Quote from: scatcat on March 29, 2008, 03:03:29
a stupid question.. belongs in another thread, but forgive me, what is the difference between 16 bit & 24 bit recordings? which is better, and suited to my technical abilities, especially as far as burning, etc,...
TIA.. :smth100
i guess it depends on how you listen to your music, do you listen through your computer or do you burn regular audio cds, and what sort of player you use for the playback.
24-bit (48 Hz/24-bit) is simply of higher sound quality as the bit depth and sample rate are at max. just look at the file sizes and you can notice there is a big difference there between 48/24 and 44.1/16 files. meaning that there obviously is more data there in 48/24 files. i suppose 24-bit could be called a "true digital sound" since it utilizes the maximum capabilities for audio recording.
the standards for a regular audio cd are slightly lower though, and that's 16-bit audio (44.1 Hz/16-bit). so if you already know you intend to burn regular audio cds (playable for all standard cd players), then the 16-bit version is the way to go. but if you want to enjoy the maximum quality and you know that your player can support 24-bit playback, then that's a good option to go for. :smth023
anyway, there is a difference there between 16-bit and 24-bit, although some people might try to tell you otherwise. but they simply have wax in their ears (uuuh! ;)).
in general, unless it's being otherwise noted, all lossless audio on cds (available here or elsewhere, official releases included) is usually 44.1 Hz/16-bit. that's the standard. you can see 24-bit used for instance in movies with super-HQ surround sound or with special edition audio releases.
dvds always do have 48 Hz as a standard, but it can often be 48 Hz/16-bit combination.
(in relation to the recordings that are shared here in the audio section in both 16-bit & 24-bit versions:)
in any case, both versions are lossless high quality audio, that means high quality FLAC/.wav.
this bit depth/sample rate difference is not to be confused with other some audio formats that add compression - it's still all .wav in there. meaning that sample rate and bit depth are not to be confused with data transfer rate which is what "kb/s" stands for. (although some time ago i did see someone calling 24-bit audio "24 kb/s" on some retarded forum... dear god. :()
in any case this one here is just pure lossless audio, both 16-bit and 24-bit. hope this helps!
I'll just add that for me the advantages of 24-bit mainly lie in the recording/editing domain. It gives some nice technical advantages there, ones that I won't get into at the moment...
For playback, some will say that 24-bit sounds more lifelike, more warm, etc.
Of course, 24-bit playback won't be any different than 16-bit if you don't have a sound card (or other sound system) that supports it. It will simply be dithered down to 16-bits in these cases.
As for sample rates, this is something that often turns into a endless discussion among audio enthusiasts. Some will claim that there are big advantages to recording at 96K, or even 192K :shock:, but 48K seems rather adequate for my purposes.
Now, there's also a raging debate about 44K vs. 48K, but since I rarely use CDs anymore I decided to settle with 48K. Plus, it's nice to have in case any of your audio recordings are ever used for a DVD video. :D
Gee, I must have gone to too many Cure concerts; I can still here the difference between .flac and .mp3, but to me, 24 bit just means more download time, more space on my hard drive, and an extra step to run it through dbPoweramp before I can burn it to CD. :oops:
Quote from: askbill on March 29, 2008, 15:23:20
Gee, I must have gone to too many Cure concerts; I can still here the difference between .flac and .mp3, but to me, 24 bit just means more download time, more space on my hard drive, and an extra step to run it through dbPoweramp before I can burn it to CD. :oops:
well there's nothing wrong with prefering 16-bit if one does not have 24-bit support.
lostflower4 made a really good point there: many people who download 24-bit files and then start comparing them with 16-bit just by listening to them on their computer/media player often insist they don't notice any difference - BUT that's mostly
because they don't have 24-bit support on their soundcard! so when they think they are listening to 24-bit files, they are actually listening to 16-bit (automatically dithered from 16-bit to 24-bit by the soundcard). this is very important to reliaze, before judging which one "sounds better". :!:
so make sure your system does support 24-bit playback, then try again - and the difference is there.
anyway it's prefectly understandable that not everyone prefers 24-bit. like said, nothing bad in that. comparing 16-bit to 24-bit is NOT like comparing lossless with mp3s.
anyway part2, there're still a lot of people out there who actually do prefer 24-bit these days - less and less people even burn audio cds anymore, this is a fact. i personally haven't burned audio cds for years, as i don't need them for anything at all. for me audio cds would be unnecessary waste of space on my shelves. and to think that only some very few freak audiophiles out there prefer 24-bit is an outdated idea: more and more people actually prefer it, and what comes to both official and unofficial recordings. so the standards are changing (and this time for the better i think!). :!:
and so since 44.1/16-bit is not such a commonly embraced standard anymore, i think it's reasonable to release both 16 and 24-bit versions - just as long as the source files are good enough.
Japanesebaby, I just appreciate the fact that people like you still make 16 bit recordings available. I'm certainly not complaining, I'll take what I can get. I have a really good audio hook-up on my computer, I'm just getting old. Thanks again for your time and effort in making as many people happy as you can!
ok i see very well what you mean.
i know some people maybe only release 24-bit versions today, but i personally don't really see any problem for putting up both - the difference in file sizes is notable, especially considering bands that play 3+ hour gigs like the cure.
enjoy the recording!
Great recording!
All that being said, 24bit is certainly a lot better than 16 but you need to remember that many dedicated CD players won't play 24 bit audio.
Pooters can.
& from an audiopile standpoint, that sucks. :evil:
What you also have to remember is that a dedicated player is just that.
& a pooter does loads of things (mostly well) but isn't a dedicated tool to do just the one job.
So, it follows (& quite rightly) a dedicated player should deliver the source material properly.
@JB.
How does one make a disc from the 24bit audio that will play in a dedicated disc player, be it cd or dvd (including dvda or sacd)?
thanks for this thread! i can play 24 bit through winamp on my pc.,
but i haven't yet burnt those files to audio.... can they run thru dbpower amp easily enough to produce audio cd? then once converted they should be readable? and also to pop into itunes?
thanks in advance!!
okay, i just tried a few things with the programs i have here:
i tried dBpoweramp to convert a 24-bit concert to applelossless = not work- only 16-bit.
i then used flacfrontend to convert 24-bit to .wav = yes this worked.
i then tried dBpoweramp to convert .wav to applelossless = not work, only 16-bit.
so, i used dBpoweramp to convert .wav to .wma = this worked ( can now play in windows media player)
i then used itunes to convert .wma to applelossless into itunes = this worked.
why applelossless you ask? well, so i can put in my ipod.
i have winamp that plays 24-bit, but have yet to try to burn these, as i use itunes usually.
Quote from: scatcat on March 30, 2008, 00:31:41so, i used dBpoweramp to convert .wav to .wma = this worked ( can now play in windows media player)
i then used itunes to convert .wma to applelossless into itunes = this worked.
Ok, that sounds scary. :smth087
WMA is lossy, which makes the last FLAC conversion pointless (you might as well just use WMA there).
dBpoweramp is a terrible program to use to convert bit depths and sample rates...
For you I would recommend these options:
1) convert the 24-bit files to WAV and simply put them on your iPod that way
And if that doesn't work,
2) download the 16-bit version available here, convert it to Apple Lossless, and use that for your iPod
or
3) Rockbox your iPod so it can play FLAC
www.rockbox.org
;)
Thanks for the technical explanation. I guess I have nothing to play 24-bit but it must be great for those who can.
Quote from: lostflower4 on March 30, 2008, 01:34:12
dBpoweramp is a terrible program to use to convert bit depths and sample rates...
For you I would recommend these options:
1) convert the 24-bit files to WAV and simply put them on your iPod that way
doh!! :smth011
i thought because once in wav format, itunes would not take converted 24-bit!!
i just tried the straight from wav to itunes and it worked!! silly me!!
Quote from: lostflower4 on March 30, 2008, 01:34:12
3) Rockbox your iPod so it can play FLAC
www.rockbox.org
;)
:smth023 thanks for this... i never knew !! ... another music converting program 8) i get confused which one does what!!
It still bugs me that itunes will play 24bit & will even convert 24bit wav to 24bit Apple lossless, but the pod won't.
:evil:
Quote from: scatcat on March 30, 2008, 01:55:42Quote from: lostflower4 on March 30, 2008, 01:34:12
3) Rockbox your iPod so it can play FLAC
www.rockbox.org
;)
:smth023 thanks for this... i never knew !! ... another music converting program 8) i get confused which one does what!!
Well, Rockbox isn't a file converting program. It basically replaces the original iPod interface with something that's generally much better, in my opinion.
It adds a whole lot of features, such as FLAC support, more ways to control the sound (channel balance, advanced EQ, etc.) â€" and a lot more.
And this way you don't even need to have iTunes on your computer. You can just plug your iPod in as if it were an external drive, copy your files over, make your own playlists, and be ready to go. :D
I found it very complicated to successfully Rockbox my iPod, but I've only had to do it once, and it really paid off in the end! :smth023
Quote from: lostflower4 on March 30, 2008, 01:34:12
Quote from: scatcat on March 30, 2008, 00:31:41so, i used dBpoweramp to convert .wav to .wma = this worked ( can now play in windows media player)
i then used itunes to convert .wma to applelossless into itunes = this worked.
Ok, that sounds scary. :smth087
WMA is lossy, which makes the last FLAC conversion pointless (you might as well just use WMA there).
not scary but triple-scary: :smth087 :smth087 :smth087
please, if you convert to lossy
for your ipod then do it for yourself (and for yourself only). but please do not start converting such lossy files back to "fake lossless". that makes no sense.
besides, once it's back in this "lossless" (which of course is only fake since it already went through lossy once :( ), people easily forget that the files went through lossy conversion and just look at the end format and start thinking it's just lossless again. and worst of all, then even circulate such a fileset as "lossless". and THAT is exactly what we should all beware, that's the devil that ruins live music sharing. :evil:
so, if you have to convert to lossy in order to listen to it on your ipod, then ok do that - but then the conversion chain ends there.
and besides, there's no must to convert to lossy even for ipods. you can play .wav and flac there too.
so, if you don't know if you can play 24-bit and you're not really interested to fiddle with all kinds of programs in order to find out, then maybe just download the 16-bit then?
i bet it's a lot easier. and most importantly, you don't end up with some absolute horror versions like 24-bit flac > wma > 16-bit wav.
I heard somewhere that the best sound quality would be 98Mhz (not khz), 1bit audio or something like that.
In recording and when equalizing or other remastering the 24bits version is better. When listening it depends. 16bits is more optimal
in quality/vs. size.
A good way of learning things about converting, sample rate conversions and stuff when you download the 24bits version.
Quote from: japanesebaby on March 30, 2008, 11:34:25
not scary but triple-scary: :smth087 :smth087 :smth087
please, if you convert to lossy for your ipod then do it for yourself (and for yourself only). but please do not start converting such lossy files back to "fake lossless". that makes no sense.
besides, once it's back in this "lossless" (which of course is only fake since it already went through lossy once :( ), people easily forget that the files went through lossy conversion and just look at the end format and start thinking it's just lossless again. and worst of all, then even circulate such a fileset as "lossless". and THAT is exactly what we should all beware, that's the devil that ruins live music sharing. :evil:
so, if you have to convert to lossy in order to listen to it on your ipod, then ok do that - but then the conversion chain ends there.
and besides, there's no must to convert to lossy even for ipods. you can play .wav and flac there too.
so, if you don't know if you can play 24-bit and you're not really interested to fiddle with all kinds of programs in order to find out, then maybe just download the 16-bit then?
i bet it's a lot easier. and most importantly, you don't end up with some absolute horror versions like 24-bit flac > wma > 16-bit wav.
yeah, no worries.. i never trade in lossy formats or such..prefer flac.
wma & m4a are a headache for me, and just too much fiddling around!
but as i found out from the 'rockbox' site.. another $240 or-so... :shock:
i guess i will stick to the programs i have already installed. :(
I completely understand the effects of converting such flac formats into lossy-stuff. so no worries there.
I have learnt so much here on this site.. but still a Dum-Dum...
Quote from: Steve on March 30, 2008, 10:32:53
It still bugs me that itunes will play 24bit & will even convert 24bit wav to 24bit Apple lossless, but the pod won't.
:evil:
actually I have converted the Paris 16-bit flac to wav, but not yet burnt to cd.. or tried to sync on the pod..so i'll find out soon.
as for the 24-bit concert, the 3-fold formats i went through, did finally produce an audio cd... quality is ok.. as good as my old stereo will play.
oh man.. i'm sorry , but it is very hard for non-musical/tech people to grasp the situation. ( maybe just me :shock: )
thanx for all your help guys!
Quote from: japanesebaby on March 30, 2008, 11:34:25
not scary but triple-scary: :smth087 :smth087 :smth087
:evil:
i bet it's a lot easier. and most importantly, you don't end up with some absolute horror versions like 24-bit flac > wma > 16-bit wav.
:D
M: it's great to know i can still scare you !! ;) :-D
Quote from: scatcat on March 30, 2008, 14:17:10
yeah, no worries.. i never trade in lossy formats or such..prefer flac.
wma & m4a are a headache for me, and just too much fiddling around!
if i worry about something it's maybe that traded or not, people still resort to lossy conversions. i mean, when you try to maximise the quality for everyone's listening pleasure - these lossy conversions ruin this, be it ever traded or not. so i do get a feeling "why did i work for this and tried to maximise the qlty when it's going to be wma-ed anyway?". that puts me down.
and i mean i don't really understand why you should even fiddle around wma or m4a here? why? this is all about lossless wav, and whether it's 16-bit or 24-bit, it doesn't change it. so you just don't need any of that wma stuff... really. it has nothing to do with this.
Quote from: scatcat on March 30, 2008, 14:17:10
actually I have converted the Paris 16-bit flac to wav, but not yet burnt to cd.. or tried to sync on the pod..so i'll find out soon.
but look: 16-bit wav is just "regular wav". it's what you always burn on your cds.
so there's nothing strange to be expected there, no surprises of whether it will work or not.
:?:
i bet if i hadn't written "16-bit" on that 16-bit version, nobody would have started asking anything but would have just downloaded that just like any other flac show - just like it is(!).
maybe next time i'll leave that out and just label the 24-bit as "24-bit". we'll save a lot of hassle then.
Quote from: scatcat on March 30, 2008, 14:21:14
Quote from: japanesebaby on March 30, 2008, 11:34:25
not scary but triple-scary: :smth087 :smth087 :smth087
:evil:
i bet it's a lot easier. and most importantly, you don't end up with some absolute horror versions like 24-bit flac > wma > 16-bit wav.
:D M: it's great to know i can still scare you !! ;) :-D
sorry if i'm a bit humourless here but i don't know why being able to scare me is great?
it's really not like i like to be scared or something... especially in these matters.
look, i do dislike lossy conversions. yet i share my recording and in return i only ask people please not to convert to lossy formats.
i just don't find it funny or great if people start converting to lossy anyway or joking about it, like it didn't matter. all this wma stuff only makes my heart sink.
so once more for everyone:
if you're mainly looking for a regular wav version to be able to burn on an audio cd, then please do download 16-bit.
Quote from: scatcat on March 30, 2008, 14:17:10but as i found out from the 'rockbox' site.. another $240 or-so... :shock:
i guess i will stick to the programs i have already installed. :(
Where did you see that? Rockbox is completely free!
Quote from: japanesebaby on March 30, 2008, 14:31:40
if i worry about something it's maybe that traded or not, people still resort to lossy conversions. i mean, when you try to maximise the quality for everyone's listening pleasure - these lossy conversions ruin this, be it ever traded or not. so i do get a feeling "why did i work for this and tried to maximise the qlty when it's going to be wma-ed anyway?". that puts me down.
and i mean i don't really understand why you should even fiddle around wma or m4a here? why? this is all about lossless wav, and whether it's 16-bit or 24-bit, it doesn't change it. so you just don't need any of that wma stuff... really. it has nothing to do with this.
hey, i was maybe misunderstood here. the conversion WAS for my own ipod... not for any thing else. I spent the whole day dowloading.. and i totally take my hat off to you JB for the contribution! i would never trash a recording as fine as flac. :smth090 it is probably that i don't have state-of-the-art- stereo-entertainment-centre here, that the difference is not as obvious to others.
The only program i have here that actually plays flac is winamp.. but if that crashes ( as it does often..) i am left with nothing else.
So,
1) burning to data-disc ,
2) converting to .wav ,
3) burning to audio cd .. ensures i will never lose these valuable concerts.
It is just that i found, with the programs i have here, i could not work out a way to pop onto ipod, or burn an audio. ( for personal use only) i ALWAYS keep the original flac files on HD and a spare DVD.. one cannot be too careful with precious things!! :)
yeah, you are right about the labelling of 16-bit & 24-bit... it confuses those who have not an idea of the difference.
Quote from: lostflower4 on March 30, 2008, 14:36:51
Quote from: scatcat on March 30, 2008, 14:17:10but as i found out from the 'rockbox' site.. another $240 or-so... :shock:
i guess i will stick to the programs i have already installed. :(
Where did you see that? Rockbox is completely free!
i just looked up the link provided and tht's what i understood for an apple 'rockbox'.
maybe i was too tired to read the links, or follow instructions. i often find i cannot choose what option is what i need. i have 2 ipods, 8gbs, and 80gbs, and all i saw was the price... :shock:
:roll:
p.s....
JB i would not modify the flac for anyone else.. itunes just for me!! :smth020
Quote from: Steve on March 30, 2008, 10:32:53
It still bugs me that itunes will play 24bit & will even convert 24bit wav to 24bit Apple lossless, but the pod won't.
:evil:
i suppose i wonder about his.. itunes plays, but not yet synched pod to test.. hhmmm... :?
i have had enuff tech-stuff for today. hopefully tomorrow will bring me
a) a new head ( this 'ol one is useless)
b) a bigger brain ( head is small, can i fit a bigger brain in?)
c) answer to all my questions plus solutions... ;)
ok then. but i also meant what lodtflower4 already pointed out, which is this:
Quote from: scatcat on March 30, 2008, 00:31:41
so, i used dBpoweramp to convert .wav to .wma = this worked ( can now play in windows media player)
i then used itunes to convert .wma to applelossless into itunes = this worked.
even if it's for your own ipod only, there's simply no point in converting first to lossy (wma) and then back to "lossless" (applelossless).
you're just doing yourself a disfavour there as you ARE losing quality there. because you don't benefit from the better quality of 24-bit at all if you have to put it through lossy conversion anyway(!).
and thus it would actually be a lot more reasonable to download 16-bit files then.
this is the kind of quality loss that i find so useless, regardless of whether it's ever traded or not. it simply serves nothing and it shouldn't be necessary.
uumm.. i did download the 16-bit paris, so that's okay i presume.. :smth023
i suppose i don't understand a lot about bitrates etc.. but the test i did, converting to wma was just to see if it worked, not for playback, as i very rarely use this for listening to music. :!: sorry, my inadequacies as a music-maestro are exposed.. :oops:
after lostflower4 suggested flac>wav>itunes, this worked. so no problems there!
Just been doing some reading & wondered what the verdict is on the software for authoring DVD audio.
There are some applications (soundforge do one for example) that will burn DVDA using a regular DVD writer, that will play on DVDA machines.
Now, I am curious to take some of the 24bit recordings & make some DVDAs as my player & the AV amp I have, will play 24 bit 48khz audio.
Any recommendations/ horror stories before I make a load of coasters?
:D hey, i know this is off-topic.. but when my HD was buggered, i didn't even think of using the rejects as coasters.. very handy indeed!! ;)
Quote from: scatcat on April 01, 2008, 18:16:29
:D hey, i know this is off-topic.. but when my HD was buggered, i didn't even think of using the rejects as coasters.. very handy indeed!! ;)
Or xmas tree decorations. That's another one.. ;)
Hi Everybody.
Well I had the problem of being not able to hear nor convert 24bit recordings. I was bummed out because I was really looking forward to hearing the tapers recordings as well as burning to Cd. I like to burn to CD because if my computer crashed and the hard drive crapped out then there goes all my concerts. That would really piss me off. So that is why I try to burn concerts, a back up if you like. Anyway I digress. To solve my problem I downloaded the latest version of winamp which enables you to hear the 24bit recordings ( thanks for the info about the soundcard... possibly I'm not really hearing 24bit. I will investigate the quality of my soundcard ). The other problem of conversion....I searched for a program that would do this. I found www.goldwave.com and downloaded a trial version. v5.23. This program converts 24bit 48 to 16bit 44.1 very easily as well as a myriad of other useful things. I decided to buy it. Anyway I hope that it may help some of you out there who wish to downsample.
Cheers, Chris ( New Zealand )
Quote from: krissik on April 02, 2008, 00:19:26
Hi Everybody.
Well I had the problem of being not able to hear nor convert 24bit recordings. I was bummed out because I was really looking forward to hearing the tapers recordings as well as burning to Cd. I like to burn to CD because if my computer crashed and the hard drive crapped out then there goes all my concerts. That would really piss me off. So that is why I try to burn concerts, a back up if you like. Anyway I digress. To solve my problem I downloaded the latest version of winamp which enables you to hear the 24bit recordings ( thanks for the info about the soundcard... possibly I'm not really hearing 24bit. I will investigate the quality of my soundcard ). The other problem of conversion....I searched for a program that would do this. I found www.goldwave.com and downloaded a trial version. v5.23. This program converts 24bit 48 to 16bit 44.1 very easily as well as a myriad of other useful things. I decided to buy it. Anyway I hope that it may help some of you out there who wish to downsample.
Cheers, Chris ( New Zealand )
Thanks for the info Chris.
Audacity & even Itunes can also do it.
In Itunes, you need to set up the preferences to convert to wav @16bit, 44.1khz, drop the 24bit wavs in, select them & convert & you're away.
Quote from: krissik on April 02, 2008, 00:19:26
I like to burn to CD because if my computer crashed and the hard drive crapped out then there goes all my concerts. That would really piss me off. So that is why I try to burn concerts, a back up if you like.
burning back-ups is important, of course. but one doesn't have to burn CDs: inaddition to keeping a copy of important concerts on my HD, i (and many others too, i know) always burn everything on flac on data-dvds. the benefits of this are many: less discs to storage, saves space - and most of all: you don't need to start doing 24-bit > 16-bit conversions "just" for the back-up purposes.
besides, a CD copy is not a real back-up of a 24-bit concert anyway. :!: it's not only downsampled/dithered to 16-bit but it also adds one cd generation there, which is totally unnecessary. there's also the risk of burning errors which is actually very high when burning CDs.
if you want a true back-up, then burn the original flac files on data disc!
Quote from: Steve on April 02, 2008, 07:02:43
Audacity & even Itunes can also do it.
In Itunes, you need to set up the preferences to convert to wav @16bit, 44.1khz, drop the 24bit wavs in, select them & convert & you're away.
yes, a lot of programs "can do" this but a lot of programs do a shit job.
i never use itunes for anything because i think it's pretty crappr program in general. when converting with itunes, errors are pretty common. i havne't compared what kind of downssampling/dithering job it does, but i'd certainly look into something else anytime.
but i'd never use audacity for anything. it's simply horribly bad program. :oops: :twisted:
i cannot recommend audacity for anyone, for anything. people keep recommending it because it's for free. but if people want their stuff really being ridden with errors/pops/snaps and stuff like that, then audacity is a "good" choice. audacity has a really awful problems. don't use it.
if you're on mac, try to use Peak. if you need to find something cheaper, use amadeus II.
for pc (which most of you use): we need a list of good programs from someone who's compared them. let's see.
*edit: about curefans members' recent exeriences about audacity's crappiness, see for instance:
http://curefans.com/index.php/topic,4754.0.html
Quote from: krissik on April 02, 2008, 00:19:26
I found www.goldwave.com and downloaded a trial version. v5.23. This program converts 24bit 48 to 16bit 44.1 very easily as well as a myriad of other useful things. I decided to buy it. Anyway I hope that it may help some of you out there who wish to downsample.
Good choice. Goldwave is an awesome program for editing and converting audio files (I use it instead Adobe Audition, which also a very good tool). If you bought the program (I always used the shareware version), there's good info in the Appendix about Digital audio. Below I want to remark what is written about the 24 bits thing:
"The number of bits to use depends on human perception and bit alignment within computers. Computer tend to bundle bits in groups of 8, called bytes, so using 8, 16, 24, or 32 bits would fit nicely in 1, 2, 3, or 4 bytes respectively. For images, 16 bits do not provide enough states to make the transition from one state to the next imperceptible, so 24 or more bits are used. For audio, 16 bits are adequate, which is what a CD contains,
but audio systems using 24 bits will be common in the future."
Quote from: scatcat on March 30, 2008, 15:48:08
i suppose i don't understand a lot about bitrates etc..
Take a look to this article. It explain very simple all this stuff:
16 Bit and 24 Bit Audio
http://www.tweakheadz.com/16_vs_24_bit_audio.htm
Quote from: krissik on April 02, 2008, 00:19:26
Hi Everybody.
Well I had the problem of being not able to hear nor convert 24bit recordings. I was bummed out because I was really looking forward to hearing the tapers recordings as well as burning to Cd. I like to burn to CD because if my computer crashed and the hard drive crapped out then there goes all my concerts. That would really piss me off. So that is why I try to burn concerts, a back up if you like. Anyway I digress. To solve my problem I downloaded the latest version of winamp which enables you to hear the 24bit recordings ( thanks for the info about the soundcard... possibly I'm not really hearing 24bit. I will investigate the quality of my soundcard ). The other problem of conversion....I searched for a program that would do this. I found www.goldwave.com and downloaded a trial version. v5.23. This program converts 24bit 48 to 16bit 44.1 very easily as well as a myriad of other useful things. I decided to buy it. Anyway I hope that it may help some of you out there who wish to downsample.
Cheers, Chris ( New Zealand )
i'd just like to add (once more) that the reason why we are sharing both 16-bit and 24-bit is so that people wouldn't have to worry about sample rate conversion/dithering themselves. :!: that was the whole point why i bothered to upload 16-bit version separately.
i've used Peak 4 (which offers very good quality platform for both sample rate conversion and dithering) to produce the 16-bit version available. this was done so that there would be easy access to an errorfree 16-bit/cd quality version for those people who want to burn their back-ups as audio cds. this is all done to save anyone from worrying about all this themselves and also to avoid any possibly badly dithered versions ending up in the circulation/on anyone's shelves.
next time i'll upload something in both 16-bit and 24-bit, i'll try to add a clear note saying "go for a 16-bit if you want audio cds".
@JB.
I didn't know that it was as bad as that & I haven't noticed any pops & crackles in anything I have put through it.
I usually use it as a last resort to convert stuff other things can't, but you're right about the error messages. There are occasions when it can be a bit frustrating for sure.
Any thoughts on DVDA authoring?
Quote from: Steve on April 02, 2008, 13:14:24
@JB.
I didn't know that it was as bad as that & I haven't noticed any pops & crackles in anything I have put through it.
i'm not sure if some of the problems there are connected to certain versions of audacity, but there're certainly a lot there that isn't good. for instance, i've noticed it can create errors (loud scratchy noises :?) even when doing something really simple, like glueing two audio files together into one file. it
can create errors although sometimes you might end up with a clean file - so it's a gamble and a completely unnecessary one for sure.
due to all this i don't trust anything there anymore that would involve any kind of audio processing/effects, like the things discussed here would.
also, from what i've seen and also from what i've read from other people's experiences, the normalizing feature on audacity is also pretty destructive. :x and yet people still seem to use it quite a lot, to boost the volume on their recordings.
i'm afraid i've nothing to say on DVDA authoring as i've never tried that myself.
Right. Here's what I found out.
You can use a couple of free programs to do this & the results are very good.
Lplex (http://audioplex.sourceforge.net/)
This will make a video dvd with just the sound on it at 24bit, 48khz resolution (standard DVD res).
Read the readme file first though, as it's a little bit weird.
Tips.
Lplex uses a default alpabetical, then numerical track ordering method, so you may need to rename all the tracks or they'll end up all over the place.
Set the ini file for ntsc or pal, depending on where you are & make sure you put the file path in properly (ensure you have at least 2x the space needed for the files).
select all your tracks & drag them to the lplex.exe icon, with the top of the track list going in first (important).
Lplex will then author a dvd with no picture & create the iso image file, which you can then write to a dvd with whatever writer/ software you use.
Burn at the slowest speed possible to avoid errors (try with small groups of files & a dvd rw before you make shiny coasters ;)& use the "write image" option on your burning software.
This will give you a gapless, high resolution disc.
Next post will be DVDA only
Good luck.
EDIT!! A FIX FOR THE TRACKSPLITTING PROBLEM!!!
http://audioplex.sourceforge.net/download/MplexDvdauthorUpdate.zip
DROP THESE TWO FILES INTO THE "BIN" FOLDER FOR LPLEX & YOU SHOULD END UP WITH A FULLY TRACKED DVD
For DVDA players (I tried in a normal dvd player & it didn't work).
There is a program (free) called DVD-Audiofile here http://24bit.turtleside.com/
This will effectively make DVDAs & is easy as falling off a log to use.
Open it up & you will get a very simple list.
Drop the tracks you want into the list.
Tip: Do them one by one, as whenever I tried to drop the whole list in, the last track ended up at the top & I can't figure out how to remove just the one track & re-insert it in the right place :oops:
Then just click the "create iso image" button & make a cup of tea or do the hoovering for 15-20mins or so.
You will ultimately end up with an ISO image file, which you can give a name if you wish.
Once again, using your dvd burning software, chooes the "copy image" option (this is important here, as the dvd software will not recognise the files in the normal Audio TS folder)
Burn at the slowest speed.
Only thing I have found with this is the tiny gaps it puts between tracks.
I am looking to see if I can sort that out currently, so if anyone finds out, can they let me know?
Once again, not all players will play DVDAs, so best to try with a rewritable disc to make sure you're not wating your time.
Oh & lastly, your player & amp should be able to handle the 24bit 48khz signal, otherwise you may as well just burn a CD.
Good luck. :D
oh man.. again.. this info will take me months to work out..
I haven't yet popped the Paris 16-bit to audio, although, upon downloading, i had to go back to 2 tracks, because they were not complete.. maybe my fault here somehow.. I fell asleeep.. finally :!:
:?
Quote from: Steve on April 05, 2008, 12:28:15This will make a video dvd with just the sound on it at 24bit, 48khz resolution (standard DVD res).
Not exactly related here, but I always wonder how 48/24 (or 96/24) became the supposed "DVD standard".
Yes, it's surely possible to use those data rates, but almost every commercial DVD I've ever seen uses 48/16 audio... :?:
@scatcat
So, the lplex program is the one you should try.
Follow the readme instructions, they are pretty clear & not like a book.
I had to change the names of all the files (eg. acure#####, bcure#### etc. but when you get to "z" type "za" instead)
Select them all & drag them to the lplex.exe icon in the open folder dialogue box.
Helps if you drag holding the first one & lettig go of the mouse when the cursor is right on top of the exe icon.
All you do then is wait for it to do its thing.
When it finally finishes, it will make 3 folders & a file.
Audio TS, Video TS, Extra & a file called "whatever the name of the show is".iso
Using your DVD writing software, choose to burn the IMAGE to disc.
It should open up a search dialogue. Hunt for the iso file & select it.
Hit "burn" or "write" or whatever & you're away.
Choose the slowest speed though.
The beauty of this way is that it can be played on any dvd player.
I'm going out to test the DVDAs on other dvd players now....
Quote from: lostflower4 on April 05, 2008, 13:26:02
Quote from: Steve on April 05, 2008, 12:28:15This will make a video dvd with just the sound on it at 24bit, 48khz resolution (standard DVD res).
Not exactly related here, but I always wonder how 48/24 (or 96/24) became the supposed "DVD standard".
Yes, it's surely possible to use those data rates, but almost every commercial DVD I've ever seen uses 48/16 audio... :?:
Just saw this.
Maybe I should have said DVDA standard.
DVDA can actually deal with up to 192khz.
I still prefer SACD though.
Makes me go all tingly..... :oops:
Quote from: Steve on April 05, 2008, 18:20:08
Maybe I should have said DVDA standard.
DVDA can actually deal with up to 192khz.
I still prefer SACD though.
Makes me go all tingly..... :oops:
i actually feel faint.. :smth088 I'm sure you guys just try and make me feel dumb! :roll:
I'll try and catch up.. miracles can happen!! ;)
Quote from: scatcat on April 05, 2008, 18:41:10
Quote from: Steve on April 05, 2008, 18:20:08
Maybe I should have said DVDA standard.
DVDA can actually deal with up to 192khz.
I still prefer SACD though.
Makes me go all tingly..... :oops:
i actually feel faint.. :smth088 I'm sure you guys just try and make me feel dumb! :roll:
I'll try and catch up.. miracles can happen!! ;)
Sorry. :cry:
It's all pretty standard really.
The thing to do is not be afraid of it.
Ignore sacd. It's a high resolution audio format (sounds incredible though).
The DVDA was the contender & I suppose it is more widely available.
Audio dvd is just simple dvd, just without a picture.
The thing is that dvd players can reproduce the higher resolution audio.
+ you don't need to burn 3 cds for a concert, so green too.