IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

> Hydrogenaudio Forum Rules

- 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
Deuterium
post Jun 2 2005, 18:11
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 2-June 05
Member No.: 22477



dry.gif
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
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
Jebus
post Jun 3 2005, 02:46
Post #2





Group: Developer
Posts: 1294
Joined: 17-March 03
From: Calgary, AB
Member No.: 5541



I use razorlame all the time for the pretty output - just specify --preset standard under custom settings
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Deuterium
post Jun 3 2005, 10:21
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 2-June 05
Member No.: 22477



QUOTE (Jebus @ Jun 3 2005, 03:46 AM)
I use razorlame all the time for the pretty output - just specify --preset standard under custom settings
*

I don't like these "preset" self-made algorithms, because each of them always
lose a part of information, especially in the high frequencies.
I personnally work with 320 kb/sec, in full bandwith, no low/high pass filters
allowed and no problems at all; sounds exactly like the original CD's. but my
previous question was : can a higher sample rate (saying 48khz) still sounds
better??

Deuterium

wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
PoisonDan
post Jun 3 2005, 11:55
Post #4





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 678
Joined: 10-December 01
From: Belgium
Member No.: 622



QUOTE (Deuterium @ Jun 3 2005, 11:21 AM)
I don't like these "preset" self-made algorithms, because each of them always
lose a part of information, especially in the high frequencies.
I personnally work with 320 kb/sec, in full bandwith, no low/high pass filters
allowed and no problems at all; sounds exactly like the original CD's.
*

blink.gif

Please God, make it stop.


--------------------
Over thinking, over analyzing separates the body from the mind.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Deuterium
post Jun 3 2005, 12:05
Post #5





Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 2-June 05
Member No.: 22477



QUOTE (PoisonDan @ Jun 3 2005, 12:55 PM)
QUOTE (Deuterium @ Jun 3 2005, 11:21 AM)
I don't like these "preset" self-made algorithms, because each of them always
lose a part of information, especially in the high frequencies.
I personnally work with 320 kb/sec, in full bandwith, no low/high pass filters
allowed and no problems at all; sounds exactly like the original CD's.
*

blink.gif

Please God, make it stop.
*



Suck your God and other all supports for crimes against humanity, like
all the affected people who seem to be the lot of this ...petrogenaudio site!
You won, I go away!!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jebus
post Jun 3 2005, 16:33
Post #6





Group: Developer
Posts: 1294
Joined: 17-March 03
From: Calgary, AB
Member No.: 5541



QUOTE (Deuterium @ Jun 3 2005, 03:05 AM)
Suck your God and other all supports for crimes against humanity, like
all the affected people who seem to be the lot of this ...petrogenaudio site!
You won, I go away!!
*


Shakespeare hath spoken
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic
- 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
- - Rotareneg   Who are we to say that resampling would make it so...   Jun 3 2005, 19:59
|- - Deuterium   QUOTE (Rotareneg @ Jun 3 2005, 08:59 PM)Who a...   Jun 3 2005, 20:26
|- - 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


Closed TopicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 19th September 2014 - 19:40