rate is concerned, 128 kbps is roughly equivalent in quality
> to a high quality cassette, though distortion characteristics are
> different. Sadly, that's good enough for most listeners, and better than a
> good many of them get through streams and downloads. In many listening
> tests, all but the most skilled listeners, when comparing a CD with a 192
> kbps 44.1 or 48 kHz MP3 file, can't accurately identify which is which.
>
> When I make MP3 files to listen to in my car or on a plane, I use 128
> kbps. I usually use Audacity by importing the WAV file, then exporting it
> as an MP3. It gives you the choice of stereo or mono and a choice of bit
> rates. I don't think it converts sample rate (you can't import a 44.1 kHz
> WAV file and export it as a 48 kHz MP3).
>
> Bit rate can either be fixed (64, 128, 192, 256, etc kbps) or variable.
> Variable can provide slightly better fidelity - the encoder gives you a
> little extra resolution when it thinks it's advantageous, but saves space
> by not running at a high bit rate all the time. I use fixed bit rates
> because I know everything can play them.
>
> So for "plenty good enough" use 128 kbps, fixed rate, or for the peanut
> gallery, they won't know the difference, other than in time it takes to
> download or space it takes on a drive, between 64 and 128 kbps.
>
>
> --
> For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Brian Gaff \(Sofa 2\)]

I've just looked at the file. Its very short and sounds like somebody trying
to record something with the microphone inside a backpack next to some noisy
machinery. What on earth is the point in making it into an mp3, its very
short already and unless its some alien communication it seems a trifle
useless.
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
...
>I need help from the specialists on this group.
>
>
> Please download and examine the following WAV file;
>
> http://www.c-compiler.com/myfiles/stgeorges-201219.WAV
>
> I want to convert this to an MP3 file.
>
> Please tell me what settings I should use for the MP3 file, eg; MP3
> Fraunhofer IIS MPEG Layer-3 Codec (professional), attributes eg 128
> kbit/sec, 48.000 Hz, Mono
>
> Please try to give specfic advice, because my understanding of audio
> formats is poor, and I need guidance as to the best MP3 parameters for
> this conversion.
>
> Thank you for your help.

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 4 Jan 2020 08:56:08 -0000, "Brian Gaff \(Sofa 2\)"
> wrote:

>I've just looked at the file. Its very short and sounds like somebody trying
>to record something with the microphone inside a backpack next to some noisy
>machinery. What on earth is the point in making it into an mp3, its very
>short already and unless its some alien communication it seems a trifle
>useless.
> Brian

Can you embed a WAV file in an HTML web page? Obviously you can embed
an MP3 file in a web page, but I think you can't with a WAV.

According to;

https://www.w3schools.com/html/html5_audio.asp

you cannot use an AUDIO element for a WAV for IE/Edge.

This is adquate reason for converting to MP3.

[geoff]

On 4/01/2020 1:59 pm, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> > wrote:
>> I need help from the specialists on this group.
>>
>>
>> Please download and examine the following WAV file;
>>
>> http://www.c-compiler.com/myfiles/stgeorges-201219.WAV
>>
>> I want to convert this to an MP3 file.
>>
>> Please tell me what settings I should use for the MP3 file, eg; MP3
>> Fraunhofer IIS MPEG Layer-3 Codec (professional), attributes eg 128
>> kbit/sec, 48.000 Hz, Mono
>>
>> Please try to give specfic advice, because my understanding of audio
>> formats is poor, and I need guidance as to the best MP3 parameters for
>> this conversion.
>
> This is basically what a mastering engineer does. The mastering engineer
> will listen to different codecs and make encoding adjustments (each of the
> codecs has several hundred settings) in order to get the encoding as
> transparent as possible.
>
> It sounds to me like you are asking someone to do the job of a mastering
> engineer for you, without paying them. This is not likely to happen.
>
> My suggestion is that if you don't care about streaming that you just
> use the highest bit rate available, use the LAME encoder, and it won't
> be horrible. If you care about streaming and want compromises to be made
> in a reasonable fashion, you will get what you pay for.
> --scott
>


To hell with MP3s.

Nowadays storage memory is cheap and huge. I just rip CDs to ALAC on an
iPod via the worst ever audio program (iTunes), and convert to FLAC for
my phone which has far bigger SD card capacity than my 64GB iPod.

The mono thing can be achieved at the ALC-FLAC (or whatever target
format) stage with whichever software (in my case Sound Forge).

geoff

[geoff]

On 4/01/2020 10:49 pm, wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Jan 2020 08:56:08 -0000, "Brian Gaff \(Sofa 2\)"
> > wrote:
>
>> I've just looked at the file. Its very short and sounds like somebody trying
>> to record something with the microphone inside a backpack next to some noisy
>> machinery. What on earth is the point in making it into an mp3, its very
>> short already and unless its some alien communication it seems a trifle
>> useless.
>> Brian
>
> Can you embed a WAV file in an HTML web page? Obviously you can embed
> an MP3 file in a web page, but I think you can't with a WAV.
>
> According to;
>
> https://www.w3schools.com/html/html5_audio.asp
>
> you cannot use an AUDIO element for a WAV for IE/Edge.
>
> This is adquate reason for converting to MP3.
>

I don't actually *know*, but that seems highly unlikely. Sounds more
like a limitation of one particular web design package.

geoff

[Phil W]

2020-01-04 10:49 :
> On Sat, 4 Jan 2020 08:56:08 -0000, "Brian Gaff \(Sofa 2\)"
> > wrote:
>
>> I've just looked at the file. Its very short and sounds like somebody trying
>> to record something with the microphone inside a backpack next to some noisy
>> machinery. What on earth is the point in making it into an mp3, its very
>> short already and unless its some alien communication it seems a trifle
>> useless.
>> Brian
>
> Can you embed a WAV file in an HTML web page? Obviously you can embed
> an MP3 file in a web page, but I think you can't with a WAV.
>
> According to;
>
> https://www.w3schools.com/html/html5_audio.asp
>
> you cannot use an AUDIO element for a WAV for IE/Edge.
>
> This is adquate reason for converting to MP3.

So, you do not really need a file encoded with the original Fraunhofer
MP3 codec, which is not available for free, but just a file, that looks
like an MP3 encoded by whatever codec.
In such cases a LAME (=Lame Ain´t an MP3 Encoder, because of copyright
stuff) encoder with whatever program and the generated file with a .mp3
ending will be good enough for any browser.

If you´re using Windows, try https://www.rarewares.org/mp3-lamedrop.php
- of course the latest version, not the original one from 2001.
No installation required, just unpack the .exe and start it.
A *small* window will open, right click this for encoding options.

Suggested settings - probably more than required, but the safest bet
possible:
- (x) Bitrate, "Enter Target Bitrate: 320", check "Restrict to Constant
Bitrate (CBR)
- Encoding Engine Quality: HIGH, if applicable check "Mono Encoding"
- leave *all* other settings UNchecked
- Accept

Next, right click the window again for "Tagging setup" and UNcheck
everything.

By default, output directory = input directory.

Now, drag and drop your source file onto the LameDropXPd window to start
encoding - the target file will be the same file name as the input .WAV
but with .MP3 ending

hint: all those settings will be written to a .ini file in the same
directory and the .exe and used every time for new encoding sessions.

Sounds like a lot of parameters? In my experience still the least effort
compared to any other MP3/LAME encoder I´ve tried during the last 20
years and much easier than using Audacity or Goldwave just for the LAME
encoder.

Good luck with your quest!

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 1/4/2020 3:56 AM, Brian Gaff (Sofa 2) wrote:
> sounds like somebody trying
> to record something with the microphone inside a backpack next to some noisy
> machinery. What on earth is the point in making it into an mp3, its very
> short already and unless its some alien communication it seems a trifle
> useless.

Maybe to share. While MP3 doesn't offer the highest fidelity, it's the
most common audio file format and just about everyone can play it. Some
people might balk at downloading or trying to play a WAV file because
they don't know what it is.


--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[[email protected]]

Mike Rivers wrote:

>Maybe to share. While MP3 doesn't offer the highest fidelity,
>it's the most common audio file format and just about everyone
>can play it. Some people might balk at downloading or trying
>to play a WAV file because they don't know what it is.

WAV sure would make things a lot easier!

What I'd like to know is why, when I double click MP3 files of songs in Windows
Vista to play them in Windows Media Player, it takes 3-5min. to start playing?

A WAV, no problem. Double click the file, Media Player opens, starts playing the
song within two seconds.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 1/4/2020 10:11 AM, wrote:
> What I'd like to know is why, when I double click MP3 files of songs in Windows
> Vista to play them in Windows Media Player, it takes 3-5min. to start playing?
>
> A WAV, no problem. Double click the file, Media Player opens, starts playing the
> song within two seconds.

Maybe it's going out to a few web sites to see if the music is stolen? I
use WinAmp (yes, it's old) and it plays just about anything, real
snappy. And the best feature for me - and I've looked for this in other
media players and haven't found it - is the Bookmarks. I save the URL of
streaming radio stations that I like to listen to and can get to them
straight from WinAmp without having to open a real web browser.

--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[John Williamson]

On 04/01/2020 16:35, Mike Rivers wrote:
> Maybe it's going out to a few web sites to see if the music is stolen? I
> use WinAmp (yes, it's old) and it plays just about anything, real
> snappy. And the best feature for me - and I've looked for this in other
> media players and haven't found it - is the Bookmarks. I save the URL of
> streaming radio stations that I like to listen to and can get to them
> straight from WinAmp without having to open a real web browser.
>
It was a real shame when support for Winamp was discontinued after the
original team were bought out.

Luckily, versions for Windows and Android are still available if you search.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[MikeS]

On 04/01/2020 09:49, wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Jan 2020 08:56:08 -0000, "Brian Gaff \(Sofa 2\)"
> > wrote:
>
>> I've just looked at the file. Its very short and sounds like somebody trying
>> to record something with the microphone inside a backpack next to some noisy
>> machinery. What on earth is the point in making it into an mp3, its very
>> short already and unless its some alien communication it seems a trifle
>> useless.
>> Brian
>
> Can you embed a WAV file in an HTML web page? Obviously you can embed
> an MP3 file in a web page, but I think you can't with a WAV.
>
> According to;
>
> https://www.w3schools.com/html/html5_audio.asp
>
> you cannot use an AUDIO element for a WAV for IE/Edge.
>
> This is adquate reason for converting to MP3.
>
Your questions/concerns are overkill for what you want.

As others already said there are plenty of free programs with which the
conversion to a perfectly adequate mp3 file is a trivial task. If you
prefer you can even do it online:
https://online-audio-converter.com/

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 4 Jan 2020 07:56:39 -0500, Mike Rivers >
wrote:

>On 1/4/2020 3:56 AM, Brian Gaff (Sofa 2) wrote:
>> sounds like somebody trying
>> to record something with the microphone inside a backpack next to some noisy
>> machinery. What on earth is the point in making it into an mp3, its very
>> short already and unless its some alien communication it seems a trifle
>> useless.
>
>Maybe to share. While MP3 doesn't offer the highest fidelity, it's the
>most common audio file format and just about everyone can play it. Some
>people might balk at downloading or trying to play a WAV file because
>they don't know what it is.

Absolutely. I think HTML5's AUDIO element doesn't allow WAV for MS
Internet Explorer and Edge. I'm not sure about this and will follow up
when I have some information.

[Scott Dorsey]

Phil W > wrote:
>
>So, you do not really need a file encoded with the original Fraunhofer
>MP3 codec, which is not available for free, but just a file, that looks
>like an MP3 encoded by whatever codec.
>In such cases a LAME (=Lame Ain´t an MP3 Encoder, because of copyright
>stuff) encoder with whatever program and the generated file with a .mp3
>ending will be good enough for any browser.

The LAME encoder today is actually likely to sound better than the
Fraunhofer encoder on any particular material.

There was a time when the Fraunhofer encoder was a clear win with material
that had wider dynamic range and limited high frequency content, while the
LAME encoder was usually a win for material with limited dynamic range but
more high end. But things have changed and although there are still some
tracks that do better with the Fraunhofer encoder, most are likely to do
better with LAME if properly set.
--scott

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

[geoff]

On 5/01/2020 4:11 am, wrote:
> Mike Rivers wrote:
>
>> Maybe to share. While MP3 doesn't offer the highest fidelity,
>> it's the most common audio file format and just about everyone
>> can play it. Some people might balk at downloading or trying
>> to play a WAV file because they don't know what it is.
>
> WAV sure would make things a lot easier!
>
> What I'd like to know is why, when I double click MP3 files of songs in Windows
> Vista to play them in Windows Media Player, it takes 3-5min. to start playing?

Windows Vista ?!!!!

geoff

[Jim Lesurf[_3_]]

In article >,
geoff > wrote:

> To hell with MP3s.

Yup.

> The mono thing can be achieved at the ALC-FLAC (or whatever target
> format) stage with whichever software (in my case Sound Forge).

I tend to use 'sox' for audio conversions, inc those to flac. IIRC when
given a 'mono content in a stereo wave file' it tends to generate a flac
file of much the same size regardless of if you tell it to output a mono (
1 channel) or stereo ( 2 channels) flac result. Seems able to detect that
the two input patterns are the same and make use of that.

May not work when converting a 'stereo' capture of an old mono LP with
loads of background noise, though, as the noise won't be the same in both
channels.

Use sox because I often symultaneously use it to do other conversions when
not starting with a CD rip.

Jim

--
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

[Jim Lesurf[_3_]]

In article >, Mike Rivers
>
wrote:

> Maybe to share. While MP3 doesn't offer the highest fidelity, it's the
> most common audio file format and just about everyone can play it.

Given that many decent DAPs, etc, support better codecs, that's a pretty
sad fact if true. Bit like finding that most people still use shellac 78s!

Jim

--
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

[Brian Gaff \(Sofa 2\)]

Yes but the file itself seems to have no purpose at all.
I know that you can make a wav file into an html email using mime as I used
to do this very thing to annoy people.
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
...
> On Sat, 4 Jan 2020 08:56:08 -0000, "Brian Gaff \(Sofa 2\)"
> > wrote:
>
>>I've just looked at the file. Its very short and sounds like somebody
>>trying
>>to record something with the microphone inside a backpack next to some
>>noisy
>>machinery. What on earth is the point in making it into an mp3, its very
>>short already and unless its some alien communication it seems a trifle
>>useless.
>> Brian
>
> Can you embed a WAV file in an HTML web page? Obviously you can embed
> an MP3 file in a web page, but I think you can't with a WAV.
>
> According to;
>
> https://www.w3schools.com/html/html5_audio.asp
>
> you cannot use an AUDIO element for a WAV for IE/Edge.
>
> This is adquate reason for converting to MP3.

[Brian Gaff \(Sofa 2\)]

I understand that at present the accessibility guidelines say that no sound
should be started by the loading of a web page as the person using a
screenreader will not know how to stop the sound to be able to hear their
speech.
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.!
"Phil W" > wrote in message
...
> 2020-01-04 10:49 :
>> On Sat, 4 Jan 2020 08:56:08 -0000, "Brian Gaff \(Sofa 2\)"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> I've just looked at the file. Its very short and sounds like somebody
>>> trying
>>> to record something with the microphone inside a backpack next to some
>>> noisy
>>> machinery. What on earth is the point in making it into an mp3, its very
>>> short already and unless its some alien communication it seems a trifle
>>> useless.
>>> Brian
>>
>> Can you embed a WAV file in an HTML web page? Obviously you can embed
>> an MP3 file in a web page, but I think you can't with a WAV.
>>
>> According to;
>>
>> https://www.w3schools.com/html/html5_audio.asp
>>
>> you cannot use an AUDIO element for a WAV for IE/Edge.
>>
>> This is adquate reason for converting to MP3.
>
> So, you do not really need a file encoded with the original Fraunhofer MP3
> codec, which is not available for free, but just a file, that looks like
> an MP3 encoded by whatever codec.
> In such cases a LAME (=Lame Ain´t an MP3 Encoder, because of copyright
> stuff) encoder with whatever program and the generated file with a .mp3
> ending will be good enough for any browser.
>
> If you´re using Windows, try https://www.rarewares.org/mp3-lamedrop.php
> - of course the latest version, not the original one from 2001.
> No installation required, just unpack the .exe and start it.
> A *small* window will open, right click this for encoding options.
>
> Suggested settings - probably more than required, but the safest bet
> possible:
> - (x) Bitrate, "Enter Target Bitrate: 320", check "Restrict to Constant
> Bitrate (CBR)
> - Encoding Engine Quality: HIGH, if applicable check "Mono Encoding"
> - leave *all* other settings UNchecked
> - Accept
>
> Next, right click the window again for "Tagging setup" and UNcheck
> everything.
>
> By default, output directory = input directory.
>
> Now, drag and drop your source file onto the LameDropXPd window to start
> encoding - the target file will be the same file name as the input .WAV
> but with .MP3 ending
>
> hint: all those settings will be written to a .ini file in the same
> directory and the .exe and used every time for new encoding sessions.
>
> Sounds like a lot of parameters? In my experience still the least effort
> compared to any other MP3/LAME encoder I´ve tried during the last 20 years
> and much easier than using Audacity or Goldwave just for the LAME encoder.
>
> Good luck with your quest!

[Brian Gaff \(Sofa 2\)]

Yes the lame conversion system is almost universally used these days as its
free and nowadays is not any worse than the posh paid for variety.
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.!
"MikeS" > wrote in message
...
> On 04/01/2020 09:49, wrote:
>> On Sat, 4 Jan 2020 08:56:08 -0000, "Brian Gaff \(Sofa 2\)"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> I've just looked at the file. Its very short and sounds like somebody
>>> trying
>>> to record something with the microphone inside a backpack next to some
>>> noisy
>>> machinery. What on earth is the point in making it into an mp3, its very
>>> short already and unless its some alien communication it seems a trifle
>>> useless.
>>> Brian
>>
>> Can you embed a WAV file in an HTML web page? Obviously you can embed
>> an MP3 file in a web page, but I think you can't with a WAV.
>>
>> According to;
>>
>> https://www.w3schools.com/html/html5_audio.asp
>>
>> you cannot use an AUDIO element for a WAV for IE/Edge.
>>
>> This is adquate reason for converting to MP3.
>>
> Your questions/concerns are overkill for what you want.
>
> As others already said there are plenty of free programs with which the
> conversion to a perfectly adequate mp3 file is a trivial task. If you
> prefer you can even do it online:
> https://online-audio-converter.com/
>

[[email protected]]

geoff wrote:

>Windows Vista ?!!!!

>geoff


Overall, works fine. Just a little slower overall than when new, but that Media
Player behavior when asked to play MP3s has been like that only the last
few years. Before that, it would play any music file format within three seconds
of clicking on it(except AIFF of course - need QT for that).

[Scott Dorsey]

> wrote:
>geoff wrote:
>
>>Windows Vista ?!!!!
>
>>geoff
>
>Overall, works fine. Just a little slower overall than when new, but that Media
>Player behavior when asked to play MP3s has been like that only the last
>few years. Before that, it would play any music file format within three seconds
>of clicking on it(except AIFF of course - need QT for that).

If Vista works at all, it's a miracle worthy of a call to the Pope.
--scott

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

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> > wrote:
>> I need help from the specialists on this group.
>>
>>
>> Please download and examine the following WAV file;
>>
>> http://www.c-compiler.com/myfiles/stgeorges-201219.WAV
>>
>> I want to convert this to an MP3 file.
>>
>> Please tell me what settings I should use for the MP3 file, eg; MP3
>> Fraunhofer IIS MPEG Layer-3 Codec (professional), attributes eg 128
>> kbit/sec, 48.000 Hz, Mono
>>
>> Please try to give specfic advice, because my understanding of audio
>> formats is poor, and I need guidance as to the best MP3 parameters for
>> this conversion.
>
> This is basically what a mastering engineer does. The mastering engineer
> will listen to different codecs and make encoding adjustments (each of the
> codecs has several hundred settings) in order to get the encoding as
> transparent as possible.
>
> It sounds to me like you are asking someone to do the job of a mastering
> engineer for you, without paying them. This is not likely to happen.
>
> My suggestion is that if you don't care about streaming that you just
> use the highest bit rate available, use the LAME encoder, and it won't
> be horrible. If you care about streaming and want compromises to be made
> in a reasonable fashion, you will get what you pay for.
> --scott
>

I've roundtripped thru the LAME encoder at -V 1 ( the next to highest
quality setting ) and the resulting delta isn't that significant. This
may be program material sensitive.

--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

John Williamson wrote:
> On 04/01/2020 16:35, Mike Rivers wrote:
>> Maybe it's going out to a few web sites to see if the music is stolen? I
>> use WinAmp (yes, it's old) and it plays just about anything, real
>> snappy. And the best feature for me - and I've looked for this in other
>> media players and haven't found it - is the Bookmarks. I save the URL of
>> streaming radio stations that I like to listen to and can get to them
>> straight from WinAmp without having to open a real web browser.
>>
> It was a real shame when support for Winamp was discontinued after the
> original team were bought out.
>
> Luckily, versions for Windows and Android are still available if you
> search.
>

They went on to found REAPER, so it wasn't all bad. I have an old
version of WinAmp, and it seems to work great.

--
Les Cargill

[John Williamson]

On 05/01/2020 19:23, Les Cargill wrote:
> John Williamson wrote:
>> Luckily, versions for Windows and Android are still available if you
>> search.
>>
>
> They went on to found REAPER, so it wasn't all bad. I have an old
> version of WinAmp, and it seems to work great.
>
I'm using the last version of Winamp to support a tape restoration
plugin I use from time to time.

I rely on my firewall and security suite to keep the malware at bay.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

John Williamson wrote:
> On 05/01/2020 19:23, Les Cargill wrote:
>> John Williamson wrote:
>>> Luckily, versions for Windows and Android are still available if you
>>> search.
>>>
>>
>> They went on to found REAPER, so it wasn't all bad. I have an old
>> version of WinAmp, and it seems to work great.
>>
> I'm using the last version of Winamp to support a tape restoration
> plugin I use from time to time.
>
> I rely on my firewall and security suite to keep the malware at bay.
>

Dunno what to tell you - the install I have from donkey's years ago
shows no infection, and hasn't for a very long time.

I suspect the reputation for infections it gained
was from script kiddies uploading infected versions.

--
Les Cargill

[geoff]

On 6/01/2020 6:39 am, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> > wrote:
>> geoff wrote:
>>
>>> Windows Vista ?!!!!
>>
>>> geoff
>>
>> Overall, works fine. Just a little slower overall than when new, but that Media
>> Player behavior when asked to play MP3s has been like that only the last
>> few years. Before that, it would play any music file format within three seconds
>> of clicking on it(except AIFF of course - need QT for that).
>
> If Vista works at all, it's a miracle worthy of a call to the Pope.
> --scott
>

You'd think if anybody was hell-bent on sticking with a legacy Win OS it
would be XP(64).

geoff

[[email protected]]

geoff wrote:


>You'd think if anybody was hell-bent on sticking with a legacy Win OS it
>would be XP(64).

>geoff


So far, so smooth! If it ain't broke, geoff, why f- with it? Like I explained earlier,
it's only Media Player with the issue: Plays WAVs almost instantaneously, but over
the last 5-6 years of the 14 I've been running it, it takes forever to start playing MP3s.

[John Williamson]

On 05/01/2020 20:00, Les Cargill wrote:
> John Williamson wrote:

>> I rely on my firewall and security suite to keep the malware at bay.
>>
>
> Dunno what to tell you - the install I have from donkey's years ago
> shows no infection, and hasn't for a very long time.
>
> I suspect the reputation for infections it gained
> was from script kiddies uploading infected versions.
>
I'm not worried, and in 30 years of PC usage, the only malware I have
suffered from came on a floppy disc fro work.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Scott Dorsey]

geoff > wrote:
>On 6/01/2020 6:39 am, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>
>> If Vista works at all, it's a miracle worthy of a call to the Pope.
>
>You'd think if anybody was hell-bent on sticking with a legacy Win OS it
>would be XP(64).

Indeed. I know a lot of people still using XP to run Pro Tools, and it
isn't the most wonderful thing in the world but it's stable. Everyone I
know that tried Vista for studio applications very quickly went back to
XP. Thank God for Clonezilla!
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[gray_wolf]

On 05/01/2020 1:05 am, geoff wrote:
> On 5/01/2020 4:11 am, wrote:
>> Mike Rivers wrote:
>>
>>> Maybe to share. While MP3 doesn't offer the highest fidelity,
>>> it's the most common audio file format and just about everyone
>>> can play it. Some people might balk at downloading or trying
>>> to play a WAV file because they don't know what it is.
>>
>> WAV sure would make things a lot easier!
>>
>> What I'd like to know is why, when I double click MP3 files of songs in Windows
>> Vista to play them in Windows Media Player, it takes 3-5min. to start playing?
>
> Windows Vista ?!!!!
>
> geoff

Sounds like a slow computer. Back in the old days my computer could take 2-3
minutes to open a average size mp3 in Cool edit Pro...

[John Williamson]

On 06/01/2020 00:05, Scott Dorsey wrote:

> Indeed. I know a lot of people still using XP to run Pro Tools, and it
> isn't the most wonderful thing in the world but it's stable. Everyone I
> know that tried Vista for studio applications very quickly went back to
> XP. Thank God for Clonezilla!
> --scott
>
XP is fine as long as it has either no live internet connection or a
decent security suite running, and as it has been going out of use, very
few new exploits are about, as the return on writing them makes it not
worth the effort.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Brian Gaff \(Sofa 2\)]

I would have thought there was little danger of an issue. After all, the
file type has been around since the early 1990s to my knowledge and is
basically a pcm file. Other compressed formats can be used to hide things
in.
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
...
> On Sat, 4 Jan 2020 07:56:39 -0500, Mike Rivers >
> wrote:
>
>>On 1/4/2020 3:56 AM, Brian Gaff (Sofa 2) wrote:
>>> sounds like somebody trying
>>> to record something with the microphone inside a backpack next to some
>>> noisy
>>> machinery. What on earth is the point in making it into an mp3, its very
>>> short already and unless its some alien communication it seems a trifle
>>> useless.
>>
>>Maybe to share. While MP3 doesn't offer the highest fidelity, it's the
>>most common audio file format and just about everyone can play it. Some
>>people might balk at downloading or trying to play a WAV file because
>>they don't know what it is.
>
> Absolutely. I think HTML5's AUDIO element doesn't allow WAV for MS
> Internet Explorer and Edge. I'm not sure about this and will follow up
> when I have some information.

[geoff]

On 6/01/2020 9:25 pm, Brian Gaff (Sofa 2) wrote:
> I would have thought there was little danger of an issue. After all, the
> file type has been around since the early 1990s to my knowledge and is
> basically a pcm file. Other compressed formats can be used to hide things
> in.
> Brian
>

MP3 file a PCM file ? Um, no.

geoff

[John Williamson]

On 06/01/2020 08:25, Brian Gaff (Sofa 2) wrote:
> I would have thought there was little danger of an issue. After all, the
> file type has been around since the early 1990s to my knowledge and is
> basically a pcm file. Other compressed formats can be used to hide things
> in.
> Brian
>
mp3 files contain metadata as well as audio, the metadata tags can be
quite large and include items which can be used to conceal malware.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[John Williamson]

On 05/01/2020 10:27, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article >, Mike Rivers
> >
> wrote:
>
>> Maybe to share. While MP3 doesn't offer the highest fidelity, it's the
>> most common audio file format and just about everyone can play it.
>
> Given that many decent DAPs, etc, support better codecs, that's a pretty
> sad fact if true. Bit like finding that most people still use shellac 78s!
>
> Jim
>
High bit rate mp3 files are almost indistinguishable from PCM audio of
the same bit depth and sample rate, even by professionals on decent
playback systems.

I use them happily for playback when not listening critically. For
critical work, then 24 bit uncompressed or losslessly compressed files
are what is needed, and as I tend to be editing as well, that rules out
native use of FLAC and similar codecs


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Mon, 6 Jan 2020 10:15:44 +0000, John Williamson
> wrote:

>On 06/01/2020 08:25, Brian Gaff (Sofa 2) wrote:
>> I would have thought there was little danger of an issue. After all, the
>> file type has been around since the early 1990s to my knowledge and is
>> basically a pcm file. Other compressed formats can be used to hide things
>> in.
>> Brian
>>
>mp3 files contain metadata as well as audio, the metadata tags can be
>quite large and include items which can be used to conceal malware.

All formats contain metadata. And you can't necessarily determine a
file type from its suffix. WAV is a wrapper that can contain all
manner of audio. 16-bit PCM is just one of a lengthy list.

d

[Scott Dorsey]

John Williamson > wrote:
>On 06/01/2020 00:05, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>> Indeed. I know a lot of people still using XP to run Pro Tools, and it
>> isn't the most wonderful thing in the world but it's stable. Everyone I
>> know that tried Vista for studio applications very quickly went back to
>> XP. Thank God for Clonezilla!
>
>
>XP is fine as long as it has either no live internet connection or a
>decent security suite running, and as it has been going out of use, very
>few new exploits are about, as the return on writing them makes it not
>worth the effort.

I would never want a live internet connection to an editing workstation.
That's just asking for trouble. Stick it on a backend network with sftp
only if you must.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Jim Lesurf[_3_]]

In article >, John Williamson
> wrote:
> >
> High bit rate mp3 files are almost indistinguishable from PCM audio of
> the same bit depth and sample rate, even by professionals on decent
> playback systems.

Yes and no. :-)

e.g. Some years ago I got some 'AVRO' issued 256k mp3 files made using a
decent pro encoder. These were for one of the celebration events for the
Concergebauw or Haitink IIRC. In general, they sound quite good, albeit
that I have no source LPCM to compare with.

However in some quiet passages the result became quite 'ragged'. I finally
realised that the encoder judgement rule settings was treating a lot of the
low level detail as 'noise floor' simply because it wasn't fully taking
into account the overall low sound level.

So not all mp3 files are equal, even when at the same mp3 rate.

> I use them happily for playback when not listening critically. For
> critical work, then 24 bit uncompressed or losslessly compressed files
> are what is needed, and as I tend to be editing as well, that rules out
> native use of FLAC and similar codecs

As per earlier: Given the current cheapness and ubiquity of storage I long
ago decided there was no point in mp3. You can store quite a lot of flac
onto something like a >= 4TB NAS, or even onto a couple of >= 256 GB SD
card.

So to me nowdays, mp3 seems about as useful than making new 78 rpm discs
of shellac when you can choose alternatives.

Jim

--
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

[Jim Lesurf[_3_]]

In article >, Don Pearce
> wrote:

> All formats contain metadata. And you can't necessarily determine a file
> type from its suffix. WAV is a wrapper that can contain all manner of
> audio. 16-bit PCM is just one of a lengthy list.

Indeed. I'm not quite sure what most DAPs would make of, say, the
'broadcast' Wave files one of my old recorders makes. Not the usual sort of
'tagging' I suspect people have adopted for home audio. :-)

Jim

--
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

[[email protected]]

gray_wolf wrote:

>Sounds like a slow computer. Back in the old days my computer
>could take 2-3 minutes to open a average size mp3 in Cool edit Pro...

Re-read what I wrote: I mentioned one application(Windows Media Player), and
one format file(MP3). WMP has no problem opening WAV or other audio
formats quickly. Just mp3s.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 1/6/2020 10:28 AM, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> I'm not quite sure what most DAPs would make of, say, the
> 'broadcast' Wave files one of my old recorders makes. Not the usual sort of
> 'tagging' I suspect people have adopted for home audio

"Metadata" is the byword of the audio archiving community, and there are
a few emerging standards for filling out the available data fields in
the broadcast wave file format. The basic things that are important are
who the artist is, date of recording, and then they get into things that
involve who gets paid for using the audio. Any reasonable WAV player
that doesn't use the metadata should just ignore it, but modern day
programmers of applications that aren't dedicated audio players might
not know how to either accommodate or ignore tthe BWF chunk.

--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[John Williamson]

On 06/01/2020 15:26, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article >, John Williamson
> > wrote:
>>>
>> High bit rate mp3 files are almost indistinguishable from PCM audio of
>> the same bit depth and sample rate, even by professionals on decent
>> playback systems.
>
> Yes and no. :-)
>
> e.g. Some years ago I got some 'AVRO' issued 256k mp3 files made using a
> decent pro encoder. These were for one of the celebration events for the
> Concergebauw or Haitink IIRC. In general, they sound quite good, albeit
> that I have no source LPCM to compare with.
>
I did a few experiments with recordings I had made, starting with 24 bit
PCM, and working down the quality range, and most listeners didn't
notice until I got down to 128 kbps mp3 files.

What did amuse me was an expressed preference by some listeners for the
128 kbs mp3 versions.

Admitted, the band concerned were playing 60s covers and I did take some
care with the settings, but still....
--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Woody[_7_]]

On Tue 07/01/2020 13:58, John Williamson wrote:
> On 06/01/2020 15:26, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>> In article >, John Williamson
>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>> High bit rate mp3 files are almost indistinguishable from PCM audio of
>>> the same bit depth and sample rate, even by professionals on decent
>>> playback systems.
>>
>> Yes and no. :-)
>>
>> e.g. Some years ago I got some 'AVRO' issued 256k mp3 files made using a
>> decent pro encoder. These were for one of the celebration events for the
>> Concergebauw or Haitink IIRC. In general, they sound quite good, albeit
>> that I have no source LPCM to compare with.
>>
> I did a few experiments with recordings I had made, starting with 24 bit
> PCM, and working down the quality range, and most listeners didn't
> notice until I got down to 128 kbps mp3 files.
>
> What did amuse me was an expressed preference by some listeners for the
> 128 kbs mp3 versions.
>
> Admitted, the band concerned were playing 60s covers and I did take some
> care with the settings, but still....

I did similar. I downloaded a recording from Linn Records in flac, m4a,
and mp3. Playing one after another on decent kit and also headphones
there was very little noticable difference between flac and m4a, but
there was a quite sharp drop in HF details with mp3.

--
Woody

harrogate three at ntlworld dot com

[Scott Dorsey]

Jim Lesurf > wrote:
>In article >, John Williamson
>
>e.g. Some years ago I got some 'AVRO' issued 256k mp3 files made using a
>decent pro encoder. These were for one of the celebration events for the
>Concergebauw or Haitink IIRC. In general, they sound quite good, albeit
>that I have no source LPCM to compare with.
>
>However in some quiet passages the result became quite 'ragged'. I finally
>realised that the encoder judgement rule settings was treating a lot of the
>low level detail as 'noise floor' simply because it wasn't fully taking
>into account the overall low sound level.

This is adjustable! You can set some of those thresholds down manually
when necessary.. And yes, for classical music it's necessary.

>So not all mp3 files are equal, even when at the same mp3 rate.

This is why we pay mastering engineers. It's just like cutting LPs, you are
trying to pack 10 gallons of music in a 5 gallon container. Something has to
be thrown away. It's better for a person with ears to help make the decision
about what instead of letting the computer do it.
--scott

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

[[email protected]]

>
> What I'd like to know is why, when I double click MP3 files of songs in Windows
> Vista to play them in Windows Media Player, it takes 3-5min. to start playing?
>
>

Actually I have a similar problem. But it is only the FIRST time try to play an MP3 since the machine was booted. I usually just close media player and start again after 20 seconds. The second time and all times after that it starts to play immediately. I assumed it was some DRM thing.


I prefer the old version of media player because the WAVES / MIST visualization is actually a usable spectrum analyzer that I sometimes look at while casual listening. It can show problems that are outside my hearing range.

Mark

[[email protected]]

mako Mark:

Yes, that first time delay is similar to mine. Subsequent mp3s play faster, still not as fast as other formats.

[Jim Lesurf[_3_]]

In article >, John Williamson
> wrote:
> I did a few experiments with recordings I had made, starting with 24 bit
> PCM, and working down the quality range, and most listeners didn't
> notice until I got down to 128 kbps mp3 files.

> What did amuse me was an expressed preference by some listeners for the
> 128 kbs mp3 versions.

> Admitted, the band concerned were playing 60s covers and I did take some
> care with the settings, but still....

IIRC I read similar reports some years ago somewhere like in JAES. Perhaps
due to becoming habituated to the sound of 'popular' music via mp3. So in
effect, coming to regard the alterations as a 'part of the music'.

I got a similar impression some years ago wrt peak compression on R3 FM
which seemed to make something like a piano sound 'warmer' with more
sustain than via iplayer.

Jim

--
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

[Jim Lesurf[_3_]]

In article >, Scott Dorsey
> wrote:
> >However in some quiet passages the result became quite 'ragged'. I
> >finally realised that the encoder judgement rule settings was treating
> >a lot of the low level detail as 'noise floor' simply because it wasn't
> >fully taking into account the overall low sound level.

> This is adjustable! You can set some of those thresholds down manually
> when necessary.. And yes, for classical music it's necessary.

Understood and agreed. The surprise was that it actually was allowed to
happen when the encoding was being done by professionals.

> >So not all mp3 files are equal, even when at the same mp3 rate.

> This is why we pay mastering engineers. It's just like cutting LPs, you
> are trying to pack 10 gallons of music in a 5 gallon container.
> Something has to be thrown away. It's better for a person with ears to
> help make the decision about what instead of letting the computer do it.
> --scott

Again, agreed. But again, a reason why some LPs sound rather poorer than
others, even when coming from professionals.

The advantage of LPCM -> flac is that no such judgements are needed.

Jim

--
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

[[email protected]]

Jim Lesurf wrote:
>IIRC I read similar reports some years ago somewhere like in JAES. Perhaps
>due to becoming habituated to the sound of 'popular' music via mp3. So in
>effect, coming to regard the alterations as a 'part of the music'.
>
>I got a similar impression some years ago wrt peak compression on R3 FM
>which seemed to make something like a piano sound 'warmer' with more
>sustain than via iplayer.


Just remember that the MP3 format does not, in any audible way, affect dynamic range compression or
loudness processing. Two factors led to that mass public mis-perception:

1. The timing of MP3 becoming a viable consumer digital format coinciding with the advent of the
digital-era Loudness Wars.

2. That digital audio as a subject itself contains many words with two meanings. IE 'compression'. It is
both something done to level differences in music, and, is a convenient term for the data-reduction
performed in the creation of lossy formats such as MP3.

[[email protected]]

Jim Lesurf:

To follow up:

So what youngsters are showing preference for is not the "sound of MP3",
but the sound of music, and of certain instruments, as modern mastering
techniques make them sound.

[Tobiah]

On 1/8/20 8:53 AM, wrote:
> Jim Lesurf wrote:
>> IIRC I read similar reports some years ago somewhere like in JAES. Perhaps
>> due to becoming habituated to the sound of 'popular' music via mp3. So in
>> effect, coming to regard the alterations as a 'part of the music'.
>>
>> I got a similar impression some years ago wrt peak compression on R3 FM
>> which seemed to make something like a piano sound 'warmer' with more
>> sustain than via iplayer.
>
>
> Just remember that the MP3 format does not, in any audible way, affect dynamic range compression or
> loudness processing. Two factors led to that mass public mis-perception:
>
> 1. The timing of MP3 becoming a viable consumer digital format coinciding with the advent of the
> digital-era Loudness Wars.
>
> 2. That digital audio as a subject itself contains many words with two meanings. IE 'compression'. It is
> both something done to level differences in music, and, is a convenient term for the data-reduction
> performed in the creation of lossy formats such as MP3.

Great points.

[John Williamson]

On 08/01/2020 17:00, wrote:
> Jim Lesurf:
>
> To follow up:
>
> So what youngsters are showing preference for is not the "sound of MP3",
> but the sound of music, and of certain instruments, as modern mastering
> techniques make them sound.
>
In the case if my experiment, the only processing done to the files was
to alter the file format.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Trevor]

On 8/01/2020 4:04 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:

> Again, agreed. But again, a reason why some LPs sound rather poorer than
> others, even when coming from professionals.

So you are saying not all professionals are equal. What a radical
thought! :-) :-)

[Jim Lesurf[_3_]]

In article >, Trevor > wrote:
> On 8/01/2020 4:04 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:

> > Again, agreed. But again, a reason why some LPs sound rather poorer
> > than others, even when coming from professionals.

> So you are saying not all professionals are equal. What a radical
> thought! :-) :-)

Well, I've only ever been a 'professional' wrt the 'user end' of the flow.
Thus I can only judge those 'upstream' on the diversity of the results we
get. :-)

Jim

--
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 3 Jan 2020 17:05:03 -0500, Mike Rivers >
wrote:

>On 1/3/2020 4:05 PM, wrote:
>> I want to convert this to an MP3 file.
>>
>> Please tell me what settings I should use for the MP3 file, eg; MP3
>> Fraunhofer IIS MPEG Layer-3 Codec (professional), attributes eg 128
>> kbit/sec, 48.000 Hz, Mono
>
>If you take Don's advice to use the defaults (and his advice is
>perfectly reasonable) you'll likely end up with a stereo file with the
>same audio on both channels. There's nothing wrong with that other than
>that the file is twice as big as it needs to be. So if you want a mono
>MP3 file, you'll need to find the setting for it.

Where can I find the authentic site for Razor LAME?

A couple of sites which Google threw up are;

https://www.free-codecs.com/download/razorlame.htm

https://lame.sourceforge.io/


What is the main development / release / distribution site for Razor
LAME? Is there some other LAME package which I should use instead of
Razor?

Thank you.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Tue, 07 Jan 2020 17:04:46 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
> wrote:

>In article >, Scott Dorsey
> wrote:
>> >However in some quiet passages the result became quite 'ragged'. I
>> >finally realised that the encoder judgement rule settings was treating
>> >a lot of the low level detail as 'noise floor' simply because it wasn't
>> >fully taking into account the overall low sound level.
>
>> This is adjustable! You can set some of those thresholds down manually
>> when necessary.. And yes, for classical music it's necessary.
>
>Understood and agreed. The surprise was that it actually was allowed to
>happen when the encoding was being done by professionals.
>
>> >So not all mp3 files are equal, even when at the same mp3 rate.
>
>> This is why we pay mastering engineers. It's just like cutting LPs, you
>> are trying to pack 10 gallons of music in a 5 gallon container.
>> Something has to be thrown away. It's better for a person with ears to
>> help make the decision about what instead of letting the computer do it.
>> --scott
>
>Again, agreed. But again, a reason why some LPs sound rather poorer than
>others, even when coming from professionals.
>
>The advantage of LPCM -> flac is that no such judgements are needed.
>
>Jim

Well, I've just been having fun with MP3s. I drive a lot, so I keep
myself occupied with audio books. In my new car I found that some
played and others wouldn't. Long story short - there was a maximum
amount of metadata my car player could deal with before it could no
longer read the file. So I just re-recorded everything minus metadata.

And - almost forgot - this only applied to sticks in the USB socket.
MP3s on CD ROM play with all the metadata present.

d

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 1/11/2020 1:56 AM, wrote:
> Where can I find the authentic site for Razor LAME?

> https://lame.sourceforge.io/
>
>
> What is the main development / release / distribution site for Razor
> LAME? Is there some other LAME package which I should use instead of
> Razor?

Sourceforge is the official LAME development and support web site. If
you get the encoder there, you'll be getting the genuine article. The
basic LAME encoder can be run from a command line, but it's really
intended to be used with some other supporting application like Audacity
(which is a full out audio recorder and editor).

Razor is a graphic front end for LAME so you don't need to install
another program if you just want to encode files that you have on your
computer. It uses the genuine LAME encoder code, so the encoded quality
will be the same as any other program that uses LAME. If you're
concerned about the "legitimacy" of the download site, you're probably
safe with the link from the Sourceforge web site:

http://www.dors.de/razorlame/index.php

WinLame is another GUI front end for LAME from the Sourceforge group:

https://winlame.sourceforge.io/

[Phil W]

2020-01-11 /10:56 :

> Where can I find the authentic site for Razor LAME?
>
> A couple of sites which Google threw up are;
>
> https://www.free-codecs.com/download/razorlame.htm
>
> https://lame.sourceforge.io/
>
>
> What is the main development / release / distribution site for Razor
> LAME? Is there some other LAME package which I should use instead of
> Razor?
>
> Thank you.

The Sourceforge project page seems to be as official as it gets - BUT it
is rather intended for programmers, who want to compile the *source
code* themselves.
Yes, there´s a .bat file included in the .tar.gz to encode from, but
there are more comfortable ways to use the LAME codec.

https://lame.sourceforge.io/links.php
lists quite a few programs for various OS, which use the LAME codec -
just assume, they didn´t change anything in the actual codec code...

My suggestion is still the same as 1 week ago:
get "LameDropXPd", as it is IMHO the easiest and quickest method to
encode LAME MP3 files under Windows
- it has the latest LAME version
- is freeware (and absoluteley harmless)
- just works as expected
- it can even batch encode multiple file you drop on its window, at once
or after each other, while another file is being processed.
- does NOT require installation or does anything to Windows´ registry

After 15+ years of use, I have not yet encountered a situation, where
the resulting files could not be played, so it should be safe enough for
creating MP3 files to embed in HTML pages and compatible to most systems.

Just set all options to maximum quality and Constant Bit Rate and
everything should be fine - if you want samller file size, reduce
encoding quality, until there is an acceptable ratio between sound
quality and file size.

If you insist on using "dead" (as in no official website or development
anymore) software llike RazorLame, that´s your choice. For myself, I
would rather use software like Lamedrop, which at least gets updated
every few months or years, shortly after a new version of the Lame codec
is released - and also puts only 2 files on my computer rather than a
whole folder.


just go ahead, try it and hopefully be happy with it and get the actual
job done! ;-)


Phil

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 06:43:05 -0800, Mike Rivers >
wrote:

>On 1/11/2020 1:56 AM, wrote:
>> Where can I find the authentic site for Razor LAME?
>
>> https://lame.sourceforge.io/
>>
>>
>> What is the main development / release / distribution site for Razor
>> LAME? Is there some other LAME package which I should use instead of
>> Razor?
>
>Sourceforge is the official LAME development and support web site. If
>you get the encoder there, you'll be getting the genuine article. The
>basic LAME encoder can be run from a command line, but it's really
>intended to be used with some other supporting application like Audacity
>(which is a full out audio recorder and editor).
>
>Razor is a graphic front end for LAME so you don't need to install
>another program if you just want to encode files that you have on your
>computer. It uses the genuine LAME encoder code, so the encoded quality
>will be the same as any other program that uses LAME. If you're
>concerned about the "legitimacy" of the download site, you're probably
>safe with the link from the Sourceforge web site:
>
>http://www.dors.de/razorlame/index.php

I looked at;

http://www.dors.de/razorlame/index.php

and the website is empty. All it says is;

"Not much here, I'm afraid!"

I have previously used Razor LAME 1.1.5, dated 2003. I would like to
upgrade to the latest version. I prefer to use Razor LAME because I've
already used the product and am comfortable with it.

If there is no authentic site for Razor, which website could I trust
for an app to run safely on my PC?

[Scott Dorsey]

Jim Lesurf > wrote:
>In article >, Scott Dorsey
>> This is why we pay mastering engineers. It's just like cutting LPs, you
>> are trying to pack 10 gallons of music in a 5 gallon container.
>> Something has to be thrown away. It's better for a person with ears to
>> help make the decision about what instead of letting the computer do it.
>
>Again, agreed. But again, a reason why some LPs sound rather poorer than
>others, even when coming from professionals.

When I was starting out, I was cutting 45s... and I was cutting 25 to 30
sides a day... so you can believe that not a lot of care and attention was
being paid on each one. With something like lacquer cutting where you
really are having to make real compromises, it matters a lot about how
much time and care and listening is done. Professionals are sometimes
too expensive to have the time to do it right.

>The advantage of LPCM -> flac is that no such judgements are needed.

I don't really see a need for flac. For local storage, disks have become
so incredibly cheap that just keeping everything around as PCM files is
no problem. On the other hand, if you want to stream over the network,
nobody has clients to stream flac and you are stuck using the formats
that people can read (namely MP3 and RA).
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

> wrote:
>Where can I find the authentic site for Razor LAME?
>
>A couple of sites which Google threw up are;
>
>https://www.free-codecs.com/download/razorlame.htm
>
>https://lame.sourceforge.io/

The definitive site is going to be sourceforge, but likely you just want a
quick binary distribution. The sourceforge site will probably tell you
where you can get such a thing.

That said, the LAME encoder is integrated into so many pieces of software
out there that there is seldom a real need to use the standalone one. If
you have the latest release of Audacity there's already a LAME encoder
part of it.
--scott

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

[Jim Lesurf[_3_]]

In article >, Scott Dorsey
> wrote:
> >The advantage of LPCM -> flac is that no such judgements are needed.

> I don't really see a need for flac. For local storage, disks have
> become so incredibly cheap that just keeping everything around as PCM
> files is no problem. On the other hand, if you want to stream over the
> network, nobody has clients to stream flac and you are stuck using the
> formats that people can read (namely MP3 and RA).

Well, as a domestic user I find that my NAS is well over half full even
using flac (and aac for BBC material). And flac also helps when I use a DAP
that only has a couple of mini sd cards[1]. So it seems useful for me. No
doubt my next NAS will be larger... :-)

If I were working in a professional context, I'd probably agree with you,
though.

I 'stream' over my network using a net filing system. Works fine with the
players, etc, on all my Linux and RISC OS boxes. IIUC No need for a media
'client' in the sense you give above, just 'everything is a file'. :-) I'd
probably do the same in a pro situation *if* that was convenient. But
presume this would depend on the context of who else was doing what, and
what others required, etc.

However as per my earlier comment, apart from a few years designing home
audio equipment, my interest tends to be home/domestic audio.

Jim

[1] IIRC one card c400GB and the other 256GB.

--
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

[[email protected]]

>>For everyone else, you can download from;
>>
>>http://www.c-compiler.com/myfiles/stgeorges-201219.WAV


I have converted this file to MP3.

Please listen to;

http://www.c-compiler.com/myfiles/x.mp3


Please telll me if the audio is as clear as with the WAV. I think it
is, but I would like to be re-assured.

[[email protected]]

Was this recorded during recent events in Iraq & Iran??

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 16:05:39 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

>Was this recorded during recent events in Iraq & Iran??

No.

[geoff]

On 13/01/2020 1:13 pm, wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 16:05:39 -0800 (PST),
> wrote:
>
>> Was this recorded during recent events in Iraq & Iran??
>
> No.
>

Is this short collection of odd noises what you intended to show us ?

And the 'Wav' link doesn't work.

geoff

[Andy Burns[_2_]]

wrote:

> http://www.c-compiler.com/myfiles/x.mp3
>
> Please telll me if the audio is as clear as with the WAV. I think it
> is, but I would like to be re-assured.

Based purely on the audio content, I was going to write
"YAmikecorleyAICM£5" then I noticed the domain name :-)

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 13:33:12 +1300, geoff >
wrote:

>Is this short collection of odd noises what you intended to show us ?
>
>And the 'Wav' link doesn't work.
>
>geoff

try http://www.c-compiler.com/myfiles/stgeorges-201219.WAV

if that doesn't work, try

http://www.c-compiler.com/myfiles/stgeorges-201219.wav

both work for me, but your browser may behave differently

[[email protected]]

invalid wrote:

On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 13:33:12 +1300, geoff >
wrote:

>>Is this short collection of odd noises what you intended to show us ?
>>
>>And the 'Wav' link doesn't work.
>>
>>geoff

>try http://www.c-compiler.com/myfiles/stgeorges-201219.WAV
>
>if that doesn't work, try
>
>http://www.c-compiler.com/myfiles/stgeorges-201219.wav
>
>both work for me, but your browser may behave differently

On my tablet, upper link works, bottom one doesn't. Strange: only difference between
the two is caps or lower case 'wav'!

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 04:01:00 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

>invalid wrote:
>
>On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 13:33:12 +1300, geoff >
>wrote:
>
>>>Is this short collection of odd noises what you intended to show us ?
>>>
>>>And the 'Wav' link doesn't work.
>>>
>>>geoff
>
>>try http://www.c-compiler.com/myfiles/stgeorges-201219.WAV
>>
>>if that doesn't work, try
>>
>>http://www.c-compiler.com/myfiles/stgeorges-201219.wav
>>
>>both work for me, but your browser may behave differently
>
>On my tablet, upper link works, bottom one doesn't. Strange: only difference between
>the two is caps or lower case 'wav'!

The system is case-sensitive.

d

[John Williamson]

On 13/01/2020 12:17, Don Pearce wrote:

> The system is case-sensitive.
>
> d
>
I get a zero length video on the first URL, and a 404 error on the second.

Iron browser, Windows 10, plenty of RAM and HD space.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[John Williamson]

On 13/01/2020 12:28, John Williamson wrote:
> On 13/01/2020 12:17, Don Pearce wrote:
>
>> The system is case-sensitive.
>>
>> d
>>
> I get a zero length video on the first URL, and a 404 error on the second.
>
> Iron browser, Windows 10, plenty of RAM and HD space.
>
This may be the problem here. "Inspect element" shows this

<video controls="" autoplay="" name="media"><source
src="http://www.c-compiler.com/myfiles/stgeorges-201219.WAV"
type="audio/x-wav"></video>

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 12:28:54 +0000, John Williamson
> wrote:

>On 13/01/2020 12:17, Don Pearce wrote:
>
>> The system is case-sensitive.
>>
>> d
>>
>I get a zero length video on the first URL, and a 404 error on the second.
>
>Iron browser, Windows 10, plenty of RAM and HD space.

First one plays fine for me - the link drops it into Windows Media
Player

d

[[email protected]]

John Williamson:

So 'capital WAV' link, according to inspection, telling players it's a video when it's not! smh

[None]

theckmah blurted:

> smh

"smh"?

[geoff]

On 14/01/2020 1:01 am, wrote:
> invalid wrote:
>
> On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 13:33:12 +1300, geoff >
> wrote:
>
>>> Is this short collection of odd noises what you intended to show us ?
>>>
>>> And the 'Wav' link doesn't work.
>>>
>>> geoff
>
>> try http://www.c-compiler.com/myfiles/stgeorges-201219.WAV
>>
>> if that doesn't work, try
>>
>> http://www.c-compiler.com/myfiles/stgeorges-201219.wav
>>
>> both work for me, but your browser may behave differently
>
> On my tablet, upper link works, bottom one doesn't. Strange: only difference between
> the two is caps or lower case 'wav'!
>
OK Upper one works for me, but have to download - won't play on the
website in Chrome.

But HTF are we supposed to judge anything in a qualitative way with that
bizarre collection of noises ?

And yes, I do hear some difference even on my mid-fi computer speakers.

geoff