mp3/lossless question for audiophiles...

[unohu69]

Ok well this kinda goes with technobabble .... I am the original taper of a show, I have 3 bands from the show full sets, the problem is they are in WAV format on my pc. how do I track mark the files ? then what would be the prefered format for this site ? flac ? or shn ? I would probably rather convert them to flac. I would like to upload here to share...

The bands are: Bullet for my Valentine, Atreu, and Avenged Sevenfold. From the RockStar Taste of Chaos tour.

[AAR.oner]

Originally Posted by ffooky

Simplest method using Audacity and xACT:

1. Open your wave, Edit->Move Cursor...->Track Start and hit command-B.
2. Locate all your track splits and mark each one by hitting command-B.
3. Go to File->Export Multiple, select WAV as the export format, Split files based on:Labels, Name files:Numbering consecutively, hit Export.

You'll now have a nice set of consecutively numbered split tracks but they are not cut on sector boundaries.

then.......

use either xACT [Mac] or Traders Little Helper [PC] to correct the sector boundary errors, encode wavs > flac, create checksum

[unohu69]

Thanx for the response. I'm not exactly sure how to use those programs, so with a little research, and trial and error. I'll see what I can accomplish.
I have been playing alot of C&C3 Tiberium wars lately, so it might take a little while...

[stephsbear]

hi folks! long been a member here, but I don't think I've ever posted in a forum - so hi.

Seems like this is the site to ask this question: I am a creator of ROIOs, and am working on a certain very large project that due to its very nature requires that I use some mp3-sourced files. I don't like it, but it has to happen (with full disclosure, etc, and not something that could be posted here anyway). So, I have in my possession some flac files that were mp3-sourced (which is probably why I can't find them lossless either). Is there any way, outside of getting a PhD, of figuring out what bitrate of mp3 they came from? The only way I know of comparing them is to "earball" them.

I have no plans to down-sample them, as of course that would compound the problem, just annotate that they are lossy. But if you have a lossy "lossless" file, is there a way anyone knows of to find out if it came from a 64 kps or a 320 kps? I would love it if there were a TLH type application that could just tell me.

Please no rants about lossy files - I know, and I agree. However, in this instance, it's unavoidable. PM me if you're interested in what the project is....

[Five]

you could probably get a general idea from this:
http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/...ad.php?t=32490

in general this forum might be helpful:
http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/...splay.php?f=47

mp3 has a pretty abrupt cutoff, but there are also other codecs, sometimes its difficult to tell what the source is, sometimes its fairly obvious.

[stephsbear]

Looks tremendously helpful - thank you. Great thread with graphics. I had no idea the "cliff" at the high end moved like that at different bitrates. Cool.

[Drewa311]

this may sound like a dumb question, but im a recording arts student 4 weeks deep and i was hoping one of you could clarify this for me

it says on flacs website that flac files are compressed??

same with apple lossless? how and a file be lossless if its compressed?

im guessing that "compressed" is meaning any form of wav capture, .wac, .flac, .mp3 and so on? i hope this question makes sense-thanks

[AAR.oner]

what up drew...too early for me to explain, need more coffee but vhere's a few wiki entries that might give ya an idea:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_data_compression
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lossless_data_compression
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lossy_data_compression

[U2Lynne]

They are compressed, Drew, in order to save space. Think of it like this:

This is a normal sentence you would read on screen.
Thisisanormalsentenceyouwouldreadonscreen.

The second sentence has all the same data as the first (no data lost), but the spaces are removed to save space (it's compressed). We just need an application to take it and spit it back out with the spaces so it's easier for you to read.

[Zenith023]

Originally Posted by U2Lynne

They are compressed, Drew, in order to save space. Think of it like this:

This is a normal sentence you would read on screen.
Thisisanormalsentenceyouwouldreadonscreen.

The second sentence has all the same data as the first (no data lost), but the spaces are removed to save space (it's compressed). We just need an application to take it and spit it back out with the spaces so it's easier for you to read.

So presumably by that rationale, the mp3 equivilent would be "lke wrtng t n txt spk"

[theface07]

Lots of interesting points here. It's obvious that there is a difference of opinion as to whether mp3s are as bad as claimed or if they sound much different than wav files.

I don't think a lot of the arguments are being objective enough though. Personal differences/opinions on music are subjective and shouldn't be a factor. I think that side should be kept out of a "quality" argument between wav & mp3. Many physical and physiological factors come into play in such a debate.

Firstly, not everyone has the same hearing. Yes, the human hearing range is about 20-20000Hz but that doesn't mean everyone can hear 20Khz or identify it! It's important to remember that mp3 files alter mostly high frequency content.
Some people are born with limited hearing and some develop it through their life through regular exposure over a long period of time (say 40 yrs.) or short term exposure to very high sound levels. This will definitely affect your ability to determine the different between an mp3 and a wav file, not just because your hearing is damaged or limited but because mp3 files alter and eliminate mostly high range frequencies, which are the first to go!
Secondly, as much as I am a firm advocate of keeping mp3s and other lossy audio out of the trading circles (unless it is the best sounding source available, such as the mc5 torrent that got banned recently.. ), with bootleg recordings, especially older audience recordings with a limited source recording range, the higher frequencies are not recording and are usually just noise because of storage, transfers and/or tape noise from source.
In these cases, depending on how extreme, it will become very difficult and sometimes impossible to tell the difference between an mp3 and a wav file.
Finally, and to a lesser degree, the original recording, mix and master quality will have an effect on how easy/hard it is to distinguish an mp3 file from a wav file. I noticed this while listening to recordings transferred from badly mastered cds, such as a lot of first issues of older analog releases on disc. A bad quality master will make an mp3 same equally worse. Think of cymbal sounds and other high frequency instruments. A lot of times you will get that garbled digital sound when a cymbal is hit (especially hi-hats), this is because it has been compressed, cut down, and altered by mp3 compression. That's why a bass drum usually sounds pretty non-garbled, even in low bitrate mp3s. It's a very low range instrument and doesn't get altered. Nowadays, popular music is so garbled after going through the processing stage that it doesn't really mater what you do with it! People are used to listening to mp3s so the engineers master the recordings to sound like mp3s to begin with! It's sad to think that's what has happened but it's not debatable, the compression and processing levels have been increasing dramatically since the 60's. Classical scholars (who are really the real audiophiles) used to get upset by popular music's lack of dynamic in the 50's & 60's! Based on a comparison of dynamic range, classic rock will soon be considered classical music!
That's my take on all this anyways. Listen to what you want to, just don't trade one thing and call it another.

[theface07]

And to answer the fellows question about FLAC compression, yes FLAC files do compress the wav file, but then you can decompress it back to wav! Some people say there's a difference between the decompressed FLAC>wav but I haven't detected it.

[Aimee Wilbury]

Originally Posted by AAR.oner

yes

of course, you are asking "audiophiles", who i guarantee aren't listening on 5 dollar speakers, nor on the computer

Or my $10 computer speakers which pop and squeal all the time?

[DanielG]

Originally Posted by theface07

Some people say there's a difference between the decompressed FLAC>wav but I haven't detected it.

Some people have no idea what they're talking about.

[dealtadawn]

Originally Posted by Five

about every month there's a thread about mp3 saying "I can't hear the diff!!", well most average ppl can't and that's why this is a rare site.

there's another issue with encoding where if any small change needs to be made to the mp3 audio including simply retracking it you have to double-compress it, then it gets burned to a disc and extracted while playing cpu-intense video games adding some crackes, then re-encoded to mp3 by another guy (triple-compressed) and so on and so on.

go find some of the other threads with "mp3" in the title and you'll see endless discussions on this, or just repeat to yourself "no mp3 at ttd" and you'll sleep better at night.

I was just explaining to my husband yesterday why I need him to not be playing World of Warcraft when I'm converting or burning shows to disc. Is my assumption that it would add cracks etc even if he's on a different computer but we are on the same network correct?