Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
fajw

audio editing with Audacity

Recommended Posts

Using Audacity how do I save @ 24 bit and 96,000 Hz? What format do I use?

 

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There should be tabs under preferences to set default export bitrates + bandwidth for raw/wav and MP3 - don't have it installed ATM but IIRC there's at least 2 places such things can be changed.

 

I don't think MP3 supports >48 KHz though, and probably not > 16 bit equivalence.

 

AAC is a more advanced lossy codec, unsure if Audacity has added support for it though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this is at all related to your new LP setup, the answer is probably: don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because there is a possibility that you are recording at a lower bit depth and sample rate, and then trying to save it at a higher quality, which creates a bigger file with no gains. Store the file as you recorded it.

Edited by komuso

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My sound card supports recording @ 24 bit and 96,000Hz. Does that mean it is alright to record at that bit depth and sample rate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends on the soundcard, but generally speaking, the answer to your question is yes. There is a huge benefit in recording at 24bits, but recording at higher sample rates is arguably unnecessary. So assuming these questions are related to your record conversion thread, then I would suggest recording at 24 bit / 44.1 KHz. As I said in the other thread, add dither, normalise, etc.

Edited by komuso

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't you get a USB table in the end? Are you recording with the digital conversion happening on your soundcard or on the turntable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The preamp has USB. I am going to compare the preamp doing the ADC to the sound card doing the ADC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty safe bet you don't need 192/24 or 96/24 to record from the preamp's USB output.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The USB output doesn't even do 96/24. The preamp does analogue out as well USB out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I honestly suggest you blind test sample rates?

 

MOST people stop hearing at 160kbps mp3 (with current LAME encoder).

There are of course those who have super hearing; with my shit eyes me ears picked up, but even I have a hard time above 196kbps, 256kbps is identical to 320kbps to me.

 

Ive proven I can separate FLAC from MP3 with quick A to B bl indtesting; but since the human brain only has roughly 8 seconds of accurate audio memory; if I give myself 10 seconds of silence, I can no longer pick them )I think i can, but blind tests say otherwise).

 

try them for yourself, then be happy. The quest for 'the best' is irrelevant if you cant appreciate it. You just waste space time and worry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure that is helping to make anything clearer scythe.... Next question will be 'what's a blind test'.

 

Fajw, your box probably only does 16bit. Record at 16/44.1, and store it as a wav file for editing. When all is done, export an mp3 or flac or whatever suits you best. FLAC is undoubtedly better but not as universal as mp3.

 

If you do a comparison of the phono box ADC and your soundcard's ADC, I don't think you'll hear any meaningful difference... If there are differences it probably won't be because of the ADC, but because of an analogue element in the signal path.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said: my sound card supports recording @ 24 bit and 96,000Hz.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you save at should be determined by what the original input is and what the device you'll playback on is capable of.

 

Doing intermediate processing at 24 bit is valid, e.g. if you record a 16-bit source then decide to change the amplitude, there's potential for some loss of precision if done at 16-bit.

 

But once your processing is all said and done, there's not much point saving at a higher precision and bitrate that playback devices are capable of.

 

And as mentioned, you can go too far with it all. 16-bit audio @ 48 KHz is DVD audio standard and there's not a lot of point going much higher than that with standard quality speakers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure that is helping to make anything clearer scythe.... Next question will be 'what's a blind test'.

 

Fajw, your box probably only does 16bit. Record at 16/44.1, and store it as a wav file for editing. When all is done, export an mp3 or flac or whatever suits you best. FLAC is undoubtedly better but not as universal as mp3.

 

If you do a comparison of the phono box ADC and your soundcard's ADC, I don't think you'll hear any meaningful difference... If there are differences it probably won't be because of the ADC, but because of an analogue element in the signal path.

True, what I was trying to emphasize, is that unless he's in that rare 4% of people, anything above MP3 160Kbps with a modern lame encoder, is going to go unnoticed.

Standard FLAC will be more than enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

48/96khz, 512kbps, AAC-LC

For mono audio, it actually suggests 128kbps. I'm not sure if AAC does VBR or ABR, but as a ballpark, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just curious; is the only the size difference that makes you recommend AAC?

 

Im just curious why no one else has just said 'yes' to me suggesting FLAC

Why would you not use FLAC? It comes bundled with Audacity, it plays on basically every device these days (even car head units, as i accidentally discovered), and its lossless. Supporting all the possible bitrates.

 

Yeah the files are a little large, but not huge by today's storage standards.

 

Is it purely for the youtube 'no re-encode' philosophy?

If there is no hope of them going to youtube; would you say flac?? (if not) Can I ask why not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since an LP was mentioned and YouTube is the place most of those wind up...

I can't see any reason most LPs should wind up on youtube... am I missing something?

 

 

Just curious; is the only the size difference that makes you recommend AAC?

 

Im just curious why no one else has just said 'yes' to me suggesting FLAC

Why would you not use FLAC? It comes bundled with Audacity, it plays on basically every device these days (even car head units, as i accidentally discovered), and its lossless. Supporting all the possible bitrates.

 

Yeah the files are a little large, but not huge by today's storage standards.

 

Is it purely for the youtube 'no re-encode' philosophy?

If there is no hope of them going to youtube; would you say flac?? (if not) Can I ask why not?

Don't assume that because nobody has jumped to respond to your post that no one likes flac. Its a good format.

 

However, since the topic question is 'audio editing with Audacity', the right answer to fajw's question is linear pcm wave or aif (assuming that fajw was asking the question that he actually wanted to ask).

 

In contrast, flac, mp3, AAC, et al. are delivery formats.

 

MP3 is the file that plays on basically every device. While flac can be played on most devices, perhaps after a tweak or download on some, its not supported by native audio players on either OSX or Windows. iTunes and Apple devices are the behemoth of portable audio. Also, while file size is not a big deal these days, it still kind of is for portable devices. Let's say for example a flac file is half the size of a given wav, and an mp3 is a tenth. That's 400% more mp3 files on your player.

Edited by komuso

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh dont get me wrong, My order of preference is Ogg, MP3, FLAC.

The other players (participants) to the field are too new, in an industry too old for me to be concerned with is all.

 

The human ear without quick A to B testing cant hear 160kbps VBR mp3 flaws (with a tiny tiny tiny percentage proving otherwise, and dropping away at 192kbps VBR), so for me, thats already solved (i'm a 256kbps VBR -v1 guy myself).

And for archive purposes, where file size shouldnt be much an issue, there is no down side to FLAC I can think of; even car head units as old as 2009 often had FLAC support, as it was free to include.

 

Turns out if the devs had space, they threw the decoder in 'for laughs'. Ive found at least 3 head units (most from pioneer, 1 sony) that had FLAC way before they should, and don't advertise it.

 

This isnt even a brand thing for me, there's no 'apple is evil' in this view; its just that innovation for innovations sake alone breeds obscurity.

We have our human ear perfect codec, and our bit perfect codec fairly down pat.

 

File size reduction is fantastic, but untill it gets into the '50% smaller!' or better, with the speed that storage increases; why bother?

Edited by Master_Scythe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since an LP was mentioned and YouTube is the place most of those wind up...

I can't see any reason most LPs should wind up on youtube... am I missing something?
I meant LP as in Let's Play, a style of videogame commentary that is popular on the tubes. Not Long Play/music related. Sorry for the confusion :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×