Quantcast

Alternatives to LAME mp3 encoder

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
40 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Alternatives to LAME mp3 encoder

jklarl
Hello Audacity people,

I'm looking for an alternative to the LAME mp3 encoder to use with Audacity if one exists.  Which one do you recommend?  Thanks in advance...

Jason Klarl

Travel Media Producer

Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. —Mark Twain


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
*********** ASKING FOR HELP *************

When asking for help on this list, please include the following information, so we can
help you properly:

* What operating system you are using (for example, Windows XP or Mac OS X 10.5.1)  

* Exactly what three digit version number of Audacity you are using (Help > About
   Audacity, or Audacity >  About Audacity on a Mac computer)  

* If this is a recording problem, what equipment you are recording with, and how is it
   connected to the computer?

Mailing list: [hidden email]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, use the form at the bottom of this web page:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Alternatives to LAME mp3 encoder

stan-7
On Sun, 05 Mar 2017 14:50:46 -0400
jklarl <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I'm looking for an alternative to the LAME mp3 encoder to use with
> Audacity if one exists.  Which one do you recommend?  Thanks in
> advance...

I don't know if it will work with audacity, but fluendo sells codec
packages.

http://www.fluendo.com/en/products/enterprise/fluendo-codec-pack/

The mpg patents, including mp3, are almost all expired.  There is
one left that will expire in early 2018.  At that point, if mpg is
still relevant, other people will probably develop open source mp3
encoders and decoders.

I think the only open source options at this point are lame and libmad.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
*********** ASKING FOR HELP *************

When asking for help on this list, please include the following information, so we can
help you properly:

* What operating system you are using (for example, Windows XP or Mac OS X 10.5.1)  

* Exactly what three digit version number of Audacity you are using (Help > About
   Audacity, or Audacity >  About Audacity on a Mac computer)  

* If this is a recording problem, what equipment you are recording with, and how is it
   connected to the computer?

Mailing list: [hidden email]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, use the form at the bottom of this web page:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Alternatives to LAME mp3 encoder

Clyde Lyman
With the vast amounts of memory we have today, why bother with lossy files at all unless it's to keep continuity with other elements of a collection? I picked up a 400+ GB SDXC Class 10 card about a year ago What I'm more interested in a way to extract audio from a vid without having to go through hoops as with VLC and don't even talk about Freemake, they've become the Amazon of crapware - and worse; addons (pity; they were pretty good)



From: stan <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Sunday, March 5, 2017 2:55 PM
Subject: Re: [Audacity-users] Alternatives to LAME mp3 encoder

On Sun, 05 Mar 2017 14:50:46 -0400
jklarl <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I'm looking for an alternative to the LAME mp3 encoder to use with
> Audacity if one exists.  Which one do you recommend?  Thanks in
> advance...

I don't know if it will work with audacity, but fluendo sells codec
packages.

http://www.fluendo.com/en/products/enterprise/fluendo-codec-pack/

The mpg patents, including mp3, are almost all expired.  There is
one left that will expire in early 2018.  At that point, if mpg is
still relevant, other people will probably develop open source mp3
encoders and decoders.

I think the only open source options at this point are lame and libmad.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
*********** ASKING FOR HELP *************

When asking for help on this list, please include the following information, so we can
help you properly:

* What operating system you are using (for example, Windows XP or Mac OS X 10.5.1) 

* Exactly what three digit version number of Audacity you are using (Help > About
  Audacity, or Audacity >  About Audacity on a Mac computer) 

* If this is a recording problem, what equipment you are recording with, and how is it
  connected to the computer?

Mailing list: [hidden email]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, use the form at the bottom of this web page:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-users



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
*********** ASKING FOR HELP *************

When asking for help on this list, please include the following information, so we can
help you properly:

* What operating system you are using (for example, Windows XP or Mac OS X 10.5.1)  

* Exactly what three digit version number of Audacity you are using (Help > About
   Audacity, or Audacity >  About Audacity on a Mac computer)  

* If this is a recording problem, what equipment you are recording with, and how is it
   connected to the computer?

Mailing list: [hidden email]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, use the form at the bottom of this web page:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Why bother with lossy encoding?

J.B. Nicholson-Owens
Clyde Lyman wrote:
> With the vast amounts of memory we have today, why bother with lossy
> files at all unless it's to keep continuity with other elements of a
> collection?

I'm not sure what "continuity with other elements of a collection" means.

Lossy encoding is useful for:

- delivering multimedia over slow links or to low-end computers (mobile
phones, tablets, some laptops, toys). Even YouTube finds it useful to
encode a lot of audio as Opus and a lot of video with VP9 nowadays.

- embedded players that don't handle lossless encoding (some cars and some
portable playing devices don't support FLAC, WAV, or AIFF files, for example)

- maximizing use of (as you point out) inexpensive storage. If I can't tell
the difference between a high-quality Opus encoding over the same audio
ripped from an ordinary Red Book audio CD and encoded as a FLAC (which is
lossless), I might choose to keep the Opus file because it uses
significantly less space and works with every computer program I use for
playback. Thus my casual listening needs are met and I get to store a lot
more audio.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
*********** ASKING FOR HELP *************

When asking for help on this list, please include the following information, so we can
help you properly:

* What operating system you are using (for example, Windows XP or Mac OS X 10.5.1)  

* Exactly what three digit version number of Audacity you are using (Help > About
   Audacity, or Audacity >  About Audacity on a Mac computer)  

* If this is a recording problem, what equipment you are recording with, and how is it
   connected to the computer?

Mailing list: [hidden email]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, use the form at the bottom of this web page:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Why bother with lossy encoding?

Clyde Lyman
By "Continuity with the rest of the collection" I meant something like the following. I have 15\00+ mp3's, having started my collection in the days when an 8GB card was huge. It could make no sense to now put WAV's in that group. There are those who say that the difference between mp3 and loosless files is noticeable. so anything I add to that group will be an mp3

I can think of one more place where mp3 would be useful. The old GEM Genisys keyboard could play mp3's as samples for it synth. Now, an mp3 CD/DVD can hold way more samples than using the WAV/CDA files

Are there actually players that won't play at least FLAC (which is a compressed file if I understand correctly)



From: J.B. Nicholson <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Sunday, March 5, 2017 5:36 PM
Subject: [Audacity-users] Why bother with lossy encoding?

Clyde Lyman wrote:
> With the vast amounts of memory we have today, why bother with lossy
> files at all unless it's to keep continuity with other elements of a
> collection?

I'm not sure what "continuity with other elements of a collection" means.

Lossy encoding is useful for:

- delivering multimedia over slow links or to low-end computers (mobile
phones, tablets, some laptops, toys). Even YouTube finds it useful to
encode a lot of audio as Opus and a lot of video with VP9 nowadays.

- embedded players that don't handle lossless encoding (some cars and some
portable playing devices don't support FLAC, WAV, or AIFF files, for example)

- maximizing use of (as you point out) inexpensive storage. If I can't tell
the difference between a high-quality Opus encoding over the same audio
ripped from an ordinary Red Book audio CD and encoded as a FLAC (which is
lossless), I might choose to keep the Opus file because it uses
significantly less space and works with every computer program I use for
playback. Thus my casual listening needs are met and I get to store a lot
more audio.



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
*********** ASKING FOR HELP *************

When asking for help on this list, please include the following information, so we can
help you properly:

* What operating system you are using (for example, Windows XP or Mac OS X 10.5.1) 

* Exactly what three digit version number of Audacity you are using (Help > About
  Audacity, or Audacity >  About Audacity on a Mac computer) 

* If this is a recording problem, what equipment you are recording with, and how is it
  connected to the computer?

Mailing list: [hidden email]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, use the form at the bottom of this web page:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-users



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Announcing the Oxford Dictionaries API! The API offers world-renowned
dictionary content that is easy and intuitive to access. Sign up for an
account today to start using our lexical data to power your apps and
projects. Get started today and enter our developer competition.
http://sdm.link/oxford
*********** ASKING FOR HELP *************

When asking for help on this list, please include the following information, so we can
help you properly:

* What operating system you are using (for example, Windows XP or Mac OS X 10.5.1)  

* Exactly what three digit version number of Audacity you are using (Help > About
   Audacity, or Audacity >  About Audacity on a Mac computer)  

* If this is a recording problem, what equipment you are recording with, and how is it
   connected to the computer?

Mailing list: [hidden email]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, use the form at the bottom of this web page:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Alternatives to LAME mp3 encoder

Gale
Administrator
In reply to this post by stan-7
Libmad is a decoder, not encoder.

Audacity can only use LAME, unless you export using (external program),
which means typing out commands.


Gale


On 5 March 2017 at 19:55, stan <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sun, 05 Mar 2017 14:50:46 -0400
> jklarl <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> I'm looking for an alternative to the LAME mp3 encoder to use with
>> Audacity if one exists.  Which one do you recommend?  Thanks in
>> advance...
>
> I don't know if it will work with audacity, but fluendo sells codec
> packages.
>
> http://www.fluendo.com/en/products/enterprise/fluendo-codec-pack/
>
> The mpg patents, including mp3, are almost all expired.  There is
> one left that will expire in early 2018.  At that point, if mpg is
> still relevant, other people will probably develop open source mp3
> encoders and decoders.
>
> I think the only open source options at this point are lame and libmad.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> *********** ASKING FOR HELP *************
>
> When asking for help on this list, please include the following information, so we can
> help you properly:
>
> * What operating system you are using (for example, Windows XP or Mac OS X 10.5.1)
>
> * Exactly what three digit version number of Audacity you are using (Help > About
>    Audacity, or Audacity >  About Audacity on a Mac computer)
>
> * If this is a recording problem, what equipment you are recording with, and how is it
>    connected to the computer?
>
> Mailing list: [hidden email]
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, use the form at the bottom of this web page:
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-users

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Announcing the Oxford Dictionaries API! The API offers world-renowned
dictionary content that is easy and intuitive to access. Sign up for an
account today to start using our lexical data to power your apps and
projects. Get started today and enter our developer competition.
http://sdm.link/oxford
*********** ASKING FOR HELP *************

When asking for help on this list, please include the following information, so we can
help you properly:

* What operating system you are using (for example, Windows XP or Mac OS X 10.5.1)  

* Exactly what three digit version number of Audacity you are using (Help > About
   Audacity, or Audacity >  About Audacity on a Mac computer)  

* If this is a recording problem, what equipment you are recording with, and how is it
   connected to the computer?

Mailing list: [hidden email]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, use the form at the bottom of this web page:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Why bother with lossy encoding?

Bob Cavanaugh
In reply to this post by J.B. Nicholson-Owens
>From what I understand, wav files sound great on the air, so radio stations
use them. That being said, the processing used by the station, combined with
the nature of fm radio means that by the time I record it, I'm not going to
be able to tell the difference between a wav file and an mp3 file. As has
been pointed out before, why take up so much space on your hard drive with
wav files when the same amount of audio can be used in half the space? My
aircheck collection is about 3 gb, most of which is 128 kbps mp3 files.
Imagine how much that would be in wav files.

-----Original Message-----
From: J.B. Nicholson [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2017 2:36 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [Audacity-users] Why bother with lossy encoding?

Clyde Lyman wrote:
> With the vast amounts of memory we have today, why bother with lossy
> files at all unless it's to keep continuity with other elements of a
> collection?

I'm not sure what "continuity with other elements of a collection" means.

Lossy encoding is useful for:

- delivering multimedia over slow links or to low-end computers (mobile
phones, tablets, some laptops, toys). Even YouTube finds it useful to encode
a lot of audio as Opus and a lot of video with VP9 nowadays.

- embedded players that don't handle lossless encoding (some cars and some
portable playing devices don't support FLAC, WAV, or AIFF files, for
example)

- maximizing use of (as you point out) inexpensive storage. If I can't tell
the difference between a high-quality Opus encoding over the same audio
ripped from an ordinary Red Book audio CD and encoded as a FLAC (which is
lossless), I might choose to keep the Opus file because it uses
significantly less space and works with every computer program I use for
playback. Thus my casual listening needs are met and I get to store a lot
more audio.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging
tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
*********** ASKING FOR HELP *************

When asking for help on this list, please include the following information,
so we can help you properly:

* What operating system you are using (for example, Windows XP or Mac OS X
10.5.1)  

* Exactly what three digit version number of Audacity you are using (Help >
About
   Audacity, or Audacity >  About Audacity on a Mac computer)  

* If this is a recording problem, what equipment you are recording with, and
how is it
   connected to the computer?

Mailing list: [hidden email]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, use the form at the bottom of this web page:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-users


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Announcing the Oxford Dictionaries API! The API offers world-renowned
dictionary content that is easy and intuitive to access. Sign up for an
account today to start using our lexical data to power your apps and
projects. Get started today and enter our developer competition.
http://sdm.link/oxford
*********** ASKING FOR HELP *************

When asking for help on this list, please include the following information, so we can
help you properly:

* What operating system you are using (for example, Windows XP or Mac OS X 10.5.1)  

* Exactly what three digit version number of Audacity you are using (Help > About
   Audacity, or Audacity >  About Audacity on a Mac computer)  

* If this is a recording problem, what equipment you are recording with, and how is it
   connected to the computer?

Mailing list: [hidden email]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, use the form at the bottom of this web page:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Why bother with lossy encoding?

Clyde Lyman
I poked around and found that mp3's at 128kbps sound like radio and 160kbps sound like CD. Now if that's true then even in the 1970's you could get an astonishing amount of fidelity out of radios, especially classical stations. My stereo has a Realistic Accurion sub, some speakers that I picked up at a thrift store and Realistic horns that kick in at 2,000 and go up to 25,000, up until about 27 years ago, certain cash register aisles kicked out a sound that, in freq and volume went righ through me that nobody else coud detect. When I was audio tested in 1973, I was told I was losing some of my upper frequency hearing and when I got a bit nervous the guy said not to worry, ti was in the 48,000cps area and later on in the 1970's a friend of mine was told the same. If those bitrates are ture, I wonder what the 320 kbps is used for

Also, from what I understand, do the 96k and beyond sample rate and 32 bit depth recording settings really accomplish anythinhg? I have the previous incarnation of the M-Audio M-track plus and it maxes at 48k and 24 bits. Even then, the DAW has to step it down to 44k/16 bits which appears to be the same as 160kbps mp3

I mentioned that GEM Genesys as being able to use mp3 samples, also can most sfz players

I am looking for somethng. The full Cakewalk sfz player went on the free market at some time, However I can't find it on any page. Anyone know where I can get it. I have the jr. edition btu the full boat one had a superb GUI and would be worth the $60 if I could find it. it had infinitel layering



From: Bob Cavanaugh <[hidden email]>
To: 'Discussion list for Audacity users' <[hidden email]>
Sent: Monday, March 6, 2017 2:55 PM
Subject: Re: [Audacity-users] Why bother with lossy encoding?

>From what I understand, wav files sound great on the air, so radio stations
use them. That being said, the processing used by the station, combined with
the nature of fm radio means that by the time I record it, I'm not going to
be able to tell the difference between a wav file and an mp3 file. As has
been pointed out before, why take up so much space on your hard drive with
wav files when the same amount of audio can be used in half the space? My
aircheck collection is about 3 gb, most of which is 128 kbps mp3 files.
Imagine how much that would be in wav files.

-----Original Message-----
From: J.B. Nicholson [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2017 2:36 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [Audacity-users] Why bother with lossy encoding?

Clyde Lyman wrote:
> With the vast amounts of memory we have today, why bother with lossy
> files at all unless it's to keep continuity with other elements of a
> collection?

I'm not sure what "continuity with other elements of a collection" means.

Lossy encoding is useful for:

- delivering multimedia over slow links or to low-end computers (mobile
phones, tablets, some laptops, toys). Even YouTube finds it useful to encode
a lot of audio as Opus and a lot of video with VP9 nowadays.

- embedded players that don't handle lossless encoding (some cars and some
portable playing devices don't support FLAC, WAV, or AIFF files, for
example)

- maximizing use of (as you point out) inexpensive storage. If I can't tell
the difference between a high-quality Opus encoding over the same audio
ripped from an ordinary Red Book audio CD and encoded as a FLAC (which is
lossless), I might choose to keep the Opus file because it uses
significantly less space and works with every computer program I use for
playback. Thus my casual listening needs are met and I get to store a lot
more audio.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging
tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
*********** ASKING FOR HELP *************

When asking for help on this list, please include the following information,
so we can help you properly:

* What operating system you are using (for example, Windows XP or Mac OS X
10.5.1) 

* Exactly what three digit version number of Audacity you are using (Help >
About
  Audacity, or Audacity >  About Audacity on a Mac computer) 

* If this is a recording problem, what equipment you are recording with, and
how is it
  connected to the computer?

Mailing list: [hidden email]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, use the form at the bottom of this web page:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-users


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Announcing the Oxford Dictionaries API! The API offers world-renowned
dictionary content that is easy and intuitive to access. Sign up for an
account today to start using our lexical data to power your apps and
projects. Get started today and enter our developer competition.
http://sdm.link/oxford

*********** ASKING FOR HELP *************

When asking for help on this list, please include the following information, so we can
help you properly:

* What operating system you are using (for example, Windows XP or Mac OS X 10.5.1) 

* Exactly what three digit version number of Audacity you are using (Help > About
  Audacity, or Audacity >  About Audacity on a Mac computer) 

* If this is a recording problem, what equipment you are recording with, and how is it
  connected to the computer?

Mailing list: [hidden email]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, use the form at the bottom of this web page:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-users



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Announcing the Oxford Dictionaries API! The API offers world-renowned
dictionary content that is easy and intuitive to access. Sign up for an
account today to start using our lexical data to power your apps and
projects. Get started today and enter our developer competition.
http://sdm.link/oxford
*********** ASKING FOR HELP *************

When asking for help on this list, please include the following information, so we can
help you properly:

* What operating system you are using (for example, Windows XP or Mac OS X 10.5.1)  

* Exactly what three digit version number of Audacity you are using (Help > About
   Audacity, or Audacity >  About Audacity on a Mac computer)  

* If this is a recording problem, what equipment you are recording with, and how is it
   connected to the computer?

Mailing list: [hidden email]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, use the form at the bottom of this web page:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Why bother with lossy encoding?

J.B. Nicholson-Owens
In reply to this post by Clyde Lyman
Clyde Lyman wrote:
> By "Continuity with the rest of the collection" I meant something like
> the following. I have 15\00+ mp3's, having started my collection in the
> days when an 8GB card was huge. It could make no sense to now put WAV's
> in that group. There are those who say that the difference between mp3
> and loosless files is noticeable. so anything I add to that group will
> be an mp3

There's no need to continue to use MP3 just because you used MP3 in the
past. You can use any format your players can play. Whether one can hear
the artifacts introduced with lossy encoding has nothing to do with what
else is on the same volume, it has to do with the settings chosen at the
time of encoding. So it's entirely possible that one can hear artifacts in
an MP3 file compressed with low-quality settings.

I store my audio collection in formats that favor free software (free as in
freedom, not price) so I have FLAC (primarily), Opus, and older Vorbis
files all in the same collection organized into folders corresponding to my
organizational needs.

I don't re-encode from a lossy source to a lossy destination as that's
generally a good way to introduce audible distortions. Re-encoding either
from lossless to lossy, or from lossless to lossless both have practical
use (and the latter can be done losslessly).

Instead of WAV files I suggest using FLAC. WAV file metadata gets spotty
support but Ogg tags in native FLAC files are widely read correctly.

> Are there actually players that won't play at least FLAC (which is a
> compressed file if I understand correctly)

FLAC is losslessly compressed at multiple levels of compression -- the more
time one allows the encoder to compress the smaller the output file, but
all FLAC encoding levels are lossless.

There are audio players that won't play FLAC: Apple's portable players
(such as their iThings) won't play FLAC using the proprietary Apple
firmware. One could install Rockbox on some Apple iThings to gain FLAC
playback. But I don't see the point in acquiring an Apple iThing in the
first place as there are so many other devices which play FLAC files (and
have for years) that any device that doesn't play FLAC comes off to me as
uncompetitive and obsolete. And I have other reasons for not wanting to do
business with Apple which aren't related to audio file format support.

This is getting away from any issue dealing with Audacity per se so I'll
stop replying on this thread here.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Announcing the Oxford Dictionaries API! The API offers world-renowned
dictionary content that is easy and intuitive to access. Sign up for an
account today to start using our lexical data to power your apps and
projects. Get started today and enter our developer competition.
http://sdm.link/oxford
*********** ASKING FOR HELP *************

When asking for help on this list, please include the following information, so we can
help you properly:

* What operating system you are using (for example, Windows XP or Mac OS X 10.5.1)  

* Exactly what three digit version number of Audacity you are using (Help > About
   Audacity, or Audacity >  About Audacity on a Mac computer)  

* If this is a recording problem, what equipment you are recording with, and how is it
   connected to the computer?

Mailing list: [hidden email]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, use the form at the bottom of this web page:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Why bother with lossy encoding?

Roger
In reply to this post by Clyde Lyman
>   depth recording settings really accomplish anythinhg? I have the previous
>   incarnation of the M-Audio M-track plus and it maxes at 48k and 24 bits.
>   Even then, the DAW has to step it down to 44k/16 bits which appears to be
>   the same as 160kbps mp3

If you're afraid of audio quality loss, typically 24 bit 48000hz sample rate
are considered slightly beyond the human capable range of hearing. (... if not
well beyond depending on who you talk to.)   CD quality, 16 bit at 44100hz does
sound "tinny" (or metallic tin) to me.  Given that CD quality (eg. 16 bit at
44100hz) standard was set quite some time ago for CD media storage limitations,
was likely adequate for that time period of the 1990's.

If I do any audio recording, I will always use 24 bit at 48000hz sample rate,
and save as PCM WAV.

Either way; the audio streams likely still experience some loss (at 24 bit @
48khz) while the stream is being digitized, as the digitization process is not
absolutely perfect...  yet.

For me, I keep everything in PCM WAV format, and use OGG Vorbis for portable
devices.  PCM WAV is likely the most compatabile format versus FLAC.  On the
flip, file metadata is not really a standard for PCM WAV files, unlike somebody
just mentioned as FLAC having no problems with additional file metadata.  
(Similar to PPM/PBM/TIFF versus PNG image formats, etc...)  File metadata
embedded into PCM WAV files can be nightmarish or cause significant
incompatabilities, but not also to further mention, UTF-8/UTF-16 can also cause
further anomalies instead of using just ASCII for filenames.  (eg. Hardware
vendor FAT16/FAT32)

I'm seeing more and more audio streams either resort to either "MPEG 1.0 L III
cbr96 44100 j-s" if they desire license free audio streaming, or migrating to
AAC/FAAC (MPEG-4) if they can handle paying a few licenses.  MP3 from what I
understand has several patents, inhibiting adaptation by hardware companies and
stream providers, etc.

--
Roger
http://rogerx.freeshell.org/

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Announcing the Oxford Dictionaries API! The API offers world-renowned
dictionary content that is easy and intuitive to access. Sign up for an
account today to start using our lexical data to power your apps and
projects. Get started today and enter our developer competition.
http://sdm.link/oxford
*********** ASKING FOR HELP *************

When asking for help on this list, please include the following information, so we can
help you properly:

* What operating system you are using (for example, Windows XP or Mac OS X 10.5.1)  

* Exactly what three digit version number of Audacity you are using (Help > About
   Audacity, or Audacity >  About Audacity on a Mac computer)  

* If this is a recording problem, what equipment you are recording with, and how is it
   connected to the computer?

Mailing list: [hidden email]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, use the form at the bottom of this web page:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-users

signature.asc (499 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Why bother with lossy encoding?

Bob Cavanaugh
I've seen many streams in AAC or MP3. To me, anything above 128 kbps has no
quality difference. That is, if I didn't know the file format ahead of time,
I don't think I could tell the difference between an mp3 recorded at 44.1
kHZ 128 kbps from a wav recorded at 44.1 kHZ 16 bit. Not being well-versed
in audio processing setups at radio stations, I can't tell you what a
difference wav vs. MP3 makes. I'm told however, that KBPA 103.5 Bob FM in
Austin, TX is one of the best sounding stations in that market, and there
library is all wav files, I was told it was 11 tb! That being said, if I
were to record them off the air, I don't think I'd need to go way overboard
with a huge file format, especially since if I ever find myself in that
area, the radio I'd bring only has 2 gb of memory, not enough to record as
many stations as I'd want with wav format.

-----Original Message-----
From: Roger [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2017 4:55 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Audacity-users] Why bother with lossy encoding?

>   depth recording settings really accomplish anythinhg? I have the
previous
>   incarnation of the M-Audio M-track plus and it maxes at 48k and 24 bits.
>   Even then, the DAW has to step it down to 44k/16 bits which appears to
be
>   the same as 160kbps mp3

If you're afraid of audio quality loss, typically 24 bit 48000hz sample rate
are considered slightly beyond the human capable range of hearing. (... if
not
well beyond depending on who you talk to.)   CD quality, 16 bit at 44100hz
does
sound "tinny" (or metallic tin) to me.  Given that CD quality (eg. 16 bit at
44100hz) standard was set quite some time ago for CD media storage
limitations, was likely adequate for that time period of the 1990's.

If I do any audio recording, I will always use 24 bit at 48000hz sample
rate, and save as PCM WAV.

Either way; the audio streams likely still experience some loss (at 24 bit @
48khz) while the stream is being digitized, as the digitization process is
not absolutely perfect...  yet.

For me, I keep everything in PCM WAV format, and use OGG Vorbis for portable
devices.  PCM WAV is likely the most compatabile format versus FLAC.  On the
flip, file metadata is not really a standard for PCM WAV files, unlike
somebody just mentioned as FLAC having no problems with additional file
metadata.  
(Similar to PPM/PBM/TIFF versus PNG image formats, etc...)  File metadata
embedded into PCM WAV files can be nightmarish or cause significant
incompatabilities, but not also to further mention, UTF-8/UTF-16 can also
cause further anomalies instead of using just ASCII for filenames.  (eg.
Hardware vendor FAT16/FAT32)

I'm seeing more and more audio streams either resort to either "MPEG 1.0 L
III
cbr96 44100 j-s" if they desire license free audio streaming, or migrating
to AAC/FAAC (MPEG-4) if they can handle paying a few licenses.  MP3 from
what I understand has several patents, inhibiting adaptation by hardware
companies and stream providers, etc.

--
Roger
http://rogerx.freeshell.org/


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Announcing the Oxford Dictionaries API! The API offers world-renowned
dictionary content that is easy and intuitive to access. Sign up for an
account today to start using our lexical data to power your apps and
projects. Get started today and enter our developer competition.
http://sdm.link/oxford
*********** ASKING FOR HELP *************

When asking for help on this list, please include the following information, so we can
help you properly:

* What operating system you are using (for example, Windows XP or Mac OS X 10.5.1)  

* Exactly what three digit version number of Audacity you are using (Help > About
   Audacity, or Audacity >  About Audacity on a Mac computer)  

* If this is a recording problem, what equipment you are recording with, and how is it
   connected to the computer?

Mailing list: [hidden email]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, use the form at the bottom of this web page:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Why bother with lossy encoding?

Bob Cavanaugh
In reply to this post by Clyde Lyman

I’m not sure, though I’m not sure I would have used the wording you used, the 320 kbps bitrate could be used for anything you want. As far as comparison though, I’ve heard fm sounds like 112 kbps, or 96 depending on who you ask. The CC Witness I just got this last Christmas has its default bitrate set at 96 kbps for fm, I had to bump that up to 128 because I wasn’t getting the dynamic range I wanted out of fm recordings. As I said in the previous message though, I wouldn’t go above 128.

 

From: Clyde Lyman [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2017 3:30 PM
To: Discussion list for Audacity users <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Audacity-users] Why bother with lossy encoding?

 

I poked around and found that mp3's at 128kbps sound like radio and 160kbps sound like CD. Now if that's true then even in the 1970's you could get an astonishing amount of fidelity out of radios, especially classical stations. My stereo has a Realistic Accurion sub, some speakers that I picked up at a thrift store and Realistic horns that kick in at 2,000 and go up to 25,000, up until about 27 years ago, certain cash register aisles kicked out a sound that, in freq and volume went righ through me that nobody else coud detect. When I was audio tested in 1973, I was told I was losing some of my upper frequency hearing and when I got a bit nervous the guy said not to worry, ti was in the 48,000cps area and later on in the 1970's a friend of mine was told the same. If those bitrates are ture, I wonder what the 320 kbps is used for

 

Also, from what I understand, do the 96k and beyond sample rate and 32 bit depth recording settings really accomplish anythinhg? I have the previous incarnation of the M-Audio M-track plus and it maxes at 48k and 24 bits. Even then, the DAW has to step it down to 44k/16 bits which appears to be the same as 160kbps mp3

 

I mentioned that GEM Genesys as being able to use mp3 samples, also can most sfz players

I am looking for somethng. The full Cakewalk sfz player went on the free market at some time, However I can't find it on any page. Anyone know where I can get it. I have the jr. edition btu the full boat one had a superb GUI and would be worth the $60 if I could find it. it had infinitel layering

 


From: Bob Cavanaugh <[hidden email]>
To: 'Discussion list for Audacity users' <[hidden email]>
Sent: Monday, March 6, 2017 2:55 PM
Subject: Re: [Audacity-users] Why bother with lossy encoding?


>From what I understand, wav files sound great on the air, so radio stations
use them. That being said, the processing used by the station, combined with
the nature of fm radio means that by the time I record it, I'm not going to
be able to tell the difference between a wav file and an mp3 file. As has
been pointed out before, why take up so much space on your hard drive with
wav files when the same amount of audio can be used in half the space? My
aircheck collection is about 3 gb, most of which is 128 kbps mp3 files.
Imagine how much that would be in wav files.

-----Original Message-----
From: J.B. Nicholson [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2017 2:36 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [Audacity-users] Why bother with lossy encoding?

Clyde Lyman wrote:
> With the vast amounts of memory we have today, why bother with lossy
> files at all unless it's to keep continuity with other elements of a
> collection?

I'm not sure what "continuity with other elements of a collection" means.

Lossy encoding is useful for:

- delivering multimedia over slow links or to low-end computers (mobile
phones, tablets, some laptops, toys). Even YouTube finds it useful to encode
a lot of audio as Opus and a lot of video with VP9 nowadays.

- embedded players that don't handle lossless encoding (some cars and some
portable playing devices don't support FLAC, WAV, or AIFF files, for
example)

- maximizing use of (as you point out) inexpensive storage. If I can't tell
the difference between a high-quality Opus encoding over the same audio
ripped from an ordinary Red Book audio CD and encoded as a FLAC (which is
lossless), I might choose to keep the Opus file because it uses
significantly less space and works with every computer program I use for
playback. Thus my casual listening needs are met and I get to store a lot
more audio.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging
tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
*********** ASKING FOR HELP *************

When asking for help on this list, please include the following information,
so we can help you properly:

* What operating system you are using (for example, Windows XP or Mac OS X
10.5.1) 

* Exactly what three digit version number of Audacity you are using (Help >
About
  Audacity, or Audacity >  About Audacity on a Mac computer) 

* If this is a recording problem, what equipment you are recording with, and
how is it
  connected to the computer?

Mailing list: [hidden email]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, use the form at the bottom of this web page:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-users


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Announcing the Oxford Dictionaries API! The API offers world-renowned
dictionary content that is easy and intuitive to access. Sign up for an
account today to start using our lexical data to power your apps and
projects. Get started today and enter our developer competition.
http://sdm.link/oxford


*********** ASKING FOR HELP *************

When asking for help on this list, please include the following information, so we can
help you properly:

* What operating system you are using (for example, Windows XP or Mac OS X 10.5.1) 

* Exactly what three digit version number of Audacity you are using (Help > About
  Audacity, or Audacity >  About Audacity on a Mac computer) 

* If this is a recording problem, what equipment you are recording with, and how is it
  connected to the computer?

Mailing list: [hidden email]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, use the form at the bottom of this web page:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-users

 


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Announcing the Oxford Dictionaries API! The API offers world-renowned
dictionary content that is easy and intuitive to access. Sign up for an
account today to start using our lexical data to power your apps and
projects. Get started today and enter our developer competition.
http://sdm.link/oxford
*********** ASKING FOR HELP *************

When asking for help on this list, please include the following information, so we can
help you properly:

* What operating system you are using (for example, Windows XP or Mac OS X 10.5.1)  

* Exactly what three digit version number of Audacity you are using (Help > About
   Audacity, or Audacity >  About Audacity on a Mac computer)  

* If this is a recording problem, what equipment you are recording with, and how is it
   connected to the computer?

Mailing list: [hidden email]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, use the form at the bottom of this web page:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Why bother with lossy encoding?

Clyde Lyman
In reply to this post by Bob Cavanaugh
I looked at the Audacity plugins and I was just blown away, I'd like to use some of those .ny's with other DAWs, like Tracktion 5, REAPER, Kryistal  or LMMS, is that possible



From: Bob Cavanaugh <[hidden email]>
To: 'Discussion list for Audacity users' <[hidden email]>
Sent: Monday, March 6, 2017 8:22 PM
Subject: Re: [Audacity-users] Why bother with lossy encoding?

I've seen many streams in AAC or MP3. To me, anything above 128 kbps has no
quality difference. That is, if I didn't know the file format ahead of time,
I don't think I could tell the difference between an mp3 recorded at 44.1
kHZ 128 kbps from a wav recorded at 44.1 kHZ 16 bit. Not being well-versed
in audio processing setups at radio stations, I can't tell you what a
difference wav vs. MP3 makes. I'm told however, that KBPA 103.5 Bob FM in
Austin, TX is one of the best sounding stations in that market, and there
library is all wav files, I was told it was 11 tb! That being said, if I
were to record them off the air, I don't think I'd need to go way overboard
with a huge file format, especially since if I ever find myself in that
area, the radio I'd bring only has 2 gb of memory, not enough to record as
many stations as I'd want with wav format.

-----Original Message-----
From: Roger [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2017 4:55 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Audacity-users] Why bother with lossy encoding?

>  depth recording settings really accomplish anythinhg? I have the
previous
>  incarnation of the M-Audio M-track plus and it maxes at 48k and 24 bits.
>  Even then, the DAW has to step it down to 44k/16 bits which appears to
be
>  the same as 160kbps mp3

If you're afraid of audio quality loss, typically 24 bit 48000hz sample rate
are considered slightly beyond the human capable range of hearing. (... if
not
well beyond depending on who you talk to.)  CD quality, 16 bit at 44100hz
does
sound "tinny" (or metallic tin) to me.  Given that CD quality (eg. 16 bit at
44100hz) standard was set quite some time ago for CD media storage
limitations, was likely adequate for that time period of the 1990's.

If I do any audio recording, I will always use 24 bit at 48000hz sample
rate, and save as PCM WAV.

Either way; the audio streams likely still experience some loss (at 24 bit @
48khz) while the stream is being digitized, as the digitization process is
not absolutely perfect...  yet.

For me, I keep everything in PCM WAV format, and use OGG Vorbis for portable
devices.  PCM WAV is likely the most compatabile format versus FLAC.  On the
flip, file metadata is not really a standard for PCM WAV files, unlike
somebody just mentioned as FLAC having no problems with additional file
metadata. 
(Similar to PPM/PBM/TIFF versus PNG image formats, etc...)  File metadata
embedded into PCM WAV files can be nightmarish or cause significant
incompatabilities, but not also to further mention, UTF-8/UTF-16 can also
cause further anomalies instead of using just ASCII for filenames.  (eg.
Hardware vendor FAT16/FAT32)

I'm seeing more and more audio streams either resort to either "MPEG 1.0 L
III
cbr96 44100 j-s" if they desire license free audio streaming, or migrating
to AAC/FAAC (MPEG-4) if they can handle paying a few licenses.  MP3 from
what I understand has several patents, inhibiting adaptation by hardware
companies and stream providers, etc.

--
Roger
http://rogerx.freeshell.org/


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Announcing the Oxford Dictionaries API! The API offers world-renowned
dictionary content that is easy and intuitive to access. Sign up for an
account today to start using our lexical data to power your apps and
projects. Get started today and enter our developer competition.
http://sdm.link/oxford
*********** ASKING FOR HELP *************

When asking for help on this list, please include the following information, so we can
help you properly:

* What operating system you are using (for example, Windows XP or Mac OS X 10.5.1) 

* Exactly what three digit version number of Audacity you are using (Help > About
  Audacity, or Audacity >  About Audacity on a Mac computer) 

* If this is a recording problem, what equipment you are recording with, and how is it
  connected to the computer?

Mailing list: [hidden email]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, use the form at the bottom of this web page:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-users



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Announcing the Oxford Dictionaries API! The API offers world-renowned
dictionary content that is easy and intuitive to access. Sign up for an
account today to start using our lexical data to power your apps and
projects. Get started today and enter our developer competition.
http://sdm.link/oxford
*********** ASKING FOR HELP *************

When asking for help on this list, please include the following information, so we can
help you properly:

* What operating system you are using (for example, Windows XP or Mac OS X 10.5.1)  

* Exactly what three digit version number of Audacity you are using (Help > About
   Audacity, or Audacity >  About Audacity on a Mac computer)  

* If this is a recording problem, what equipment you are recording with, and how is it
   connected to the computer?

Mailing list: [hidden email]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, use the form at the bottom of this web page:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Why bother with lossy encoding?

Clyde Lyman
In reply to this post by J.B. Nicholson-Owens
Any way to use Audacity as my defalt music player? I've looked but have not found one and it would be a great one. I'd like Shuffle



From: J.B. Nicholson <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Monday, March 6, 2017 7:24 PM
Subject: Re: [Audacity-users] Why bother with lossy encoding?

Clyde Lyman wrote:
> By "Continuity with the rest of the collection" I meant something like
> the following. I have 15\00+ mp3's, having started my collection in the
> days when an 8GB card was huge. It could make no sense to now put WAV's
> in that group. There are those who say that the difference between mp3
> and loosless files is noticeable. so anything I add to that group will
> be an mp3

There's no need to continue to use MP3 just because you used MP3 in the
past. You can use any format your players can play. Whether one can hear
the artifacts introduced with lossy encoding has nothing to do with what
else is on the same volume, it has to do with the settings chosen at the
time of encoding. So it's entirely possible that one can hear artifacts in
an MP3 file compressed with low-quality settings.

I store my audio collection in formats that favor free software (free as in
freedom, not price) so I have FLAC (primarily), Opus, and older Vorbis
files all in the same collection organized into folders corresponding to my
organizational needs.

I don't re-encode from a lossy source to a lossy destination as that's
generally a good way to introduce audible distortions. Re-encoding either
from lossless to lossy, or from lossless to lossless both have practical
use (and the latter can be done losslessly).

Instead of WAV files I suggest using FLAC. WAV file metadata gets spotty
support but Ogg tags in native FLAC files are widely read correctly.

> Are there actually players that won't play at least FLAC (which is a
> compressed file if I understand correctly)

FLAC is losslessly compressed at multiple levels of compression -- the more
time one allows the encoder to compress the smaller the output file, but
all FLAC encoding levels are lossless.

There are audio players that won't play FLAC: Apple's portable players
(such as their iThings) won't play FLAC using the proprietary Apple
firmware. One could install Rockbox on some Apple iThings to gain FLAC
playback. But I don't see the point in acquiring an Apple iThing in the
first place as there are so many other devices which play FLAC files (and
have for years) that any device that doesn't play FLAC comes off to me as
uncompetitive and obsolete. And I have other reasons for not wanting to do
business with Apple which aren't related to audio file format support.

This is getting away from any issue dealing with Audacity per se so I'll
stop replying on this thread here.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Announcing the Oxford Dictionaries API! The API offers world-renowned
dictionary content that is easy and intuitive to access. Sign up for an
account today to start using our lexical data to power your apps and
projects. Get started today and enter our developer competition.
http://sdm.link/oxford
*********** ASKING FOR HELP *************

When asking for help on this list, please include the following information, so we can
help you properly:

* What operating system you are using (for example, Windows XP or Mac OS X 10.5.1) 

* Exactly what three digit version number of Audacity you are using (Help > About
  Audacity, or Audacity >  About Audacity on a Mac computer) 

* If this is a recording problem, what equipment you are recording with, and how is it
  connected to the computer?

Mailing list: [hidden email]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, use the form at the bottom of this web page:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-users



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Announcing the Oxford Dictionaries API! The API offers world-renowned
dictionary content that is easy and intuitive to access. Sign up for an
account today to start using our lexical data to power your apps and
projects. Get started today and enter our developer competition.
http://sdm.link/oxford
*********** ASKING FOR HELP *************

When asking for help on this list, please include the following information, so we can
help you properly:

* What operating system you are using (for example, Windows XP or Mac OS X 10.5.1)  

* Exactly what three digit version number of Audacity you are using (Help > About
   Audacity, or Audacity >  About Audacity on a Mac computer)  

* If this is a recording problem, what equipment you are recording with, and how is it
   connected to the computer?

Mailing list: [hidden email]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, use the form at the bottom of this web page:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Why bother with lossy encoding?

Stevethefiddle
In reply to this post by Clyde Lyman
".NY" files are "Nyquist Plug-ins" and are unique to Audacity.

Steve

On 7 March 2017 at 09:48, Clyde Lyman <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I looked at the Audacity plugins and I was just blown away, I'd like to use
> some of those .ny's with other DAWs, like Tracktion 5, REAPER, Kryistal  or
> LMMS, is that possible
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Bob Cavanaugh <[hidden email]>
> To: 'Discussion list for Audacity users'
> <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Monday, March 6, 2017 8:22 PM
>
> Subject: Re: [Audacity-users] Why bother with lossy encoding?
>
> I've seen many streams in AAC or MP3. To me, anything above 128 kbps has no
> quality difference. That is, if I didn't know the file format ahead of time,
> I don't think I could tell the difference between an mp3 recorded at 44.1
> kHZ 128 kbps from a wav recorded at 44.1 kHZ 16 bit. Not being well-versed
> in audio processing setups at radio stations, I can't tell you what a
> difference wav vs. MP3 makes. I'm told however, that KBPA 103.5 Bob FM in
> Austin, TX is one of the best sounding stations in that market, and there
> library is all wav files, I was told it was 11 tb! That being said, if I
> were to record them off the air, I don't think I'd need to go way overboard
> with a huge file format, especially since if I ever find myself in that
> area, the radio I'd bring only has 2 gb of memory, not enough to record as
> many stations as I'd want with wav format.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roger [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Monday, March 06, 2017 4:55 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [Audacity-users] Why bother with lossy encoding?
>
>>  depth recording settings really accomplish anythinhg? I have the
> previous
>>  incarnation of the M-Audio M-track plus and it maxes at 48k and 24 bits.
>>  Even then, the DAW has to step it down to 44k/16 bits which appears to
> be
>>  the same as 160kbps mp3
>
> If you're afraid of audio quality loss, typically 24 bit 48000hz sample rate
> are considered slightly beyond the human capable range of hearing. (... if
> not
> well beyond depending on who you talk to.)  CD quality, 16 bit at 44100hz
> does
> sound "tinny" (or metallic tin) to me.  Given that CD quality (eg. 16 bit at
> 44100hz) standard was set quite some time ago for CD media storage
> limitations, was likely adequate for that time period of the 1990's.
>
> If I do any audio recording, I will always use 24 bit at 48000hz sample
> rate, and save as PCM WAV.
>
> Either way; the audio streams likely still experience some loss (at 24 bit @
> 48khz) while the stream is being digitized, as the digitization process is
> not absolutely perfect...  yet.
>
> For me, I keep everything in PCM WAV format, and use OGG Vorbis for portable
> devices.  PCM WAV is likely the most compatabile format versus FLAC.  On the
> flip, file metadata is not really a standard for PCM WAV files, unlike
> somebody just mentioned as FLAC having no problems with additional file
> metadata.
> (Similar to PPM/PBM/TIFF versus PNG image formats, etc...)  File metadata
> embedded into PCM WAV files can be nightmarish or cause significant
> incompatabilities, but not also to further mention, UTF-8/UTF-16 can also
> cause further anomalies instead of using just ASCII for filenames.  (eg.
> Hardware vendor FAT16/FAT32)
>
> I'm seeing more and more audio streams either resort to either "MPEG 1.0 L
> III
> cbr96 44100 j-s" if they desire license free audio streaming, or migrating
> to AAC/FAAC (MPEG-4) if they can handle paying a few licenses.  MP3 from
> what I understand has several patents, inhibiting adaptation by hardware
> companies and stream providers, etc.
>
> --
> Roger
> http://rogerx.freeshell.org/
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Announcing the Oxford Dictionaries API! The API offers world-renowned
> dictionary content that is easy and intuitive to access. Sign up for an
> account today to start using our lexical data to power your apps and
> projects. Get started today and enter our developer competition.
> http://sdm.link/oxford
> *********** ASKING FOR HELP *************
>
> When asking for help on this list, please include the following information,
> so we can
> help you properly:
>
> * What operating system you are using (for example, Windows XP or Mac OS X
> 10.5.1)
>
> * Exactly what three digit version number of Audacity you are using (Help >
> About
>   Audacity, or Audacity >  About Audacity on a Mac computer)
>
> * If this is a recording problem, what equipment you are recording with, and
> how is it
>   connected to the computer?
>
> Mailing list: [hidden email]
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, use the form at the bottom of this web page:
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-users
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Announcing the Oxford Dictionaries API! The API offers world-renowned
> dictionary content that is easy and intuitive to access. Sign up for an
> account today to start using our lexical data to power your apps and
> projects. Get started today and enter our developer competition.
> http://sdm.link/oxford
> *********** ASKING FOR HELP *************
>
> When asking for help on this list, please include the following information,
> so we can
> help you properly:
>
> * What operating system you are using (for example, Windows XP or Mac OS X
> 10.5.1)
>
> * Exactly what three digit version number of Audacity you are using (Help >
> About
>    Audacity, or Audacity >  About Audacity on a Mac computer)
>
> * If this is a recording problem, what equipment you are recording with, and
> how is it
>    connected to the computer?
>
> Mailing list: [hidden email]
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, use the form at the bottom of this web page:
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-users

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Announcing the Oxford Dictionaries API! The API offers world-renowned
dictionary content that is easy and intuitive to access. Sign up for an
account today to start using our lexical data to power your apps and
projects. Get started today and enter our developer competition.
http://sdm.link/oxford
*********** ASKING FOR HELP *************

When asking for help on this list, please include the following information, so we can
help you properly:

* What operating system you are using (for example, Windows XP or Mac OS X 10.5.1)  

* Exactly what three digit version number of Audacity you are using (Help > About
   Audacity, or Audacity >  About Audacity on a Mac computer)  

* If this is a recording problem, what equipment you are recording with, and how is it
   connected to the computer?

Mailing list: [hidden email]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, use the form at the bottom of this web page:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Why bother with lossy encoding?

Stevethefiddle
In reply to this post by Clyde Lyman
It would be less confusing if you start a new topic. The topic title
in this email thread is "Why bother with lossy encoding?"

Steve

On 7 March 2017 at 09:57, Clyde Lyman <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Any way to use Audacity as my defalt music player? I've looked but have not
> found one and it would be a great one. I'd like Shuffle
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: J.B. Nicholson <[hidden email]>
> To: [hidden email]
> Sent: Monday, March 6, 2017 7:24 PM
> Subject: Re: [Audacity-users] Why bother with lossy encoding?
>
> Clyde Lyman wrote:
>> By "Continuity with the rest of the collection" I meant something like
>> the following. I have 15\00+ mp3's, having started my collection in the
>> days when an 8GB card was huge. It could make no sense to now put WAV's
>> in that group. There are those who say that the difference between mp3
>> and loosless files is noticeable. so anything I add to that group will
>> be an mp3
>
> There's no need to continue to use MP3 just because you used MP3 in the
> past. You can use any format your players can play. Whether one can hear
> the artifacts introduced with lossy encoding has nothing to do with what
> else is on the same volume, it has to do with the settings chosen at the
> time of encoding. So it's entirely possible that one can hear artifacts in
> an MP3 file compressed with low-quality settings.
>
> I store my audio collection in formats that favor free software (free as in
> freedom, not price) so I have FLAC (primarily), Opus, and older Vorbis
> files all in the same collection organized into folders corresponding to my
> organizational needs.
>
> I don't re-encode from a lossy source to a lossy destination as that's
> generally a good way to introduce audible distortions. Re-encoding either
> from lossless to lossy, or from lossless to lossless both have practical
> use (and the latter can be done losslessly).
>
> Instead of WAV files I suggest using FLAC. WAV file metadata gets spotty
> support but Ogg tags in native FLAC files are widely read correctly.
>
>> Are there actually players that won't play at least FLAC (which is a
>> compressed file if I understand correctly)
>
> FLAC is losslessly compressed at multiple levels of compression -- the more
> time one allows the encoder to compress the smaller the output file, but
> all FLAC encoding levels are lossless.
>
> There are audio players that won't play FLAC: Apple's portable players
> (such as their iThings) won't play FLAC using the proprietary Apple
> firmware. One could install Rockbox on some Apple iThings to gain FLAC
> playback. But I don't see the point in acquiring an Apple iThing in the
> first place as there are so many other devices which play FLAC files (and
> have for years) that any device that doesn't play FLAC comes off to me as
> uncompetitive and obsolete. And I have other reasons for not wanting to do
> business with Apple which aren't related to audio file format support.
>
> This is getting away from any issue dealing with Audacity per se so I'll
> stop replying on this thread here.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Announcing the Oxford Dictionaries API! The API offers world-renowned
> dictionary content that is easy and intuitive to access. Sign up for an
> account today to start using our lexical data to power your apps and
> projects. Get started today and enter our developer competition.
> http://sdm.link/oxford
> *********** ASKING FOR HELP *************
>
> When asking for help on this list, please include the following information,
> so we can
> help you properly:
>
> * What operating system you are using (for example, Windows XP or Mac OS X
> 10.5.1)
>
> * Exactly what three digit version number of Audacity you are using (Help >
> About
>   Audacity, or Audacity >  About Audacity on a Mac computer)
>
> * If this is a recording problem, what equipment you are recording with, and
> how is it
>   connected to the computer?
>
> Mailing list: [hidden email]
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, use the form at the bottom of this web page:
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-users
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Announcing the Oxford Dictionaries API! The API offers world-renowned
> dictionary content that is easy and intuitive to access. Sign up for an
> account today to start using our lexical data to power your apps and
> projects. Get started today and enter our developer competition.
> http://sdm.link/oxford
> *********** ASKING FOR HELP *************
>
> When asking for help on this list, please include the following information,
> so we can
> help you properly:
>
> * What operating system you are using (for example, Windows XP or Mac OS X
> 10.5.1)
>
> * Exactly what three digit version number of Audacity you are using (Help >
> About
>    Audacity, or Audacity >  About Audacity on a Mac computer)
>
> * If this is a recording problem, what equipment you are recording with, and
> how is it
>    connected to the computer?
>
> Mailing list: [hidden email]
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, use the form at the bottom of this web page:
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-users

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Announcing the Oxford Dictionaries API! The API offers world-renowned
dictionary content that is easy and intuitive to access. Sign up for an
account today to start using our lexical data to power your apps and
projects. Get started today and enter our developer competition.
http://sdm.link/oxford
*********** ASKING FOR HELP *************

When asking for help on this list, please include the following information, so we can
help you properly:

* What operating system you are using (for example, Windows XP or Mac OS X 10.5.1)  

* Exactly what three digit version number of Audacity you are using (Help > About
   Audacity, or Audacity >  About Audacity on a Mac computer)  

* If this is a recording problem, what equipment you are recording with, and how is it
   connected to the computer?

Mailing list: [hidden email]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, use the form at the bottom of this web page:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Why bother with lossy encoding?

Clyde Lyman
In reply to this post by Stevethefiddle
Thankx I just started poking around in the effects. the Reverb is awesome; looks better than the one in GOM, and the only problem I have with the EQ is setting th Q if it can be done, some of the Draw images have a tendency to shelf rather than bell curve, unless there's something I'm missing. Drawing the EQ is pretty advanced stuff. I'll also look for things like channel strip (EQ, Compression, saturation and reverb) or maybe you can set things up so that you can automate one. I have the distinct impression there is much more to Audacity than most people know



From: Steve the Fiddle <[hidden email]>
To: Discussion list for Audacity users <[hidden email]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2017 5:03 AM
Subject: Re: [Audacity-users] Why bother with lossy encoding?

".NY" files are "Nyquist Plug-ins" and are unique to Audacity.

Steve

On 7 March 2017 at 09:48, Clyde Lyman <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I looked at the Audacity plugins and I was just blown away, I'd like to use
> some of those .ny's with other DAWs, like Tracktion 5, REAPER, Kryistal  or
> LMMS, is that possible
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Bob Cavanaugh <[hidden email]>
> To: 'Discussion list for Audacity users'
> <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Monday, March 6, 2017 8:22 PM
>
> Subject: Re: [Audacity-users] Why bother with lossy encoding?
>
> I've seen many streams in AAC or MP3. To me, anything above 128 kbps has no
> quality difference. That is, if I didn't know the file format ahead of time,
> I don't think I could tell the difference between an mp3 recorded at 44.1
> kHZ 128 kbps from a wav recorded at 44.1 kHZ 16 bit. Not being well-versed
> in audio processing setups at radio stations, I can't tell you what a
> difference wav vs. MP3 makes. I'm told however, that KBPA 103.5 Bob FM in
> Austin, TX is one of the best sounding stations in that market, and there
> library is all wav files, I was told it was 11 tb! That being said, if I
> were to record them off the air, I don't think I'd need to go way overboard
> with a huge file format, especially since if I ever find myself in that
> area, the radio I'd bring only has 2 gb of memory, not enough to record as
> many stations as I'd want with wav format.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roger [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Monday, March 06, 2017 4:55 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [Audacity-users] Why bother with lossy encoding?
>
>>  depth recording settings really accomplish anythinhg? I have the
> previous
>>  incarnation of the M-Audio M-track plus and it maxes at 48k and 24 bits.
>>  Even then, the DAW has to step it down to 44k/16 bits which appears to
> be
>>  the same as 160kbps mp3
>
> If you're afraid of audio quality loss, typically 24 bit 48000hz sample rate
> are considered slightly beyond the human capable range of hearing. (... if
> not
> well beyond depending on who you talk to.)  CD quality, 16 bit at 44100hz
> does
> sound "tinny" (or metallic tin) to me.  Given that CD quality (eg. 16 bit at
> 44100hz) standard was set quite some time ago for CD media storage
> limitations, was likely adequate for that time period of the 1990's.
>
> If I do any audio recording, I will always use 24 bit at 48000hz sample
> rate, and save as PCM WAV.
>
> Either way; the audio streams likely still experience some loss (at 24 bit @
> 48khz) while the stream is being digitized, as the digitization process is
> not absolutely perfect...  yet.
>
> For me, I keep everything in PCM WAV format, and use OGG Vorbis for portable
> devices.  PCM WAV is likely the most compatabile format versus FLAC.  On the
> flip, file metadata is not really a standard for PCM WAV files, unlike
> somebody just mentioned as FLAC having no problems with additional file
> metadata.
> (Similar to PPM/PBM/TIFF versus PNG image formats, etc...)  File metadata
> embedded into PCM WAV files can be nightmarish or cause significant
> incompatabilities, but not also to further mention, UTF-8/UTF-16 can also
> cause further anomalies instead of using just ASCII for filenames.  (eg.
> Hardware vendor FAT16/FAT32)
>
> I'm seeing more and more audio streams either resort to either "MPEG 1.0 L
> III
> cbr96 44100 j-s" if they desire license free audio streaming, or migrating
> to AAC/FAAC (MPEG-4) if they can handle paying a few licenses.  MP3 from
> what I understand has several patents, inhibiting adaptation by hardware
> companies and stream providers, etc.
>
> --
> Roger
> http://rogerx.freeshell.org/
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Announcing the Oxford Dictionaries API! The API offers world-renowned
> dictionary content that is easy and intuitive to access. Sign up for an
> account today to start using our lexical data to power your apps and
> projects. Get started today and enter our developer competition.
> http://sdm.link/oxford
> *********** ASKING FOR HELP *************
>
> When asking for help on this list, please include the following information,
> so we can
> help you properly:
>
> * What operating system you are using (for example, Windows XP or Mac OS X
> 10.5.1)
>
> * Exactly what three digit version number of Audacity you are using (Help >
> About
>  Audacity, or Audacity >  About Audacity on a Mac computer)
>
> * If this is a recording problem, what equipment you are recording with, and
> how is it
>  connected to the computer?
>
> Mailing list: [hidden email]
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, use the form at the bottom of this web page:
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-users

>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Announcing the Oxford Dictionaries API! The API offers world-renowned
> dictionary content that is easy and intuitive to access. Sign up for an
> account today to start using our lexical data to power your apps and
> projects. Get started today and enter our developer competition.
> http://sdm.link/oxford
> *********** ASKING FOR HELP *************
>
> When asking for help on this list, please include the following information,
> so we can
> help you properly:
>
> * What operating system you are using (for example, Windows XP or Mac OS X
> 10.5.1)
>
> * Exactly what three digit version number of Audacity you are using (Help >
> About
>    Audacity, or Audacity >  About Audacity on a Mac computer)
>
> * If this is a recording problem, what equipment you are recording with, and
> how is it
>    connected to the computer?
>
> Mailing list: [hidden email]
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, use the form at the bottom of this web page:
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-users

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Announcing the Oxford Dictionaries API! The API offers world-renowned
dictionary content that is easy and intuitive to access. Sign up for an
account today to start using our lexical data to power your apps and
projects. Get started today and enter our developer competition.
http://sdm.link/oxford
*********** ASKING FOR HELP *************

When asking for help on this list, please include the following information, so we can
help you properly:

* What operating system you are using (for example, Windows XP or Mac OS X 10.5.1) 

* Exactly what three digit version number of Audacity you are using (Help > About
  Audacity, or Audacity >  About Audacity on a Mac computer) 

* If this is a recording problem, what equipment you are recording with, and how is it
  connected to the computer?

Mailing list: [hidden email]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, use the form at the bottom of this web page:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-users



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Announcing the Oxford Dictionaries API! The API offers world-renowned
dictionary content that is easy and intuitive to access. Sign up for an
account today to start using our lexical data to power your apps and
projects. Get started today and enter our developer competition.
http://sdm.link/oxford
*********** ASKING FOR HELP *************

When asking for help on this list, please include the following information, so we can
help you properly:

* What operating system you are using (for example, Windows XP or Mac OS X 10.5.1)  

* Exactly what three digit version number of Audacity you are using (Help > About
   Audacity, or Audacity >  About Audacity on a Mac computer)  

* If this is a recording problem, what equipment you are recording with, and how is it
   connected to the computer?

Mailing list: [hidden email]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, use the form at the bottom of this web page:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Why bother with lossy encoding?

Gale
Administrator
In reply to this post by Stevethefiddle
On 7 March 2017 at 10:27, Steve the Fiddle <[hidden email]> wrote:
> It would be less confusing if you start a new topic. The topic title
> in this email thread is "Why bother with lossy encoding?"
>
> Steve
>
> On 7 March 2017 at 09:57, Clyde Lyman <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Any way to use Audacity as my defalt music player?

No, short of setting default file associations to Audacity for the audio file
types you are interested in.

Note that you get a "Save Changes?" prompt when you exit Audacity after
importing a file.

If you have questions, please start a new topic about if with a relevant
title (use "Compose" in your e-mail client).



Gale Andrews

>> I've looked but have not
>> found one and it would be a great one. I'd like Shuffle
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: J.B. Nicholson <[hidden email]>
>> To: [hidden email]
>> Sent: Monday, March 6, 2017 7:24 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Audacity-users] Why bother with lossy encoding?
>>
>> Clyde Lyman wrote:
>>> By "Continuity with the rest of the collection" I meant something like
>>> the following. I have 15\00+ mp3's, having started my collection in the
>>> days when an 8GB card was huge. It could make no sense to now put WAV's
>>> in that group. There are those who say that the difference between mp3
>>> and loosless files is noticeable. so anything I add to that group will
>>> be an mp3
>>
>> There's no need to continue to use MP3 just because you used MP3 in the
>> past. You can use any format your players can play. Whether one can hear
>> the artifacts introduced with lossy encoding has nothing to do with what
>> else is on the same volume, it has to do with the settings chosen at the
>> time of encoding. So it's entirely possible that one can hear artifacts in
>> an MP3 file compressed with low-quality settings.
>>
>> I store my audio collection in formats that favor free software (free as in
>> freedom, not price) so I have FLAC (primarily), Opus, and older Vorbis
>> files all in the same collection organized into folders corresponding to my
>> organizational needs.
>>
>> I don't re-encode from a lossy source to a lossy destination as that's
>> generally a good way to introduce audible distortions. Re-encoding either
>> from lossless to lossy, or from lossless to lossless both have practical
>> use (and the latter can be done losslessly).
>>
>> Instead of WAV files I suggest using FLAC. WAV file metadata gets spotty
>> support but Ogg tags in native FLAC files are widely read correctly.
>>
>>> Are there actually players that won't play at least FLAC (which is a
>>> compressed file if I understand correctly)
>>
>> FLAC is losslessly compressed at multiple levels of compression -- the more
>> time one allows the encoder to compress the smaller the output file, but
>> all FLAC encoding levels are lossless.
>>
>> There are audio players that won't play FLAC: Apple's portable players
>> (such as their iThings) won't play FLAC using the proprietary Apple
>> firmware. One could install Rockbox on some Apple iThings to gain FLAC
>> playback. But I don't see the point in acquiring an Apple iThing in the
>> first place as there are so many other devices which play FLAC files (and
>> have for years) that any device that doesn't play FLAC comes off to me as
>> uncompetitive and obsolete. And I have other reasons for not wanting to do
>> business with Apple which aren't related to audio file format support.
>>
>> This is getting away from any issue dealing with Audacity per se so I'll
>> stop replying on this thread here.
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Announcing the Oxford Dictionaries API! The API offers world-renowned
>> dictionary content that is easy and intuitive to access. Sign up for an
>> account today to start using our lexical data to power your apps and
>> projects. Get started today and enter our developer competition.
>> http://sdm.link/oxford
>> *********** ASKING FOR HELP *************
>>
>> When asking for help on this list, please include the following information,
>> so we can
>> help you properly:
>>
>> * What operating system you are using (for example, Windows XP or Mac OS X
>> 10.5.1)
>>
>> * Exactly what three digit version number of Audacity you are using (Help >
>> About
>>   Audacity, or Audacity >  About Audacity on a Mac computer)
>>
>> * If this is a recording problem, what equipment you are recording with, and
>> how is it
>>   connected to the computer?
>>
>> Mailing list: [hidden email]
>> To UNSUBSCRIBE, use the form at the bottom of this web page:
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-users
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Announcing the Oxford Dictionaries API! The API offers world-renowned
>> dictionary content that is easy and intuitive to access. Sign up for an
>> account today to start using our lexical data to power your apps and
>> projects. Get started today and enter our developer competition.
>> http://sdm.link/oxford
>> *********** ASKING FOR HELP *************
>>
>> When asking for help on this list, please include the following information,
>> so we can
>> help you properly:
>>
>> * What operating system you are using (for example, Windows XP or Mac OS X
>> 10.5.1)
>>
>> * Exactly what three digit version number of Audacity you are using (Help >
>> About
>>    Audacity, or Audacity >  About Audacity on a Mac computer)
>>
>> * If this is a recording problem, what equipment you are recording with, and
>> how is it
>>    connected to the computer?
>>
>> Mailing list: [hidden email]
>> To UNSUBSCRIBE, use the form at the bottom of this web page:
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-users
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Announcing the Oxford Dictionaries API! The API offers world-renowned
> dictionary content that is easy and intuitive to access. Sign up for an
> account today to start using our lexical data to power your apps and
> projects. Get started today and enter our developer competition.
> http://sdm.link/oxford
> *********** ASKING FOR HELP *************
>
> When asking for help on this list, please include the following information, so we can
> help you properly:
>
> * What operating system you are using (for example, Windows XP or Mac OS X 10.5.1)
>
> * Exactly what three digit version number of Audacity you are using (Help > About
>    Audacity, or Audacity >  About Audacity on a Mac computer)
>
> * If this is a recording problem, what equipment you are recording with, and how is it
>    connected to the computer?
>
> Mailing list: [hidden email]
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, use the form at the bottom of this web page:
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-users

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Announcing the Oxford Dictionaries API! The API offers world-renowned
dictionary content that is easy and intuitive to access. Sign up for an
account today to start using our lexical data to power your apps and
projects. Get started today and enter our developer competition.
http://sdm.link/oxford
*********** ASKING FOR HELP *************

When asking for help on this list, please include the following information, so we can
help you properly:

* What operating system you are using (for example, Windows XP or Mac OS X 10.5.1)  

* Exactly what three digit version number of Audacity you are using (Help > About
   Audacity, or Audacity >  About Audacity on a Mac computer)  

* If this is a recording problem, what equipment you are recording with, and how is it
   connected to the computer?

Mailing list: [hidden email]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, use the form at the bottom of this web page:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Why bother with lossy encoding?

Stephane Ascoet-4
In reply to this post by Clyde Lyman
Le 07/03/2017 00:29, Clyde Lyman a écrit :
> I poked around and found that mp3's at 128kbps sound like radio and 160kbps sound like CD. Now if that's true then even in the 1970's you could get an astonishing amount of fidelity out

Hi, I've always been bothered by such comparaisons since they are not
accurate, only very approximative. Sound annoyances between each of the
above cases are very different. In a general thought, analog and digital
can't be compared easily because they are so much different

--
Bien cordialement, Stephane Ascoet


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Announcing the Oxford Dictionaries API! The API offers world-renowned
dictionary content that is easy and intuitive to access. Sign up for an
account today to start using our lexical data to power your apps and
projects. Get started today and enter our developer competition.
http://sdm.link/oxford
*********** ASKING FOR HELP *************

When asking for help on this list, please include the following information, so we can
help you properly:

* What operating system you are using (for example, Windows XP or Mac OS X 10.5.1)  

* Exactly what three digit version number of Audacity you are using (Help > About
   Audacity, or Audacity >  About Audacity on a Mac computer)  

* If this is a recording problem, what equipment you are recording with, and how is it
   connected to the computer?

Mailing list: [hidden email]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, use the form at the bottom of this web page:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Why bother with lossy encoding?

Roger
> On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 10:53:14AM +0100, Stephane Ascoet wrote:
>Le 07/03/2017 00:29, Clyde Lyman a ?crit :
>> I poked around and found that mp3's at 128kbps sound like radio and 160kbps sound like CD. Now if that's true then even in the 1970's you could get an astonishing amount of fidelity out
>
>Hi, I've always been bothered by such comparaisons since they are not
>accurate, only very approximative. Sound annoyances between each of the
>above cases are very different. In a general thought, analog and digital
>can't be compared easily because they are so much different

Sound is subjective to each individual's ear's abilities and each individual's
mental state.  Testing or benchmarking is usually limited to such tasks as,
either one can ear the sound or they cannot hear the sound.

In other words, since most everybody does drugs, CD quality sound or music
maybe extremely adequate or any anomalies are not noticeable at all.  Those
sober will likely or may hear a difference.  (eg. Some noises bother some
people more than others.)

The best method I've found when comparing audio quality, is usually a utilizing
a side-by-side comparison, using a small 1-2 second clipping and repeatedly
replaying until your brain memorizes each audio stream's anomalies, if there
are any anomalies at all.

Not only this, but the two streams you mentioned are using two different base
formats, not easily replicated over and over as per the previous mentioned
testing method as you already mentioned.

--
Roger
http://rogerx.freeshell.org/

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Announcing the Oxford Dictionaries API! The API offers world-renowned
dictionary content that is easy and intuitive to access. Sign up for an
account today to start using our lexical data to power your apps and
projects. Get started today and enter our developer competition.
http://sdm.link/oxford
*********** ASKING FOR HELP *************

When asking for help on this list, please include the following information, so we can
help you properly:

* What operating system you are using (for example, Windows XP or Mac OS X 10.5.1)  

* Exactly what three digit version number of Audacity you are using (Help > About
   Audacity, or Audacity >  About Audacity on a Mac computer)  

* If this is a recording problem, what equipment you are recording with, and how is it
   connected to the computer?

Mailing list: [hidden email]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, use the form at the bottom of this web page:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-users
12
Loading...