Resampling?, From CD to WAV |
- No Warez. This includes warez links, cracks and/or requests for help in getting illegal software or copyrighted music tracks!
- No Spamming or Trolling on the boards, this includes useless posts, trying to only increase post count or trying to deliberately create a flame war.
- No Hateful or Disrespectful posts. This includes: bashing, name-calling or insults directed at a board member.
- Click here for complete Hydrogenaudio Terms of Service
Resampling?, From CD to WAV |
Jun 2 2005, 18:11
Post
#1
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 7 Joined: 2-June 05 Member No.: 22477 |
Hi, Like many people, I want to convert my Cd's collection into MP3 files, using the Lame combining with the Razorlame GUI. But, before beginning, I ask myself some questions; one of this is the following : has this a sense, when converting Wav files previously extracted from a CD, to resampling the extracted files in 48 Hz in place of conserving them in their original 44,1 Khz? Logically no, we cannot get more precision that this giving originnaly from the CD; but, i try, and I obtain a file that has not the same frequencies response that this obtained with conserving the original 44,1Khz sampling rate of the CD; the difference is basically in middle and high frequencies though being soft. Who can me explain that fact?? Thanks, Deuterium |
|
|
|
![]() |
Jun 3 2005, 19:59
Post
#2
|
|
![]() Group: Members Posts: 169 Joined: 18-March 05 From: Wichita, KS Member No.: 20701 |
Who are we to say that resampling would make it sound worse? I think Deuterium is right, we should stop using all these arrogant presets. I suggest he start with my favorite command line for LAME: -b 32 --cbr -m s -q 9 -k
-b 32 : SACD is only 1 bit, and it sounds far better than 16 bit CDs, thus you clearly want to use the lowest bit rate. --cbr : No annoying fluctuations in the bitrate that will otherwise comprimise the sound quality. -m s : Mixing the left and right channels together? That can't possibly be good, so force stereo. -q 9 : q for Quality, which we want lots of, thus the highest number. -k : I can hear clearly up to 22 kHz, don't you dare filter out any of that music! I find this greatly enhances the musicality in all cases. This post has been edited by Rotareneg: Jun 3 2005, 20:03 -------------------- My photo gallery: http://www.flickr.com/photos/inghramjp
|
|
|
|
Jun 3 2005, 20:26
Post
#3
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 7 Joined: 2-June 05 Member No.: 22477 |
QUOTE (Rotareneg @ Jun 3 2005, 08:59 PM) Who are we to say that resampling would make it sound worse? I think Deuterium is right, we should stop using all these arrogant presets. I suggest he start with my favorite command line for LAME: -b 32 --cbr -m s -q 9 -k
-b 32 : SACD is only 1 bit, and it sounds far better than 16 bit CDs, thus you clearly want to use the lowest bit rate. --cbr : No annoying fluctuations in the bitrate that will otherwise comprimise the sound quality. -m s : Mixing the left and right channels together? That can't possibly be good, so force stereo. -q 9 : q for Quality, which we want lots of, thus the highest number. -k : I can hear clearly up to 22 kHz, don't you dare filter out any of that music! I find this greatly enhances the musicality in all cases. |
|
|
|
Deuterium Resampling? Jun 2 2005, 18:11
xmixahlx no, it doesn't make sense. most lossy codecs ... Jun 2 2005, 18:40
dreamliner77 ABX test and get back to us. Jun 3 2005, 00:51
Deep_Elem Don't use razorlame either. Use the binary and... Jun 3 2005, 01:48
Jebus I use razorlame all the time for the pretty output... Jun 3 2005, 02:46
Deuterium QUOTE (Jebus @ Jun 3 2005, 03:46 AM)I use raz... Jun 3 2005, 10:21
PoisonDan QUOTE (Deuterium @ Jun 3 2005, 11:21 AM)I don... Jun 3 2005, 11:55
Deuterium QUOTE (PoisonDan @ Jun 3 2005, 12:55 PM)QUOTE... Jun 3 2005, 12:05
Jebus QUOTE (Deuterium @ Jun 3 2005, 03:05 AM)Suck ... Jun 3 2005, 16:33
dreamliner77 Yeah, razorlame has no problem using the presets. Jun 3 2005, 06:17
2Bdecided I think you've joined the wrong forum Deuteriu... Jun 3 2005, 10:29
xmixahlx well, you are going from a 44.1 source, so... i... Jun 3 2005, 10:29
dreamliner77 Thank you. Jun 3 2005, 15:31
Otto42 Wow. Now we need to create a "petrogenaudio... Jun 3 2005, 16:42
Cyaneyes QUOTE (Otto42 @ Jun 3 2005, 11:42 AM)Wow. Now... Jun 3 2005, 16:52
Deuterium QUOTE (Deuterium @ Jun 3 2005, 09:26 PM)QUOTE... Jun 3 2005, 20:37
tgoose QUOTE (Deuterium @ Jun 3 2005, 08:37 PM)Thank... Jun 3 2005, 20:50
Jan S. I'll make the pain go away now...
If you expec... Jun 3 2005, 21:42![]() ![]() |
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 20th May 2013 - 13:47 |