Jesus,
If Jerry can figure out how to navigate Aarons web site then it is
time to go blind in order to see the light.
Rich
--- In "Jerry Berrier"
<> wrote:
> Thanks for mentioning mp3. I used to use that a few years ago, but
people
> complained that they couldn't play it. Perhaps that's no longer such an
> issue. I'll start using MP3 again.
>
> By the way, your web site is the most exciting site I've gone to in
years.=20
> I am a blind person, and perhaps that has heightened my interest in
sound.
> Reading and listening on your site makes me want to get more
equipment and
> do more recording of lots of things.
>
> Thanks very much. I can't wait to order one of your CD's.
>
>
> Jerry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Aaron Ximm
> Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 8:12 PM
> To:
> Subject: RE: [Nature Recordists] Hiss in My Recordings
>
>
>
> > I think for future recordings I will save them at 44,100, 16 bit, and
> > if I want to put them on my website, I'll resample them down to
11025.
> > Lowering the resolution to 11025 changed the file size from 3,321K to
> > 808K. I wonder if other recordists who post to the web use the same
> > settings?
>
> Jerry,
>
> You have several options, depending on your needs.
>
> Most people who post audio on the net use compressed formats such as
MP3 and
> Ogg Vorbis. You can achieve quite high audio quality for casual uses
at very
> reduced file sizes.
>
> E.g., on my own website (URL below) I post almost everything
compressed to
> 192 kbps -- the file sizes end up being about 1.4MB per stereo
minute. MP3
> is useful because it's supported almost everywhere now; many operating
> systems now ship with players that are smart enough to play files as
they
> arrive -- even without you running a "streaming" server. For casual
use I'd
> recommend it as the de facto standard!
>
> At higher compressions there is a lot of debate about which compressor /
> format to use. At lower compression rates (higher data rats, e.g. 384
> kbps/sec say) almost any format will sound lossless for any
practical lay
> use however! One minute of MONO 384 kbps MP3 would again take up
about 1.4
> MB, and should sound GREAT.
>
> If you really need to avoid compression, there are a few "lossless"
> compressors out there -- FLAC and Apple Lossless I think it's called
-- that
> will reduce filesizes in the 50% range.
>
> If you're recording with ATRAC on MD (ie, recording on MD without
using HiMD
> in PCM mode) you're already going through one round of compression
in the
> 256-300 kbps range; arguably ATRAC is superior to MP3 (say) at that data
> rate), but it's still a lossy format.
>
> Conventional wisdom has it you can "have problems" recompressing
recordings,
> e.g. making MP3s from ATRAC recordings or other lossy formats, but
IMHO this
> is bunkem in practice. I have never heard anything in any of my MP3s
that I
> could attribute to this -- I do hear artifacts, but I know where
they come
> from, and it's not that... :)
>
> Btw there is a lot of great shareware/freeware available that will
help you
> painlessly make great-quality MP3s, Ogg Vorbis files, etc. I don't know
> about FLAC and other lossless compressors though, but I do know you
can find
> them free as well.
>
> best regards,
> aaron
>
>
> http://www.quietamerican.org
>
> | quod omne animal post |
> | cogitum est triste... |
>
>
>
> "Microphones are not ears,
> Loudspeakers are not birds,
> A listening room is not nature."
> Klas Strandberg
> Yahoo! Groups Links
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|