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

Re: Why bother with lossy encoding?

Linda W.
Clyde Lyman 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
----
    Go get 'foobar2000'(free PC player)  It's been out for over a decade,
has a bunch of plugins, handles most all audio formats.

    Best of all,  you can design your own GUI... it's a bit of a chore
to do, but once you have your own look with the panels and plugins you
want, you won't want to go back to generic, but you can use a preset until
you are ready for that.

    As for a reason to use FLAC.  I know I can go from FLAC to
any other format, losslessly.  If I go for MP3, I can't later re-encode
to something else.

    Besides, once you've got your home-collection in FLAC on your
hard disk, you won't want to take the time to re-encode into some other
format for each portable you have -- so I just got a good portable player
that can use a 128G memory card (chip?) (smaller than a dime).

    If you haven't heard of it, Check out the Fiio line.  If you just
want music, the Fiio X3, has a color display to display the album cover
and has up to a 24-bit, 192KHz output ability.  You can also use it
as a high-rez output device for your PC if you are into that.  I have
less than 50% usage with near 4000 songs -- all full size FLAC -- so
all i need to do is copy them from PC to the player or the chip directly.
Player is 6x10x1.5cm (divide by 2.54 for inches) and weighs about 155 grams
or 5.4oz.

    I've left the thing turned on w/screen off (not playing), and grabbed it
a week later, and it was still 'on' with a fair amount of battery left.
They really did a good job -- and I've played it for days str8 w/no recharge
and battery didn't even get low -- really good w/power.

    Fiio has other players if you want video and other stuff, they also
have portable amps (same size as the player, but able to power full size
studio headphones).  Both charge via USB.



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?

Billy Geiger-4
"Player is 6x10x1.5cm (divide by 2.54 for inches)"....is that MULTIPLY instead?

[hidden email]

        Billy Geiger
        Winder, GA.
      (40 miles east
         of Atlanta)

On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 11:07 PM, L A Walsh <[hidden email]> wrote:
Clyde Lyman 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
----
    Go get 'foobar2000'(free PC player)  It's been out for over a decade,
has a bunch of plugins, handles most all audio formats.

    Best of all,  you can design your own GUI... it's a bit of a chore
to do, but once you have your own look with the panels and plugins you
want, you won't want to go back to generic, but you can use a preset until
you are ready for that.

    As for a reason to use FLAC.  I know I can go from FLAC to
any other format, losslessly.  If I go for MP3, I can't later re-encode
to something else.

    Besides, once you've got your home-collection in FLAC on your
hard disk, you won't want to take the time to re-encode into some other
format for each portable you have -- so I just got a good portable player
that can use a 128G memory card (chip?) (smaller than a dime).

    If you haven't heard of it, Check out the Fiio line.  If you just
want music, the Fiio X3, has a color display to display the album cover
and has up to a 24-bit, 192KHz output ability.  You can also use it
as a high-rez output device for your PC if you are into that.  I have
less than 50% usage with near 4000 songs -- all full size FLAC -- so
all i need to do is copy them from PC to the player or the chip directly.
Player is 6x10x1.5cm (divide by 2.54 for inches) and weighs about 155 grams
or 5.4oz.

    I've left the thing turned on w/screen off (not playing), and grabbed it
a week later, and it was still 'on' with a fair amount of battery left.
They really did a good job -- and I've played it for days str8 w/no recharge
and battery didn't even get low -- really good w/power.

    Fiio has other players if you want video and other stuff, they also
have portable amps (same size as the player, but able to power full size
studio headphones).  Both charge via USB.



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?

Linda W.
Billy Geiger wrote:
> "Player is 6 x 10 x 1.5 cm (divide by 2.54 for inches)"....is that
> MULTIPLY instead?
----
    What do you get for the dimensions of the unit, in inches, if
you do that?

? ;-)





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?

Allistair Bywater
No, not multiply. You get 2.3" X 3.9" X 0.6" - roughly the size of my
mobile phone, only thicker. More or less the dimensions given on the
Fiio website -  http://www.fiio.net/en/products/65

I get confused when I think about it....

On 09/03/2017 16:38, L A Walsh wrote:

> Billy Geiger wrote:
>> "Player is 6 x 10 x 1.5 cm (divide by 2.54 for inches)"....is that
>> MULTIPLY instead?
> ----
>      What do you get for the dimensions of the unit, in inches, if
> you do that?
>
> ? ;-)
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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?

Billy Geiger-4
Ohhhhhhhhh....okay....had to put my rusty mind in gear....

Sorry....

[hidden email]

        Billy Geiger
        Winder, GA.
      (40 miles east
         of Atlanta)

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Allistair Bywater <[hidden email]> wrote:
No, not multiply. You get 2.3" X 3.9" X 0.6" - roughly the size of my
mobile phone, only thicker. More or less the dimensions given on the
Fiio website -  http://www.fiio.net/en/products/65

I get confused when I think about it....

On 09/03/2017 16:38, L A Walsh wrote:
> Billy Geiger wrote:
>> "Player is 6 x 10 x 1.5 cm (divide by 2.54 for inches)"....is that
>> MULTIPLY instead?
> ----
>      What do you get for the dimensions of the unit, in inches, if
> you do that?
>
> ? ;-)
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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?

Johnny Rosenberg
In reply to this post by Allistair Bywater
Seems like sound quality is very individual. Some people swallow everything, some hear defects that don't exist, and I guess most people are somewhere in between.
I grew up with vinyl and audio cassettes (those very common ones by that time, 3.175 mm (⅛") wide tape, 47.625 mm/s (1⅞"/s) speed. I hated the background noise, the ”wow & flutter", defects from those noise reduction systems and so on. And I hated the vinyls as well, but for different reasons. I was just annoyed by the sound.
Then I upgraded to a reel to reel tape recorder (a TEAC A-3440 4 channel thing). Still a lot of tape hizz, but less wow & flutter and so on. Still annoying, though, even at highest speed 380 mm/s (15"/s).

First time I had something that didn't annoy me was actually when I bought my first CD player. I also upgraded my mixdown possibilities from a cassette to a HiFi Video recorder. It sounded a lot better, but had some annoyances as well. Only about a year later I bought a DAT recorder and was very happy with it until it broke many years later.

These days I use the FLAC format for documenting my music recordings. I find it easy to deal with. I can manage tags with my own bash-scripts and I use that to enter everything I know about the songs I record. Title (all of them if they are more than one, for instance songs that are translated from another language, like ”Reflections In A Palace Lake (京都慕情 – Kyoto Bojo)” or ”Manchurian Beat (На Сопках Манчжурии)”, composers (even when I'm the composer…), original artists, who plays what instrument, where we recorded it and exactly when. I also use those tags to automatically upload them to a link page of mine, for the other musicians to be able to download them and give me feedback about the mixing and more. I know that most file formats supports tags, but I find them very easy to work with in FLAC files. And I like the Open Source idea in this case.

After listening to lossy formats I found that the result depends a lot on the original sound. If the original sound is a poor noisy old recording from the 60's or even earlier, not even 256 kb/s (mp3) is enough to avoid audible artefacts. A good original however, may sound good enough at 160 kb/s (mp3). With Ogg/Vorbis files at least one step lower bitrate may be ok. Hiss sounds seems to be very tricky to handle for those psycho acoustic data reducing algorithms.

I guess I could write about this for several days, but I also have a life, so…


Kind regards

Johnny Rosenberg



2017-03-09 18:40 GMT+01:00 Allistair Bywater <[hidden email]>:
No, not multiply. You get 2.3" X 3.9" X 0.6" - roughly the size of my
mobile phone, only thicker. More or less the dimensions given on the
Fiio website -  http://www.fiio.net/en/products/65

I get confused when I think about it....

On 09/03/2017 16:38, L A Walsh wrote:
> Billy Geiger wrote:
>> "Player is 6 x 10 x 1.5 cm (divide by 2.54 for inches)"....is that
>> MULTIPLY instead?
> ----
>      What do you get for the dimensions of the unit, in inches, if
> you do that?
>
> ? ;-)
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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 Billy Geiger-4
I use the GOM player, audio and video, they have a great reverb unit. Though I would like a parametric EQ with Q width control, sweepable frequency mids and a high-pass filter. Since I learned to use those things, I don't go near graphics



From: Billy Geiger <[hidden email]>
To: Discussion list for Audacity users <[hidden email]>
Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2017 3:25 PM
Subject: Re: [Audacity-users] Why bother with lossy encoding?

Ohhhhhhhhh....okay....had to put my rusty mind in gear....

Sorry....

[hidden email]

        Billy Geiger
        Winder, GA.
      (40 miles east
         of Atlanta)

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Allistair Bywater <[hidden email]> wrote:
No, not multiply. You get 2.3" X 3.9" X 0.6" - roughly the size of my
mobile phone, only thicker. More or less the dimensions given on the
Fiio website -  http://www.fiio.net/en/ products/65

I get confused when I think about it....

On 09/03/2017 16:38, L A Walsh wrote:
> Billy Geiger wrote:
>> "Player is 6 x 10 x 1.5 cm (divide by 2.54 for inches)"....is that
>> MULTIPLY instead?
> ----
>      What do you get for the dimensions of the unit, in inches, if
> you do that?
>
> ? ;-)
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------
> 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 Johnny Rosenberg
Le 09/03/2017 21:59, Johnny Rosenberg a écrit :
> After listening to lossy formats I found that the result depends a lot on
> the original sound. If the original sound is a poor noisy old recording
> from the 60's or even earlier, not even 256 kb/s (mp3) is enough to avoid
> audible artefacts. A good original however, may sound good enough at 160
> kb/s (mp3). With Ogg/Vorbis files at least one step lower bitrate may be
> ok. Hiss sounds seems to be very tricky to handle for those psycho acoustic
> data reducing algorithms.

Yes it seems we are so different because for me the most important is
the "emotion" I get, so I like a good LP or tape but get bored by most
digital sound, except good DSD or PCM played with high-end audiophilic DAC.
--
Bien cordialement, Stephane Ascoet


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?

Roger
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 11:59:31AM +0100, Stephane Ascoet wrote:

>Le 09/03/2017 21:59, Johnny Rosenberg a ?crit :
>> After listening to lossy formats I found that the result depends a lot on
>> the original sound. If the original sound is a poor noisy old recording
>> from the 60's or even earlier, not even 256 kb/s (mp3) is enough to avoid
>> audible artefacts. A good original however, may sound good enough at 160
>> kb/s (mp3). With Ogg/Vorbis files at least one step lower bitrate may be
>> ok. Hiss sounds seems to be very tricky to handle for those psycho acoustic
>> data reducing algorithms.
>
>Yes it seems we are so different because for me the most important is
>the "emotion" I get, so I like a good LP or tape but get bored by most
>digital sound, except good DSD or PCM played with high-end audiophilic DAC.
Ditto here, as I consider myself to have good ears for classical music.

Extracted all of my CD's into PCM WAV avoiding the lossy compression codecs,
but still noticing the metallic/tin type sound reminiscent of CD grade audio,
even with a 5.1 home stereo grade DAC.  I seem to prefer the 24-bit 48kHz
sampling, but am no where near being rich to upgrade my entire music
collection.  Can still recall the days of Tape and LP, where music was less
tinny sounding.  But then that's also getting back to the days where tubes were
also more common.

I've also tried upsampling the CD audio to 24-bit 48kHz sampling, while using
an ALSA LP filter, helps but not significantly enough.  Shrugs, maybe my ears
are just getting too old and too tired.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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

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

Re: Why bother with lossy encoding?

Billy Geiger-4
hhhmmmmmmmm....

Use Audacity to interject a few DBs of low-end bass....


[hidden email]

        Billy Geiger
        Winder, GA.
      (40 miles east
         of Atlanta)

On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 1:11 PM, Roger <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 11:59:31AM +0100, Stephane Ascoet wrote:
>Le 09/03/2017 21:59, Johnny Rosenberg a ?crit :
>> After listening to lossy formats I found that the result depends a lot on
>> the original sound. If the original sound is a poor noisy old recording
>> from the 60's or even earlier, not even 256 kb/s (mp3) is enough to avoid
>> audible artefacts. A good original however, may sound good enough at 160
>> kb/s (mp3). With Ogg/Vorbis files at least one step lower bitrate may be
>> ok. Hiss sounds seems to be very tricky to handle for those psycho acoustic
>> data reducing algorithms.
>
>Yes it seems we are so different because for me the most important is
>the "emotion" I get, so I like a good LP or tape but get bored by most
>digital sound, except good DSD or PCM played with high-end audiophilic DAC.

Ditto here, as I consider myself to have good ears for classical music.

Extracted all of my CD's into PCM WAV avoiding the lossy compression codecs,
but still noticing the metallic/tin type sound reminiscent of CD grade audio,
even with a 5.1 home stereo grade DAC.  I seem to prefer the 24-bit 48kHz
sampling, but am no where near being rich to upgrade my entire music
collection.  Can still recall the days of Tape and LP, where music was less
tinny sounding.  But then that's also getting back to the days where tubes were
also more common.

I've also tried upsampling the CD audio to 24-bit 48kHz sampling, while using
an ALSA LP filter, helps but not significantly enough.  Shrugs, maybe my ears
are just getting too old and too tired.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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

Re: Why bother with lossy encoding?

Stephane Ascoet-4
In reply to this post by Roger
Le 14/03/2017 18:11, Roger a écrit :

>
> Ditto here, as I consider myself to have good ears for classical music.
>
> Extracted all of my CD's into PCM WAV avoiding the lossy compression codecs,
> but still noticing the metallic/tin type sound reminiscent of CD grade audio,
> even with a 5.1 home stereo grade DAC.  I seem to prefer the 24-bit 48kHz
> sampling, but am no where near being rich to upgrade my entire music
> collection.  Can still recall the days of Tape and LP, where music was less
> tinny sounding.  But then that's also getting back to the days where tubes were
> also more common.
>
> I've also tried upsampling the CD audio to 24-bit 48kHz sampling, while using
> an ALSA LP filter, helps but not significantly enough.  Shrugs, maybe my ears
> are just getting too old and too tired.
>
Hi, I've got a Sony 3000 ES expanding them to 96 khz at playing, results
are incredibly impressive with some CDs. With some others, that has been
very poorly engineered, there's no difference, the sound remains tiny.

--
Sincerely, Stephane Ascoet


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?

Stevethefiddle
Just a quick technical point: Increasing the sample rate of
("upsampling") a recording, does not and can not improved the quality
of the encoded sound. Once the sound has been recorded in digital
format, that is "it", that data contains specific audio information,
and any subtle musical nuances that are missing are gone forever. It
is physically impossible to magically restore audio information that
is missing from the original.

The difference that sample rate makes, is that it limits the maximum
frequency that can be represented by the data. Uncompressed PCM data
has an absolute limit to the frequencies that it can represent. The
limit is half the sample rate (known as the "Nyquist frequency"). So
for audio CDs, (sample rate 44100 Hz), audio frequencies must be below
22050 Hz. The only difference that a higher sample rate makes is that
it could theoretically represent frequencies above 22050 Hz, but if
the original recording is on CD, then there are no audio frequencies
above 22050 Hz, and upsampling cannot change that, (other than by
adding distortion).

Steve

On 15 March 2017 at 07:16, Stephane Ascoet
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Le 14/03/2017 18:11, Roger a écrit :
>>
>> Ditto here, as I consider myself to have good ears for classical music.
>>
>> Extracted all of my CD's into PCM WAV avoiding the lossy compression codecs,
>> but still noticing the metallic/tin type sound reminiscent of CD grade audio,
>> even with a 5.1 home stereo grade DAC.  I seem to prefer the 24-bit 48kHz
>> sampling, but am no where near being rich to upgrade my entire music
>> collection.  Can still recall the days of Tape and LP, where music was less
>> tinny sounding.  But then that's also getting back to the days where tubes were
>> also more common.
>>
>> I've also tried upsampling the CD audio to 24-bit 48kHz sampling, while using
>> an ALSA LP filter, helps but not significantly enough.  Shrugs, maybe my ears
>> are just getting too old and too tired.
>>
> Hi, I've got a Sony 3000 ES expanding them to 96 khz at playing, results
> are incredibly impressive with some CDs. With some others, that has been
> very poorly engineered, there's no difference, the sound remains tiny.
>
> --
> Sincerely, Stephane Ascoet
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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

Re: Why bother with lossy encoding?

Stephane Ascoet-4
Le 15/03/2017 11:30, Steve the Fiddle a écrit :

> Just a quick technical point: Increasing the sample rate of
> ("upsampling") a recording, does not and can not improved the quality
> of the encoded sound. Once the sound has been recorded in digital
> format, that is "it", that data contains specific audio information,
> and any subtle musical nuances that are missing are gone forever. It
> is physically impossible to magically restore audio information that
> is missing from the original.
>
> The difference that sample rate makes, is that it limits the maximum
> frequency that can be represented by the data. Uncompressed PCM data
> has an absolute limit to the frequencies that it can represent. The
> limit is half the sample rate (known as the "Nyquist frequency"). So
> for audio CDs, (sample rate 44100 Hz), audio frequencies must be below
> 22050 Hz. The only difference that a higher sample rate makes is that
> it could theoretically represent frequencies above 22050 Hz, but if
> the original recording is on CD, then there are no audio frequencies
> above 22050 Hz, and upsampling cannot change that, (other than by
> adding distortion).
>
> Steve
>
This is a technical point of view. But, as I already wrote it years ago
on this list, I can really ear a difference. The sound is more warm.


--
Sincerely, Stephane Ascoet


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?

Stevethefiddle
On 15 March 2017 at 10:39, Stephane Ascoet
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Le 15/03/2017 11:30, Steve the Fiddle a écrit :
>> Just a quick technical point: Increasing the sample rate of
>> ("upsampling") a recording, does not and can not improved the quality
>> of the encoded sound. Once the sound has been recorded in digital
>> format, that is "it", that data contains specific audio information,
>> and any subtle musical nuances that are missing are gone forever. It
>> is physically impossible to magically restore audio information that
>> is missing from the original.
>>
>> The difference that sample rate makes, is that it limits the maximum
>> frequency that can be represented by the data. Uncompressed PCM data
>> has an absolute limit to the frequencies that it can represent. The
>> limit is half the sample rate (known as the "Nyquist frequency"). So
>> for audio CDs, (sample rate 44100 Hz), audio frequencies must be below
>> 22050 Hz. The only difference that a higher sample rate makes is that
>> it could theoretically represent frequencies above 22050 Hz, but if
>> the original recording is on CD, then there are no audio frequencies
>> above 22050 Hz, and upsampling cannot change that, (other than by
>> adding distortion).
>>
>> Steve
>>
> This is a technical point of view. But, as I already wrote it years ago
> on this list, I can really ear a difference. The sound is more warm.

Yes, as I wrote, this is a technical point. I'm only talking about
actual physical facts, not "alternative" facts.

There are many reasons why upsampling may sound "different". The
additional sample rate conversion step could introduce losses for a
number of reasons, and that "difference" in sound may be preferable to
some listeners, just as some listeners prefer the "sizzle" sound of
low quality MP3s
(http://radar.oreilly.com/2009/03/the-sizzling-sound-of-music.html).
This should not, in my opinion, be confused with "sound quality" in
the sense of "accurate reproduction of sound".

There is no right or wrong about personal preference, Some people
prefer vinyl or even compact cassettes. Some prefer CDs and some
prefer MP3s. Some prefer Camembert and some prefer Stilton. Some
prefer Rock and some prefer Jazz. Thank heavens we're not all clones
;-)

Steve

>
>
> --
> Sincerely, Stephane Ascoet
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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

Re: Why bother with lossy encoding?

Clyde Lyman
In reply to this post by Stevethefiddle
Did analog recording or broadcast go up beyond 20,000 cps? My stereo's HF horns go from 2,000 to 25,000. On the other edn, I'm learning mixing & mastering and have learned that anything below 40 cps is just "rumble" and, musically, should be treated with the HP filter rolling 40 and below off



From: Steve the Fiddle <[hidden email]>
To: Discussion list for Audacity users <[hidden email]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2017 6:30 AM
Subject: Re: [Audacity-users] Why bother with lossy encoding?

Just a quick technical point: Increasing the sample rate of
("upsampling") a recording, does not and can not improved the quality
of the encoded sound. Once the sound has been recorded in digital
format, that is "it", that data contains specific audio information,
and any subtle musical nuances that are missing are gone forever. It
is physically impossible to magically restore audio information that
is missing from the original.

The difference that sample rate makes, is that it limits the maximum
frequency that can be represented by the data. Uncompressed PCM data
has an absolute limit to the frequencies that it can represent. The
limit is half the sample rate (known as the "Nyquist frequency"). So
for audio CDs, (sample rate 44100 Hz), audio frequencies must be below
22050 Hz. The only difference that a higher sample rate makes is that
it could theoretically represent frequencies above 22050 Hz, but if
the original recording is on CD, then there are no audio frequencies
above 22050 Hz, and upsampling cannot change that, (other than by
adding distortion).

Steve

On 15 March 2017 at 07:16, Stephane Ascoet
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Le 14/03/2017 18:11, Roger a écrit :
>>
>> Ditto here, as I consider myself to have good ears for classical music.
>>
>> Extracted all of my CD's into PCM WAV avoiding the lossy compression codecs,
>> but still noticing the metallic/tin type sound reminiscent of CD grade audio,
>> even with a 5.1 home stereo grade DAC.  I seem to prefer the 24-bit 48kHz
>> sampling, but am no where near being rich to upgrade my entire music
>> collection.  Can still recall the days of Tape and LP, where music was less
>> tinny sounding.  But then that's also getting back to the days where tubes were
>> also more common.
>>
>> I've also tried upsampling the CD audio to 24-bit 48kHz sampling, while using
>> an ALSA LP filter, helps but not significantly enough.  Shrugs, maybe my ears
>> are just getting too old and too tired.
>>
> Hi, I've got a Sony 3000 ES expanding them to 96 khz at playing, results
> are incredibly impressive with some CDs. With some others, that has been
> very poorly engineered, there's no difference, the sound remains tiny.
>
> --
> Sincerely, Stephane Ascoet
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?

Stevethefiddle
On 15 March 2017 at 11:22, Clyde Lyman <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Did analog recording or broadcast go up beyond 20,000 cps? My stereo's HF
> horns go from 2,000 to 25,000. On the other edn, I'm learning mixing &
> mastering and have learned that anything below 40 cps is just "rumble" and,
> musically, should be treated with the HP filter rolling 40 and below off

Usually "just rumble", though in some cases that "rumble" may be part
of the music. For example, the fundamental frequency of the lowest
string of an orchestral (4 string) double bass is 41 Hz (about 33 Hz
for a 5 string bass with a "low C"), and a large organ pipe can go as
staggeringly low as 8 Hz!
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boardwalk_Hall_Auditorium_Organ#64-foot_Diaphone-Dulzian)

Steve

>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Steve the Fiddle <[hidden email]>
> To: Discussion list for Audacity users
> <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2017 6:30 AM
> Subject: Re: [Audacity-users] Why bother with lossy encoding?
>
> Just a quick technical point: Increasing the sample rate of
> ("upsampling") a recording, does not and can not improved the quality
> of the encoded sound. Once the sound has been recorded in digital
> format, that is "it", that data contains specific audio information,
> and any subtle musical nuances that are missing are gone forever. It
> is physically impossible to magically restore audio information that
> is missing from the original.
>
> The difference that sample rate makes, is that it limits the maximum
> frequency that can be represented by the data. Uncompressed PCM data
> has an absolute limit to the frequencies that it can represent. The
> limit is half the sample rate (known as the "Nyquist frequency"). So
> for audio CDs, (sample rate 44100 Hz), audio frequencies must be below
> 22050 Hz. The only difference that a higher sample rate makes is that
> it could theoretically represent frequencies above 22050 Hz, but if
> the original recording is on CD, then there are no audio frequencies
> above 22050 Hz, and upsampling cannot change that, (other than by
> adding distortion).
>
> Steve
>
> On 15 March 2017 at 07:16, Stephane Ascoet
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Le 14/03/2017 18:11, Roger a écrit :
>>>
>>> Ditto here, as I consider myself to have good ears for classical music.
>>>
>>> Extracted all of my CD's into PCM WAV avoiding the lossy compression
>>> codecs,
>>> but still noticing the metallic/tin type sound reminiscent of CD grade
>>> audio,
>>> even with a 5.1 home stereo grade DAC.  I seem to prefer the 24-bit 48kHz
>>> sampling, but am no where near being rich to upgrade my entire music
>>> collection.  Can still recall the days of Tape and LP, where music was
>>> less
>>> tinny sounding.  But then that's also getting back to the days where
>>> tubes were
>>> also more common.
>>>
>>> I've also tried upsampling the CD audio to 24-bit 48kHz sampling, while
>>> using
>>> an ALSA LP filter, helps but not significantly enough.  Shrugs, maybe my
>>> ears
>>> are just getting too old and too tired.
>>>
>> Hi, I've got a Sony 3000 ES expanding them to 96 khz at playing, results
>> are incredibly impressive with some CDs. With some others, that has been
>> very poorly engineered, there's no difference, the sound remains tiny.
>>
>> --
>> Sincerely, Stephane Ascoet
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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

Re: Why bother with lossy encoding?

Roger
In reply to this post by Stevethefiddle
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 10:30:58AM +0000, Steve the Fiddle wrote:
>Just a quick technical point: Increasing the sample rate of
>("upsampling") a recording, does not and can not improved the quality
>of the encoded sound. Once the sound has been recorded in digital

Exactly correct.

This is why I tried increasing sampling, while adding noise and augmenting
frequencies.  (eg. ALSA LP effect filter.)  In essence, in an attempt to trick
the ear.  Gives a neat "neato" effect, but really nothing more.

Once the recording is at 16-bits 44100Hz or less, not much more one can do with
it.  Some day, I'll have to buy some 24-bit 48000Hz Mozart, and perform a
side-by-side comparison.  As well as compare tape/LP medias, but I just figured
at this point, I'll still be stuck with 16-bit 44100Hz recordings due to higher
costs of the 24-bit 48000Hz media and the preference for portable digital media
over non-portability and shortened life span of tape/LP medias.

Hence, just be content with what one has!


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

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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

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

Re: Why bother with lossy encoding?

stan-7
In reply to this post by Stevethefiddle
On Wed, 15 Mar 2017 11:20:49 +0000
Steve the Fiddle <[hidden email]> wrote:

> There is no right or wrong about personal preference, Some people
> prefer vinyl or even compact cassettes. Some prefer CDs and some
> prefer MP3s. Some prefer Camembert and some prefer Stilton. Some
> prefer Rock and some prefer Jazz. Thank heavens we're not all clones
> ;-)
>
> Steve

No, that can't be right!  Everyone should recognize that *my*
preferences are the *right* preferences.  ;-)

Like that old joke.  The band comes marching down the street, and a
woman exclaims, "Look, everyone is out of step but my Johnny!"

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?

Federico Miyara
In reply to this post by Stevethefiddle

Steve,

However, there could be a difference, not by increasing the bandwidth of the audio signal, but helping to make better profit of it. If we have only 44100 samples a second to represent a 20 kHz audio bandwidth, the smoothing filter requirements are stringent, which could lead to several kinds of artifacts (phase delay, transients). If the same signal is digitally resampled to 96 kHz with a high-quality codec, then the signal reconstruction may improve since the filter artifacts can be reduced and shifted towards higher frequencies.

Regards,

Federico


On 15/03/2017 7:30, Steve the Fiddle wrote:
Just a quick technical point: Increasing the sample rate of
("upsampling") a recording, does not and can not improved the quality
of the encoded sound. Once the sound has been recorded in digital
format, that is "it", that data contains specific audio information,
and any subtle musical nuances that are missing are gone forever. It
is physically impossible to magically restore audio information that
is missing from the original.

The difference that sample rate makes, is that it limits the maximum
frequency that can be represented by the data. Uncompressed PCM data
has an absolute limit to the frequencies that it can represent. The
limit is half the sample rate (known as the "Nyquist frequency"). So
for audio CDs, (sample rate 44100 Hz), audio frequencies must be below
22050 Hz. The only difference that a higher sample rate makes is that
it could theoretically represent frequencies above 22050 Hz, but if
the original recording is on CD, then there are no audio frequencies
above 22050 Hz, and upsampling cannot change that, (other than by
adding distortion).

Steve

On 15 March 2017 at 07:16, Stephane Ascoet
[hidden email] wrote:
Le 14/03/2017 18:11, Roger a écrit :
Ditto here, as I consider myself to have good ears for classical music.

Extracted all of my CD's into PCM WAV avoiding the lossy compression codecs,
but still noticing the metallic/tin type sound reminiscent of CD grade audio,
even with a 5.1 home stereo grade DAC.  I seem to prefer the 24-bit 48kHz
sampling, but am no where near being rich to upgrade my entire music
collection.  Can still recall the days of Tape and LP, where music was less
tinny sounding.  But then that's also getting back to the days where tubes were
also more common.

I've also tried upsampling the CD audio to 24-bit 48kHz sampling, while using
an ALSA LP filter, helps but not significantly enough.  Shrugs, maybe my ears
are just getting too old and too tired.

Hi, I've got a Sony 3000 ES expanding them to 96 khz at playing, results
are incredibly impressive with some CDs. With some others, that has been
very poorly engineered, there's no difference, the sound remains tiny.

--
Sincerely, Stephane Ascoet


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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




------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?

Federico Miyara
In reply to this post by Roger

Roger,

There is, at least theoretically, a way to increase the bandwidth above the original Nyquist limit. That is something similar to a series of psychoacoustic enhancer effects such as the aural exciter, which applies low level distortion to the high frequency content of the signal, thus creating spectral components well above the original spectral limit. This signal is added to the original signal in small doses.

I haven't tested this idea. It works fine when the target frequencies are in the range 10 kHz - 20 kHz, but I don't know how it would work above 20 kHz, or even if it would make any audible difference. Most people cannot hear anything above 18 kHz)

The addition of purely random high frequency noise may be a less controlled version of this procedure.

Regards,

Federico


On 15/03/2017 11:59, Roger wrote:
On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 10:30:58AM +0000, Steve the Fiddle wrote:
Just a quick technical point: Increasing the sample rate of
("upsampling") a recording, does not and can not improved the quality
of the encoded sound. Once the sound has been recorded in digital
Exactly correct.

This is why I tried increasing sampling, while adding noise and augmenting 
frequencies.  (eg. ALSA LP effect filter.)  In essence, in an attempt to trick 
the ear.  Gives a neat "neato" effect, but really nothing more.

Once the recording is at 16-bits 44100Hz or less, not much more one can do with 
it.  Some day, I'll have to buy some 24-bit 48000Hz Mozart, and perform a 
side-by-side comparison.  As well as compare tape/LP medias, but I just figured 
at this point, I'll still be stuck with 16-bit 44100Hz recordings due to higher 
costs of the 24-bit 48000Hz media and the preference for portable digital media 
over non-portability and shortened life span of tape/LP medias.

Hence, just be content with what one has!




------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
12
Loading...