[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

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

[Phil W]

2020-02-23 / 20:25 lid spammed once again:
On Sun, 23 Feb 2020 11:09:41 +1300, geoff
wrote:

On 23/02/2020 6:45 am, lid wrote:

I am looking for one or two more opinions as to whether the source WAV
file and destination MP3 file are similar to the ear. You might try
listening through earphones, for better clarity.

Sorry to keep harping on about this, but I am trying to obtain
re-assurance that the conversion to MP3 gives a file which is
effectively the same to the ear as the source WAV.

For **** sake ! The files are effectively the same.

Thank you for confirming my opinion, that the source WAV and target
MP3 sound exactly the same to my untrained ear.

Regarding the conversion parameters. When I use Total Recorder to open
the WAV file, and save to MP3, the parameters of the created MP3 file
are obtained from the parameters of the WAV file. So if the source WAV
has sample rate 48 KHz and bit rate 192 Kbps, the default for the
created MP3 file will also be sample rate 48 KHz and bit rate 192
Kbps.

A small amount of logical thinking might lead to the following:
if the SOURCE file was encoded with 192 kbps, then decoded and encoded a
second time, why shouldn´t you try to keep conversion artifacts to the
least possible minimum???
So, just like I suggested already several times and you still keep ignoring:
go for the highest possible MP3 bitrate (= 320 kbps CBR) for the least
amount of audio quality loss. Yes, it might be more than necessary, but
there is nood to worry, that it might have come out better. Yes, the
resulting MP3 file gets bigger with higher bitrate. BUT with such a tiny
source WAV, the resulting MP3 will still be tiny enough to embed it on a
webpage.

Can it be so complicated to understand this???

[[email protected]]

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!

[John Williamson]

On 24/02/2020 12:11, wrote:
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!

Which is how he makes most of his recordings.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[[email protected]]

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.