Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
fajw

audio editing with Audacity

Recommended Posts

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 :)

 

That clears that up (:

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 :)

 

Off topic but;

Ah, you see no one else did :P

I didnt think many people watched those, with the exception of Game Grumps; and the only reason they ranked is... well.. covered well by Game Theory, explaining someone who blows my mind with both hate and curiosity.

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.

 

Talking about encoding rates for MP3s as if the format has no other inherent problems with certain sample types is silly - AAC is better for giving similar results for less bandwidth, sure, but it also doesn't have some sample encoding limitations that MP3 does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you talking about the classic 'Harpsichord' sample test?

Its wayyyyy over hyped.

I listen to a lot of power metal, with 200bpm harpsichord solos; I'll admit you get the rare artifact (and i mean rare, 1/200 tracks with 1 artifact?, and it sounds like a vinyl 'click').

Or do you mean sample rates?

 

Either way, No, I don't think its silly, because no matter how much people justify it, the vast majority of us have human ears.

With these human ears, we achieve transparency (compressed==source; to our ears) very early on, in LAME's case, ABX testing says -V3 (~175 kbps); i personally need -V2 (~190 kbps), but thats still low for the sake of the argument.

 

This test is one of the most published.

http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/02/high-...blind-test.html

It went across a great deal of audio forums, so you're bound to get a mix of people who 'want the best' from their cheap gear, and the 'spend my entire savings' audiophiles.

For those too lazy to read, mp3 came out the winner over lossless. Which really just proves that 'correct' isn't always 'nicest'. It was a pretty big blind test.

 

Here's decent reading on the matter

http://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=LAME

 

 

What point am I trying to make?

Any limitations mp3 as a codec has (with exception of size, as admitted) are, imo, null and void. Because simply, the human ear wont pick them up!

 

Really, unless you're the type who upgrades your technology 'just because', its likely one of these is true:

your car head unit is 5+ years old, your mp3 player is still kicking along (mines been washed 4 times, and goes strong), maybe you have a cheap chinese micro system with USB port, possibly an older phone?

Even if that's not you, i'm sure you know someone.

AAC wont help you hear better, so why would you risk your music USB stick not working in your mates car? Or that bluetooth transfer being incompatible with his older phone? or that you get to the party with your mix and the hifi wont play it?

 

I'll pose the straight out question:

What advantage does one lossy codec have, over another, in audio, when the human ear cant tell the source from the compression, in either?

(file size aside, that's admitted)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So let me get this straight...

 

First you're vehemently arguing for flac encoding, and then vehemently arguing that no one can tell the difference, and finally asking, with vehemence, what advantage does one have over the other when the human ear can't tell the difference? The complexity of it is far too much for me.

 

Also, I'm not entirely confident that you know what 'artefacts' to listen for. It'd be like counting aliasing on a jpeg, except imponderably more difficult. Nobody does that.

Edited by komuso

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, you have it correct.

 

You're confused because you missed the separation between best codec for what he's trying to do (96/24) and whats humanly transparent.

Also a lossless codec allows for editing in the future. and who knows what laser speakers will bring? So storing in lossless is always preferable.

But yeah, complexity is what I do best ^~^ not many keep up :P

 

 

Also, thats OK, you're allowed your doubts. Its called an opinion and everyone has them.

But i'm confident in myself, and have proven my skills in much more specialized audio communities.

Plus, even if you don't want to believe me, there are literally thousands of tests and people backing this up.

Or, go test it yourself! HydrogenAudio has clips that are almost guaranteed to create artefact's, so go encode them! Took me maybe 14-18 hours at most to test most of the popular encoders from 2007 onward? Time well spent.

Edited by Master_Scythe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe it was some cymbal notes, but it's academic.

 

http://lame.sourceforge.net/quality.php says it was hihats, even.

 

But as I said, academic. You're talking about LAME like it's been the same for decades. After the mid 00s, IIRC, some key devs left, and there was debate on whether the new psychoacoustic models and algorithms used were of as good a quality. From memory HA recommended specific older builds because of this.

 

So your argument is essentially compatibility, which will depend on use cases, which we were never really told.

 

And if you want to go balls deep for compatibility, then you'd have to skip MP3 in a VBR form.

 

 

AAC is simply a better lossy encoder, for given encoders, than MP3, just as MPC was a better encoder. The difference is, there's a lot more support for playing AAC than MPC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah my argument is essentially compatibility.

Not just in file type though. Things like processing power in project devices for decoding too.

Ive also had a lot of problems with trying to play corrupted files. Ive had TONS of corrupted mp3's and they soldier on with some wierdness showing, AAC i've had players refuse to try, or just digital noise. It'll be the compression method for sure.

 

 

Ah the old 'electrical wasps' sound from hihats?

I was very familiar with it, but at 320kbps, without isolating other sounds, I honestly cant pick it anymore. Its why VBR is the one considered transparent at 170ish kbps, you do a CBR encode there and harpsichords and highhats get strange, but VBR lets that bit spike to 320 and isnt heard.

 

but at the end of the day, yes, its more that we dont need 5 billion audio codecs out there, that dont offer us an audiable difference. I mean, OGG has been both open source and unarguably better for years; but I dont see it used anywhere outside of video containers. What happened to OGG, WMA, APE? all better (ape especially) but none took over. They all just fragmented a media., at least IMO.

 

HE-AAC offered a hole in the market to fill; audio quality at sub 56kbps rates. its revolutionised internet radio.

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  

×