I have just completed a swap round with my computers, involving a disk
upgrade and moving my soundcard, which raises a couple of questions (and
also leaves my recent emails, address book and Favourites stranded 'offline'
atm):

The soundcard has digital input and outputs and offers both 44.1 KHz and 48
KHz output sampling rates. Selecting either of these seems to sound fine and
I can't say that I can tell the difference. (I cannot lay hands on the spec
sheet for the DAC atm, but I suspect it's happy either way.) Which output
should I select to be 'right' or 'best' for playing WAVs, MP3s and CDs from
the computer?

Next, the hard disk upgrade (200Gb) means I am better able to record music
and save it as WAVs which, I have to say, sound pretty convincing played
through the DAC. The question here is whether or not this the 'best' thing
to do - I can play them or make CDRs from them and so on, but is there a
'better' way to save the music for any reason? High bitrate MP3s or summat?

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 13:58:44 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


I have just completed a swap round with my computers, involving a disk
upgrade and moving my soundcard, which raises a couple of questions (and
also leaves my recent emails, address book and Favourites stranded 'offline'
atm):

The soundcard has digital input and outputs and offers both 44.1 KHz and 48
KHz output sampling rates. Selecting either of these seems to sound fine and
I can't say that I can tell the difference. (I cannot lay hands on the spec
sheet for the DAC atm, but I suspect it's happy either way.) Which output
should I select to be 'right' or 'best' for playing WAVs, MP3s and CDs from
the computer?

What soundcard?

Next, the hard disk upgrade (200Gb) means I am better able to record music
and save it as WAVs which, I have to say, sound pretty convincing played
through the DAC. The question here is whether or not this the 'best' thing
to do - I can play them or make CDRs from them and so on, but is there a
'better' way to save the music for any reason? High bitrate MP3s or summat?

A compressed format isn't going to sound *better*. But a high bitrate
MP3 may sound imperceptibly worse, and save a LOT of disk space.

I'd burn "audio" CDs. You get plenty on a disk, it's uncompressed
wav format (give or take a header or two:-) and doesn't restrict you
to computer playback.

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 13:58:44 -0000
"Keith G" wrote:

Which output
should I select to be 'right' or 'best' for playing WAVs, MP3s and CDs
from the computer?

For CDs it'll be 44k1

For WAVs, the best setting would be whichever was the clocsest to being
a multiple of the samplerate - eg. for a 22050 WAV use 44k1 and for a
DAT recording made into a WAV use 48k.

For MP3... I dont know. Im not 100% clear on how the data is
re-constituted, but I have a sneaky suspicion that 48k may be better, if
the player works the way I think it does (and Im sure not all players do
anyway).

I expect 41k1 would be best all round if you cant hear the difference
anyway, and most of your WAVs come from CD... :-)

Next, the hard disk upgrade (200Gb) means I am better able to record
music and save it as WAVs which, I have to say, sound pretty
convincing played through the DAC. The question here is whether or not
this the 'best' thing to do - I can play them or make CDRs from them
and so on, but is there a'better' way to save the music for any
reason? High bitrate MP3s or summat?

Well, you can save MORE music as mp3s, but you wont do better than the
quality of the original WAVs in anycase.

I'd suggest variable bitrate mp3 at full quality setting, rather than
320kbit - it will sound identical and use less space. (that is, assuming
you choose to store the data as mp3)

--
Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux

Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with
ketchup.

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 14:26:53 +0000
Laurence Payne wrote:

A compressed format isn't going to sound *better*.

Not wishing to incur the attentions of two individuals here, but...

define better ;-)

Now, to be clear, I *totally* agree that mp3 will never be better in terms of faithfullness to the original.

But one interesting point is this.

My hearing is not 'usual', in that I dont seem to filter what I hear the same way as other people.

This can cause me a lot of problems and makes it very very hard for me to follow a conversation if more than 2 people are talking, for example, as I hear *everything* - my brain doesnt seperate out the streams from different people properly.

The same applies to music, which in many cases I think allows me to get more out of a track, however it can also make a track sound VERY stressfull, as I have to really concentrate in order to hear it properly.

I have found that lower bitrate CBR mp3 (128, 160, 192) tends to 'throw away' some of what is distracting me, and makes some tracks far more enjoyable to listen to.

Again, this falls entirely into the same category as using tone controls to make things 'better', and is not the more accurate kind of 'better'.

Just thought it was an interestng point.

--
Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux

Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with ketchup.

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 13:58:44 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


I have just completed a swap round with my computers, involving a disk
upgrade and moving my soundcard, which raises a couple of questions (and
also leaves my recent emails, address book and Favourites stranded
'offline'
atm):

The soundcard has digital input and outputs and offers both 44.1 KHz and
48
KHz output sampling rates. Selecting either of these seems to sound fine
and
I can't say that I can tell the difference. (I cannot lay hands on the
spec
sheet for the DAC atm, but I suspect it's happy either way.) Which
output
should I select to be 'right' or 'best' for playing WAVs, MP3s and CDs
from
the computer?

What soundcard?


Trust 514DX Sound Expert Optical



Next, the hard disk upgrade (200Gb) means I am better able to record
music
and save it as WAVs which, I have to say, sound pretty convincing played
through the DAC. The question here is whether or not this the 'best'
thing
to do - I can play them or make CDRs from them and so on, but is there a
'better' way to save the music for any reason? High bitrate MP3s or
summat?

A compressed format isn't going to sound *better*. But a high bitrate
MP3 may sound imperceptibly worse, and save a LOT of disk space.


Yes, up 'til now I've saved over 45 Gig's worth of MP3s at 128K CBR which
can give up to 12 hours worth of 'better than Radio 2 quality' music from
just one disk. That's fine for the sort of music I have recorded so far -
almost all from CDs. (I do not download.) What I want to do now is record
whole LPs (typically 4-500 Mb each) and play them at the best possible
quality so's not to lose 'texture' and 'air' while getting the 'hands free'
convenience. (Saves on record and stylus wear when busy and only using the
music in the background - ie not listening 'properly'.)



I'd burn "audio" CDs. You get plenty on a disk, it's uncompressed
wav format (give or take a header or two:-) and doesn't restrict you
to computer playback.


The computer playback is possibly the most important aspect for me - instant
access to thousands of tracks and the facility to swipe and play many hours
of 'sonic wallpaper' at a stroke.

"Ian Molton" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 13:58:44 -0000
"Keith G" wrote:

Which output
should I select to be 'right' or 'best' for playing WAVs, MP3s and CDs
from the computer?

For CDs it'll be 44k1

For WAVs, the best setting would be whichever was the clocsest to being
a multiple of the samplerate - eg. for a 22050 WAV use 44k1 and for a
DAT recording made into a WAV use 48k.

For MP3... I dont know. Im not 100% clear on how the data is
re-constituted, but I have a sneaky suspicion that 48k may be better, if
the player works the way I think it does (and Im sure not all players do
anyway).


To be honest I am using only WMP atm - until I 'know better'.....



I expect 41k1 would be best all round if you cant hear the difference
anyway, and most of your WAVs come from CD... :-)


No, that's the point - the WAVs are being created from LPs. 16/44.1 don't
come into it until the recording/replay stages.....



Next, the hard disk upgrade (200Gb) means I am better able to record
music and save it as WAVs which, I have to say, sound pretty
convincing played through the DAC. The question here is whether or not
this the 'best' thing to do - I can play them or make CDRs from them
and so on, but is there a'better' way to save the music for any
reason? High bitrate MP3s or summat?

Well, you can save MORE music as mp3s, but you wont do better than the
quality of the original WAVs in anycase.

I'd suggest variable bitrate mp3 at full quality setting, rather than
320kbit - it will sound identical and use less space. (that is, assuming
you choose to store the data as mp3)


OK, I'll be playing around with bitrates in the near future.

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 13:58:44 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:

snip/

Next, the hard disk upgrade (200Gb) means I am better able to record music
and save it as WAVs which, I have to say, sound pretty convincing played
through the DAC. The question here is whether or not this the 'best' thing
to do - I can play them or make CDRs from them and so on, but is there a
'better' way to save the music for any reason? High bitrate MP3s or summat?

Rather than mp3 (which will always be lossy, irrespective of the
bitrate), take a look at FLAC (s/w utilities available from
www.etree.org, or do a Google search). Lossless compression, and
plugins available for a widening range of players. Typically
compresses WAV files to 50-60% of their original size.

OTOH, since your WAV files come from vinyl, you can probably scramble
them to 64K mp3 with no appreciable loss of audio quality ;-)

Julian


--
Julian Fowler
julian (at) bellevue-barn (dot) org (dot) uk

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 15:15:08 -0000
"Keith G" wrote:


No, that's the point - the WAVs are being created from LPs. 16/44.1 don't
come into it until the recording/replay stages.....

Well, what is the recording samplerate then? ;-)

--
Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux

Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with ketchup.

"Ian Molton" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 15:15:08 -0000
"Keith G" wrote:


No, that's the point - the WAVs are being created from LPs. 16/44.1
don't
come into it until the recording/replay stages.....

Well, what is the recording samplerate then? ;-)



Good point. The 'signal in' is, of course, analogue. SoundForge saves WAVs
as 16/44.1 so I guess that's answered my question ain't it?

Well done!

(Obvious really, I suppose!)

Thanks for your help.

;-)

"Julian Fowler" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 13:58:44 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:

snip/

Rather than mp3 (which will always be lossy, irrespective of the
bitrate), take a look at FLAC (s/w utilities available from
www.etree.org, or do a Google search). Lossless compression, and
plugins available for a widening range of players. Typically
compresses WAV files to 50-60% of their original size.


I'm *very* wary of all these 'proprietory' formats. The reason I have stuck
to MP3s up 'til now is that they are 'global and generic' and I haven't
really heard any other format (including stuff like WMA) that sounds
appreciably better.......


OTOH, since your WAV files come from vinyl, you can probably scramble
them to 64K mp3 with no appreciable loss of audio quality ;-)


Hadn't thought of that........