One for the Jitterbugs.
 

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?

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

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.

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

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.

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

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.

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

"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.

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

"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.

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

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

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

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.

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

"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.

;-)

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

"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........

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

"Laurence Payne" wrote:
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.

Total common sense. Refreshing.


Martin
--
M.A.Poyser Tel.: 07967 110890
Manchester, U.K. http://www.fleetie.demon.co.uk

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 14:52:52 +0000, Ian Molton wrote:

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.

I believe that's not uncommon, after a certain age. Rather like
EVERYONE over 40 needing reading glasses.

I certainly have it. (Which is, of course, why I investigated the
subject:-). It makes it difficult to filter conversations. It
makes UNWANTED music (Musak, "background" music etc.) doubly
irritating. But, as I don't play music as wallpaper, only when I
want to listen to it, it isn't a problem then.

With one exception. I do like to fall asleep to the World Service.
A determinedly lo-fi clock radio is best. Better sound keeps me
awake.

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

Keith G wrote:

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'.)

You will find that vinyl recordings suffer more than their CD
equivalents when being put through an MP3/Vorbis encode. Whilst trying
to replicate the 'wanted' audio content, the rumble, needle noise,
crackles, preamp noise all add up to give the encoder a bit of a hard time.

The Trust sound cards are based around the C-Media chipset, and it would
be greatly beneficial if you could perform the analogue-digital
conversion outside of the PC, and use the digital in on the card.

--
Now playing: Rage Against The Machine - Mic Check [128kbps]

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

Keith G wrote:

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.......

FLAC, in particular, is open-source and has a great number of advocates
and a large distributed development team. I understand that some
hardware music players for Vorbis and FLAC are entering the market in
the US at the moment; wonder how long it'll be until we see them here.

--
Now playing: Rage Against The Machine - Mic Check [128kbps]

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 15:09:25 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:

What soundcard?


Trust 514DX Sound Expert Optical

OK. That's a bog-standard utility card, costing under £30. And
will probably perform rather better than the much-hyped Audigy cards
which, like all the SoundBlaster range, resample internally to 48KHz
before converting to the required output rate :-(

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 16:12:31 -0000
"Keith G" wrote:


Good point.

Thanks for your help.

No prob ;)


--
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.

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 16:15:49 -0000
"Keith G" wrote:


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.......

FLAC is open and free, its also lossless so it will sound exactly like the wav.

--
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.

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 16:12:31 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:

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?

If you have a soundcard that offers other bit-rates and sample
frequencies, SoundForge will happily record and save at higher (or,
indeed, lower) resolutions.

It's questionable whether a higher sample frequency is worth it. 24
bits certainly are, if recording music with any dynamic range. Maybe
not from vinyl though? What's the practical dynamic range off vinyl?

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 16:15:49 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


"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.

FLAC is non-proprietary (unlike the Shorten /SHN format, which FLAC is
fast-overtaking as the preferred format for non-lossy compression of
audio data). FLAC is maintained as an Open Source specification --
hence its likely adoption by hardware manufacturers (Rio already
support FLAC as one of the (de)compression formats on at least one of
their portable HDD_based players).

HTH
Julian



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

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

"Laurence Payne" wrote
I certainly have it. (Which is, of course, why I investigated the
subject:-). It makes it difficult to filter conversations. It
makes UNWANTED music (Musak, "background" music etc.) doubly
irritating. But, as I don't play music as wallpaper, only when I
want to listen to it, it isn't a problem then.

This scares me! I'm 32 and I've got about 3 years (I estimate) before
I'm gonna start developing a bald patch. And I'm still single so this
is worrying in the extreme. Now I read here that I can also possibly
"look forward" to a deterioration of brain function regarding my
ability to focus on a speaker in a noisy room. Nice.

With one exception. I do like to fall asleep to the World Service.
A determinedly lo-fi clock radio is best. Better sound keeps me
awake.

I have a crappy valve radio. Glowing in the dark, it is indeed,
comforting! Brand new valves, too! I'm happy to say, it has no
clock attached.


Martin
--
M.A.Poyser Tel.: 07967 110890
Manchester, U.K. http://www.fleetie.demon.co.uk

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 17:43:52 -0000, "Fleetie"
wrote:

This scares me! I'm 32 and I've got about 3 years (I estimate) before
I'm gonna start developing a bald patch. And I'm still single so this
is worrying in the extreme. Now I read here that I can also possibly
"look forward" to a deterioration of brain function regarding my
ability to focus on a speaker in a noisy room. Nice.


EVERYTHING deteriorates.

But, hopefully, you get more ingenious in using what's left :-)

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 18:49:41 +0000, The Artist
wrote:

That's not strictly true, because the side effects of the compression
format can have beneficial consequences in some circumstances.

So which compression system do you recommend, in what circumstances,
and why?

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

"Laurence Payne" wrote
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 18:49:41 +0000, The Artist
wrote:

That's not strictly true, because the side effects of the compression
format can have beneficial consequences in some circumstances.

So which compression system do you recommend, in what circumstances,
and why?

Well cassette tape ought to work well; it discards anything above, ooh,
8kHz! Nyquist says "It takes up less space then!". Does sound a bit
ropey, though.

I remember though, in the golden days of the Walkman in the late 1980s.
I had two really "high-end" Aiwa models. An HS-J08 and an HS-JX101, if I
remember correctly. They had, like, (wired) remote controls and stopped
automatically at the quiet bit between tracks, and so on. Those were
pretty cool, especially given the absence of any superior portable medium
at the time. (Portable CD players can be safely disregarded, then, as
now, because they're so big.)

Martin
--
M.A.Poyser Tel.: 07967 110890
Manchester, U.K. http://www.fleetie.demon.co.uk

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

"Fleetie" wrote in message
...
"Laurence Payne" wrote
I certainly have it. (Which is, of course, why I investigated the
subject:-). It makes it difficult to filter conversations. It
makes UNWANTED music (Musak, "background" music etc.) doubly
irritating. But, as I don't play music as wallpaper, only when I
want to listen to it, it isn't a problem then.

This scares me! I'm 32 and I've got about 3 years (I estimate) before
I'm gonna start developing a bald patch.


Buy a longer bed then...... ;-)


And I'm still single so this
is worrying in the extreme. Now I read here that I can also possibly
"look forward" to a deterioration of brain function regarding my
ability to focus on a speaker in a noisy room. Nice.

With one exception. I do like to fall asleep to the World Service.
A determinedly lo-fi clock radio is best. Better sound keeps me
awake.

I have a crappy valve radio. Glowing in the dark, it is indeed,
comforting! Brand new valves, too! I'm happy to say, it has no
clock attached.


OK, you need a nice GPS controlled Nixisat to go with it then!

See:

http://www.amug.org/~jthomas/clockpage.html

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

"Nick J." wrote in message
...
Keith G wrote:

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'.)

You will find that vinyl recordings suffer more than their CD
equivalents when being put through an MP3/Vorbis encode. Whilst trying
to replicate the 'wanted' audio content, the rumble, needle noise,
crackles, preamp noise all add up to give the encoder a bit of a hard
time.


Hmmm, my experience differs. I've recorded quite a number of vinyl to MP3
tracks without encountering too much of what you describe. (I've posted
links to dozens of 'em here, during the last year or so....). In fact, I
find them far more satisfying than most digital rips, but then that's just
me.... ;-)



The Trust sound cards are based around the C-Media chipset, and it would
be greatly beneficial if you could perform the analogue-digital
conversion outside of the PC, and use the digital in on the card.


Yes, a nice idea and one which I won't rule out if I can get my hands on a
decent ADC at the right sort of money. (Suggestions anyone?)

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 15:09:25 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:

What soundcard?


Trust 514DX Sound Expert Optical

OK. That's a bog-standard utility card, costing under £30. And
will probably perform rather better than the much-hyped Audigy cards
which, like all the SoundBlaster range, resample internally to 48KHz
before converting to the required output rate :-(


If that's the case then it would make sense to use the 48 KHz output and let
the standalone DAC handle the resampling, would it not?

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

"Julian Fowler" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 16:15:49 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


"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.

FLAC is non-proprietary (unlike the Shorten /SHN format, which FLAC is
fast-overtaking as the preferred format for non-lossy compression of
audio data). FLAC is maintained as an Open Source specification --
hence its likely adoption by hardware manufacturers (Rio already
support FLAC as one of the (de)compression formats on at least one of
their portable HDD_based players).


OK, seems a number of you would recommend FLAC. This is the one I will
investigate then.

Many thanks to all who replied.

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

"Keith G" wrote
Buy a longer bed then...... ;-)

Huh? *Whoosh* -- That was the sound of your joke (I assume) going way
over my head.

OK, you need a nice GPS controlled Nixisat to go with it then!

See:

http://www.amug.org/~jthomas/clockpage.html

*Drool*. *******. I've got wood now. HomerN-i-x-i-e T-u-b-e-s! Mmm!/


Martin
--
M.A.Poyser Tel.: 07967 110890
Manchester, U.K. http://www.fleetie.demon.co.uk

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

"Le Artiste" wrote
"Fleetie" emitted :

That's not strictly true, because the side effects of the compression
format can have beneficial consequences in some circumstances.

So which compression system do you recommend, in what circumstances,
and why?

Well cassette tape ought to work well; it discards anything above, ooh,
8kHz! Nyquist says "It takes up less space then!". Does sound a bit
ropey, though.

What?

Never mind. A weak attempt at humour.

Martin
--
M.A.Poyser Tel.: 07967 110890
Manchester, U.K. http://www.fleetie.demon.co.uk

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 20:48:29 -0000
"Keith G" wrote:

If that's the case then it would make sense to use the 48 KHz output
and let the standalone DAC handle the resampling, would it not?

According to Stewart P (no idea if hes right) the SBlive! manages to
balls up even 48:48 resampling.



--
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.

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 20:48:29 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


If that's the case then it would make sense to use the 48 KHz output and let
the standalone DAC handle the resampling, would it not?

Rather than all that re-sampling, it would make sense to output
analogue, if you want to listen to it, or burn a CD on the computer if
you wanted to store it.

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 21:02:02 +0000, Le Artiste
wrote:

That's not strictly true, because the side effects of the compression
format can have in some circumstances.

I should say, I thought the context was compression using acoustic
masking techniques.. MP3, AAC, ATRAC etc

So which compression system do you recommend, in what circumstances,
and why?

I use .wav, or .mp3 if you want them smaller.

Yeah. But which one has "beneficial consequences", and in what
circumstances?

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 23:38:53 +0000, Ian Molton wrote:

If that's the case then it would make sense to use the 48 KHz output
and let the standalone DAC handle the resampling, would it not?

According to Stewart P (no idea if hes right) the SBlive! manages to
balls up even 48:48 resampling.

Probably. They're not very nice cards.

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 20:48:29 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


If that's the case then it would make sense to use the 48 KHz output and
let
the standalone DAC handle the resampling, would it not?

Rather than all that re-sampling, it would make sense to output
analogue, if you want to listen to it, or burn a CD on the computer if
you wanted to store it.


OK, it's gone full circle and it looks like I'll have to decide between
'dacced digital' and analogue output for best sound by a simple listening
comparison and save WAVs at 16/44.1 for possible future burning.

One last question:

'Default Template' in SoundForge is described as "Render 44,100 Hz, 16-bit,
Stereo PCM audio wave file" or there is a setting described as "Single
Stereo, 44,100 Hz, 16 bit PCM wave file." Is there any significant
difference here?

(Sorry to be such a numpty in 'digital' matters.....)

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 23:38:53 +0000, Ian Molton wrote:

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 20:48:29 -0000
"Keith G" wrote:

If that's the case then it would make sense to use the 48 KHz output
and let the standalone DAC handle the resampling, would it not?

According to Stewart P (no idea if hes right) the SBlive! manages to
balls up even 48:48 resampling.

You may be thinlking of some other poster, I don't recall ever having
made such a comment. I have an Audigy in my PC.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:00:50 +0000, Laurence Payne
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 21:02:02 +0000, Le Artiste
wrote:

That's not strictly true, because the side effects of the compression
format can have in some circumstances.

I should say, I thought the context was compression using acoustic
masking techniques.. MP3, AAC, ATRAC etc

So which compression system do you recommend, in what circumstances,
and why?

I use .wav, or .mp3 if you want them smaller.

Yeah. But which one has "beneficial consequences", and in what
circumstances?

For starters, .wav files are not compressed..............

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 16:53:40 +0000, Laurence Payne
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 16:12:31 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:

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?

If you have a soundcard that offers other bit-rates and sample
frequencies, SoundForge will happily record and save at higher (or,
indeed, lower) resolutions.

It's questionable whether a higher sample frequency is worth it. 24
bits certainly are, if recording music with any dynamic range. Maybe
not from vinyl though? What's the practical dynamic range off vinyl?

About 13 bits, from unplayed perfectly clean top-class vinyl.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

"Laurence Payne" wrote in
message
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 23:38:53 +0000, Ian Molton wrote:

If that's the case then it would make sense to use the 48 KHz output
and let the standalone DAC handle the resampling, would it not?

According to Stewart P (no idea if hes right) the SBlive! manages to
balls up even 48:48 resampling.

Probably. They're not very nice cards.

Certainly.

Objective tests:

http://www.pcavtech.com/soundcards/live!/index.htm

Listening tests:

http://www.pcabx.com/product/ct4830/index.htm

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 08:07:52 +0000 (UTC)
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:

According to Stewart P (no idea if hes right) the SBlive! manages to
balls up even 48:48 resampling.

You may be thinlking of some other poster, I don't recall ever having
made such a comment. I have an Audigy in my PC.

Sorry, it was Arny.

--

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.

One for the Jitterbugs.
 

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 20:23:51 +0000
Le Artiste wrote:

I have noted mportant sound quality
enhancements incurred in the implementation of new driver iterations
on several sound cards, but, note, the information Mr Krueger presents
on his website and relies on in informal argument is typically very
out of date, and based on early driver releases.

Interesting...

--
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.