Starter of this subject: Jim Widner
Last post in this subject: 8/16/2002
Messages in this subject: 16
| Jim Widner | 8/16/2002 16 replies |
|
The sound quality most likely comes from the original source material, or bad mp3 encoding. There are a number of lower quality mp3's out in the aether of the Internet.
To my knowledge there is no way to improve them directly as mp3. Though I don't recommend it, you might be able to convert them back to wav, clean them up, then re-compress them. A lot of time and effort that most likely will not yield the results for which you are looking. Best bet is to keep shopping for better quality versions of the same shows. Probably not what you wanted to hear. |
| Ted Davenport | 8/16/2002 14 replies |
| Your problem is the very reason why I avoid MP3's like the plague. I avoid them so much, that I do not have any in my collection. I won't even accept a show that has ever been an MP3 at any time. I have always looked for the best sound quality possible and a low coded MP3 makes the show sound much worse than the source material. After spending over 30 years improving and looking for the best sound quality, there is just no way that I will sacrifice sound quality to save money and space. It all comes down to what is important to you. For me it has always been, and always will be, the best sound quality possible. |
| Garo | 8/16/2002 13 replies |
|
I completely agree that a poor quality mp3 makes otr listening a chore. I'm actually in the process of converting my collection of some 5,000 shows to mp3. I guess this will always be a work-in-progress, as I acquire new shows on a fairly regular basis. I'm encoding them at 160kbps, at the CD-standard sample rate of 44.1 kHz, and am extremely pleased with the results thus far. I'm also using a piece of software called "Magix Audio Cleaning Lab", which I'm finding to be VERY effective at removing pops, clicks, hiss, and other associated baddies. This program allows me to boost the high end WITHOUT boosting the noise level. In addition, "Magix" also lets me play with the pitch of an audio file, a very useful tool for fixing shows that are either too fast or slow. Hope this info helps you out!
--Garo |
| Eric Cooper | 8/17/2002 12 replies |
| Well, as a collector of OTR via MP3 I have to disagree with Jim, Ted and Garo. First of all, I have found that not ALL otr MP3 encodes/recordings are bad. There are many shows in MP3 format that I have that are as good sound quality recordings as any that Ted Davenport, Shawn Wells and others have. There are others that are just AWFUL. I do find that regular commercial software packages such as Roxio's Easy CD Creator help quite a bit in sound cleanup. |
| Ted Davenport | 8/17/2002 0 replies |
| Well, Eric, that's what makes life so interesting. We don't agree, but that's all right. We don't agree, but we both have our right to disagree. The only person you have to please with your OTR collection is yourself. Your collection would not please me and, I am sure, my collection would not please you. Nothing wrong with that at all. I think that my way is better - that's why I do it that way. I am sure that you collect in the MP3 format for the same reason. Even though we disagree, we are both making our individual contributions to OTR. |
| Jim Widner | 8/18/2002 10 replies |
|
Eric, I am confused by your disagreeing with me.
Glenda asked: "Is there any way to improve the sound quality of OTR mp3's?" To which I replied: "The sound quality most likely comes from the original source material, or bad mp3 encoding...To my knowledge there is no way to improve them directly as mp3." Are you saying that you can take an existing bad mp3 and make it better? Do you do this as I mention, by converting it back to wav, then improving the sound quality, then back to mp3? If there is a way to improve an existing mp3 without doing that, I would be curious to know. I do agree and disagree with Ted in so far as I do not collect on mp3, but I do use them to listen. I don't catalog them, and while I admit, I have not discarded them. I do not consider them part of my collection. mp3 do make listening more convenient, but I will never believe that one can take an existing recording - digitally compress it then tell me that it is still the original item. Granted to most ears it may sound the same, but it is still a "degenerated" original. This is why I want as close to the original recording as possible. |
| Ted Davenport | 8/18/2002 1 replies |
| Jim, I agree completely. If you take an original recording and then compress it, it is simply not possible to be as good as the original. By compressing it you remove some of the audio. It has to be less quality than the source material. Simple mathematics. If you take 1 away from 5 it will never equal 5 again. It will always be 4, 1 less than what you started with. |
| Jim Widner | 8/22/2002 0 replies |
|
The way I have always thought of digitized recordings from analog source material is by a very crude example: Place the fingers of one hand between the fingers of the other hand and imagine that represents the original analog recording. Then remove the fingers from one hand away and what is left is a representation of a digitized recording. The higher the sample rate the closer to the original analog recording, though 44,100 is the usual "CD quality" sample rate used. But it is just that - a "sample" of the original.
Now take that digitized recording and compress it mathematically. Technically there is not supposed to be loss because the mathematical algorithm is supposed to be able to restore the removed material used to compress the file. But as with a number like pi, if you display pi with 20 numbers behind the decimal point you are more accurate than displaying pi with only 2 digits behind the decimal point. Attempting to restore a compressed sound file does not always return to the original math spec. Thus some loss with each undoing and redoing. While the mp3 file is a digital file, you can copy it each time to another CD and you will have what you started with. But if you manipulate by "improving" the sound, you are now taking a digital compressed file and changing the mathematic structure of it - there has to be loss despite the improvement. Just because I have been accused of this in the past, I am not condemning mp3's. I am just saying they can never be as good as the original analog recording despite what your ears are telling your brain. And Garo, you used a subjective word in your argument that opens you up to criticism. You said "there is no DISCERNABLE difference." Surely a subjective statement because one person's ears are not the same as anothers. I would say - maybe not discernable to you, but maybe discernable to me - or maybe not. Subjective. |
| Eric Cooper | 8/18/2002 7 replies |
|
Hi Jim and the group, What I was referring to was a specic software "suite" that I use called Easy CD Creator. It has proprietary sound enhancing components in it's software that help emhance old recordings and eliminate noise. It does not eliminate ALL defects, just the common ones and the recordings end up sounding better.
Eric |
| Ted Davenport | 8/18/2002 6 replies |
| Eric, Let me get this straight. Are you saying that you can make an MP3 (compressed audio) that will be better than the source recording? I have many recordings that were made from the transcription discs. Are you saying that an MP3 can be better than the first generation tape recording? |
| Garo | 8/18/2002 5 replies |
| For crying out loud, people, this isn't a difficult concept to understand. There IS software that lets you alter an mp3 (i.e. remove hiss, crackles, adjust speed, etc) WITHOUT having to first convert it to a WAV file. And yes, if you use the software correctly, your finished product WILL sound better than your source material. If you use a good "ripper" or encoder at a high enough bit rate, such as the 160kbps/44.1kHz standard I use, there is no descernible difference between the resulting mp3 and your source material, be it cassette, open reel, LP, or what have you. My experience is that you reach a point of diminishing returns when encoding at rates higher than 160kbps. Above that, your files just take up more space, but sound the same. Spoken word recordings--especially the typically low- to mid-fi OTR recordings--tend to be much more forgiving, as opposed to music, with whatever compression mp3 introduces. |
| Ted Davenport | 8/18/2002 3 replies |
| I just don't agree. Sure imperfections can be removed, but this same editing can be done without putting it on MP3. When something is put in MP3 part of the audio is removed. After it is removed it can never be put back. If part of the audio is removed it is impossible to be as good as the source material, much less better. Mp3 is fine for listening, but never for any serious archival project. |
| Eric Cooper | 8/19/2002 1 replies |
|
Right you are Ted, but I don't do serious archiving. My "collection" is for my own listening pleasure.Guess I should have stated that up front! And I have Mp3 recordings that sound as good as any tape I have purchased from you.
|
| Ted Davenport | 8/19/2002 0 replies |
| Well, Eric, that is your opinion and I respect it. My opinion, however, is just the opposite judging from the few MP3 recordings I have heard. They didn't even come close. |
| OTRhound | 8/19/2002 0 replies |
|
You are correct Ted because you seem to be the only one here in this thread that fully understands that MP3 uses a "lossy" compression scheme and that each time an MP3 is encoded there is something lost. How much is lost depends upon the quality of the source .wav file, the amunt of compression, and the techniques used, but SOME AUDIO IS ALWAYS LOST, even if no actual changes were made during editing. That's just the nature of MP3.
People that I know that do a lot of this type of editing and are serious about it always save the orginal .wav file and all editing is done to copies of this master .wav and all encodes come solely from previously uncompressed .wav files. Yes you can edit .mp3 (not directly but the decompressed .wav ) if you must and yes you may be able to improve the sound somewhat but if you put the headphones on and really listen you will know that you've removed something. MP3 is "lossy" and there's no way around it. |
| OTRhound | 8/19/2002 0 replies |
|
I think you may be somewhat misinformed. MP3 was never meant to be an audiophile solution. It is a compromise solution between sound quality and file size. MP3s were never meant to be edited as a genreal practice -- because each editing session further compresses and reduces the sound quality.
If you have a software tool that appears to edit MP3 directly it most likely is not. All the tools I've seen convert your MP3 to .wav behind the scenes and what you are actually editing is the decompressed wav before it is encoded and further compressed once again. This recompression introduces further digital artifacts - even though the audio may be "cleaned up" by whatever noise reduction techniques you're using it's not the same as applying these to a .wav file that has not yet been compressed. I'd be curious to know which tool you are using that you claim lets you edit MP3 directly. Sound Forge, CoolEdit, Goldwave, etc. all operate the way I have described. If you don't believe me just take an OTR Mp3 using your tool of choice and save it again as an MP3. Do this several times without even editing and each generation gets worse. After three generations you have a seriously degraded MP3 that is noticeably worse than what you started with. For those of you that want to learn about MP3 -- it's advantages and it's limits -- I direct you to the O'Reilly book "MP3 -- The Definitive Guide". Everything you need to know and more.
|
| Walt | 12/10/2002 0 replies |
|
I found this thread quite interesting. There were few actual arguments against MP3 except in the minds of the arguee. Let me preface with I am not a collector of MP3's, I collect on tape almost exclusively.
But the argument that MP3 is a "lossy compression" type of storage is in fact a not an argument for tape. It seems that those that argued against MP3's are forgetting that analog tape is also lossy. Try the same experiment recommended by making 5 generations of a tape and a similar result will be evident -- sound is lost. The point for MP3's in this case is: 1a) Once in MP3 format, no further loss will happen. A traded MP3 will have absolutely no loss at all for the life of the file. Loss only happens if converted to WAV and back to MP3. 1b) Tape on the other hand will always degrade with every trade. The stuff I receive then pass on has lost signal that cannot be retrieved. 2a) The MP3 file cannot degrade over time unless the storage medium (diskette, hard disk, CD) crashes, cracks, whatever. Multiple copies can easily and swiftly be made, giving the added protection of multiple "offsite storage" archives available in a shoebox. 2b) Tape will degrade potentially with each listen, definitely with time. Eventually, the tape will become useless and the contents lost if not periodically copied to new tapes (causing more loss). All the above problems that can befall digital media can in fact befall tape, in addition to improper storage temperature, stretching, wrapping itself around the capstan, accidental erasure when placed in the wrong side of the deck. So after a little more thought on the subject, it seems that MP3 isn't as bad as it first sounds. WAV on the other hand is, of course, best -- and MP3s and Tapes can quickly be made from WAVs for trading and |