Unusedable Exported WAV
in [Cakewalk]
|
From: Benjamin Goldman on 16 Jul 2010 21:38 Rick Paul wrote: > "Benjamin Goldman" <bengoldmanSKIPIT(a)centurytel.net> wrote in message > news:xn0gwp1jw3dpafr000bengoldman(a)news.nw.centurytel.net... > > Rick Paul wrote: > > > > > I just tried the Windows Media Player in Win 7 Professional x64, > > > and it gets an error opening my 64-bit mix files, and I know my > > > Sound Forge 8 doesn't open my mix files, either. Note, though, > > > that I mix to 88.2 kHz files so I can master at higher bandwidth, > > > so it's possible the limitation is the sample rate rather than > > > the 64-bit floating point format, or even that the issue with WMP > > > is because my default sound card for that may not support 88.1 > > > kHz (that definitely isn't the issue for Sound Forge, though, as > > > I use Sound Forge with the same audio card I use for SONAR). For > > > awhile I was using 96 kHz for mastering, but then my sound card > > > drivers started supporting 88.2 kHz, so I figured that would > > > probably be a better rate to use given the even multiplying and > > > dividing from/to 44.1 kHz. (I'd done some tests at one point and > > > noted that, even though my project was done at 44.1 kHz, > > > upsampling for mastering did make a subtle, and pleasant, > > > difference in the sound of the masters.) > > > > > > Rick > > > > You me resampling, right? > > Yes, in the case I described above. Specifically, I do my tracking, > editing, and mixing at 44.1 kHz, then mix to 88.2 kHz, which does the > upsampling as part of the export process (I imagine the last stage of > it?). Then I do the mastering at 88.2 kHz, eventually exporting back > to 44.1 kHz for the CD-quality master. I'd experimented at one point > with doing the mastering at 96 kHz, and that sounded better than > keeping it all at 44.1 kHz -- i.e. even in the 16-bit final mix (and, > for that matter, in the 128 kbps MP3 version). But I figured keeping > things at even multiples/divisors would make more sense once my audio > card drivers supported 88.2 kHz (IIRC they didn't initially). > > I did actually try one project at 88.2 kHz all the way through, > mainly to test a softsampled instrument that recommended using that > rate as the optimal one for it. While I did feel that the sound > quality improvements were noticeable, I also had a number of other > technical issues on that project that I felt were a result of using > the higher sample rate (e.g. for some reason EZ drummer significantly > increased its memory usage, and this was back when I was still using > 32-bit Windows XP, so I had some serious RAM juggling issues on that > project), and, of course, it doubled the file sizes, which made doing > interim backups a lot more challenging. At least for the time being, > I decided going to that extreme wasn't worth the extra hassles. > > > Man o man, if only the consortium would adopt a new standard of > > 88.2 . . . I'd be happier 'an a pig in mud. The disc size would > > have to be larger; either thickness (both sides - turn it over???) > > or in radius (more like the trusty old 45's). > > Given the tendency toward crappy quality MP3 files over even CD > quality, I'm not holding my breath on this one. I don't think you'd > need bigger disc sizes, though -- just use DVDs instead of CDs since > most people already use DVD players as CD players these days. > Unfortunately stuff like DVD-A and the Sony alternative, whose name I > can't recall at the moment, never took off. By the time I was > getting ready to experiment with it, the format was already dead. > > > A larger CD would make for great little 45 sized albums. And the > > bottom end would finally regain it's respectable status. Woohoo! > > (Screw nyquist theorEm naysayers.) > > Actually, it's not the bottom end that would get helped by the shift > to a higher sample rate, but rather the top end ("more air"?). > However, in general, higher sample rates more closely approximate > analog since, though they still do stairstepping, there is less > distance between each step. Couple that with greater bit depths, and > you also get finer grained height for the steps. The idea of using > higher bit depths and sample rates ahead of downgrading to CD quality > is really just keeping things as close to an analog-like scenario for > as long as possible, then downgrading the highest quality starting > point when it comes time to create your ultimate "low-fi" result for > end-listener use. > > Rick When I said bottom end I meant a deeper beefier sound; audio bottom rather than data headroom. A more mellow golden feel. Not nothing but sparkle like CD versions of analog classics sound like. -- Cheers, Ben
From: Sue Morton on 17 Jul 2010 06:33 I have several linux boxes running VLC and no 'phone home' on those either. All my boxes, whether internet connected or just LAN'd, are watched for traffic. I test a fair bit of networking software and hardware switches and I have to know what's going on in my network :-) But -- I do cheat and take a precompiled binary for VLC on linux just like I do on windows. So no... I have not compiled VLC -- ever, for any OS. -- Sue Morton "Benjamin Goldman" <bengoldmanSKIPIT(a)centurytel.net> wrote in message news:xn0gwpk9z432rus008bengoldman(a)news.nw.centurytel.net... > Sue Morton wrote: > >> VLC doesn't 'phone home' on any of my systems... never has, and has >> played just about everything I've thrown at it (but that is not an >> exhastive list). Check your settings? > > You've compiled it in Linux? > > -- > Cheers, > Ben
From: Benjamin Goldman on 17 Jul 2010 11:33 Glennbo wrote: > In news:xn0gwpkna43lzgt00abengoldman(a)news.nw.centurytel.net the > killer robot "Benjamin Goldman" <bengoldmanSKIPIT(a)centurytel.net> > grabbed the controls of the spaceship cakewalk.audio and pressed > these buttons... > > > When I said bottom end I meant a deeper beefier sound; audio bottom > > rather than data headroom. A more mellow golden feel. Not nothing > > but sparkle like CD versions of analog classics sound like. > > Sounds like you are referring to "classic" 16/44!!!!!!!!! <g> I don't think so . . . -- Cheers, Ben
From: Benjamin Goldman on 17 Jul 2010 11:37 Rick Paul wrote: > "Benjamin Goldman" <bengoldmanSKIPIT(a)centurytel.net> wrote in message > news:xn0gwpkna43lzgt00abengoldman(a)news.nw.centurytel.net... > > When I said bottom end I meant a deeper beefier sound; audio bottom > > rather than data headroom. A more mellow golden feel. Not nothing > > but sparkle like CD versions of analog classics sound like. > > I realize that. My point was that having higher sampling rates > improves fidelity for the high end of the audio spectrum, not the low > end. The Nyquist stuff you mentioned suggests that a sample rate of > 44.1 kHz should be good enough to represent up to 20 kHz, or > approximately the high end of the threshold of human hearing, > accurately, with bass and mid-range frequencies being no sweat. > Going higher than 44.1 kHz basically gives you more ability to > represent detail in the upper end as there should already be plenty > of detail in the lower end. It also lets you take into account how > interactions above 20 kHz affect frequencies below 20 kHz. > > It isn't a matter of data headroom -- that's more of a bit-depth > thing -- but rather being able to capture a more detailed picture of > the waveform at the high-end. While you also get a more detailed > picture at the low end, there were already enough points of data down > there to get a bunch of points in each wave cycle, so the ability to > approximate the original analog waveform is already pretty good down > there. > > My personal observations of the difference in results were that using > the higher sampling rate, even just in mastering (but even moreso if > the higher rate was used throughout, gave a result that seemed to > have more of a sense of dimension in the sense of a 3-D soundstage. > That is, it's more like you're in the room, as opposed to listening > to music through speakers. That comes mainly from the high end > because lower frequency sounds are less directional than higher > frequency sounds. > > From a pure audio perception perspective, though, perhaps it might > also be smoother or less brittle or some such thing -- again, more of > a high frequency phenomenon. > > Rick Yup, less brittle. Maybe the human ear senses what may technically a zipper effect on the long wave but being percieved as missing ambience or similar. Interesting about that dimension increase. Makes perfect sense. -- Cheers, Ben
From: Benjamin Goldman on 17 Jul 2010 11:39
Glennbo wrote: > In news:xn0gwpkci436el0009bengoldman(a)news.nw.centurytel.net the > killer robot "Benjamin Goldman" <bengoldmanSKIPIT(a)centurytel.net> > grabbed the controls of the spaceship cakewalk.audio and pressed > these buttons... > > > Try compiling it in Linux > > Why would I want to do that? As a science experiment? All my PCs > run legal copies of Windows, and all the audio and video apps I use > werks! Because I said my Windows version worked fine. My issues popped up in Linux where cose told ME that it was phoning home to GET a file. -- Cheers, Ben |