Whats your favorite codex?

Author
Post
Essentials Only Full Version
JOHNNY5
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 7
  • Joined: 2005/07/15 15:13:16
  • Status: offline
2005/07/31 20:50:36 (permalink)

Whats your favorite codex?

What do you think about WMA vs Ogg?
post edited by JOHNNY5 - 2005/08/01 16:29:51
#1

5 Replies Related Threads
    blueelectron9
    Max Output Level: -82 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 401
    • Joined: 2004/06/18 20:27:33
    • Status: offline
    RE: wma 2005/08/01 16:29:10 (permalink)
    [Content deleted]
    post edited by blueelectron9 - 2005/08/01 20:33:06
    #2
    Gerlad
    Max Output Level: -89 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 56
    • Joined: 2004/11/28 20:52:56
    • Status: offline
    RE: wma 2005/08/03 23:22:30 (permalink)

    Scotty

    Sorry to see you deleted your comments. I find them very informative. In the past you've talked about 16/44.1 and 16/48 files. What drives the use of 48 KHZ files? Is it regional, improved quality, or something else?? Going from 44.1 to 48 doesn't seem like a big enough change to significantly improve quality and if the final product is a red book cd then how does it help? Who are the main users of 48 KHZ files?

    Sorry if my questions are very basic. At least the ring tone stuff got some forum activity going.

    Gerry
    #3
    blueelectron9
    Max Output Level: -82 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 401
    • Joined: 2004/06/18 20:27:33
    • Status: offline
    RE: wma 2005/08/04 13:05:15 (permalink)
    No, going from 44.1 to 48 won't make much of a difference, but 48 is standard for a lot of sound cards. Doesn't DVD use 48? I thought they did.

    However, in SONAR, I use 2496 and can definitely hear a difference through my headphones. Mostly in the highs--a bit cleaner. This was only on one song though and convinced me well enough to use it for all my projects and then mix down to 1644 with dithering.

    The original post covered content about MP3s, ATRAC3, etc. I was just rambling on my thoughts of which format I liked better and said that I prefer lossless compression tecnhiques. I guess I'd have to say lossless WMA, but I haven't tried to see if it's truly lossless by using it to compress data. After all, some people are calling 128 kb/s MP3s as CD quality. Hardly, I say :)
    #4
    johnt8435
    Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 2
    • Joined: 2005/08/10 09:50:59
    • Status: offline
    RE: wma 2005/08/10 09:57:58 (permalink)
    FYI 48K sampling was introduced with DAT tape recorders (I think back in the '80's). They were expensive and were mainly found in studios. DVD is 24bit/96K.

    John
    #5
    johnt8435
    Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 2
    • Joined: 2005/08/10 09:50:59
    • Status: offline
    RE: wma 2005/08/10 10:14:20 (permalink)
    ...dvd audio that is. I think the surround formats are lower at 20/96---but I'm not sure. Higher sampling rates move high frequency noise out of a range that most people can hear (and that most filters will remove). Higher bit samples cover sampling errors (and error correction) to move the frequency response out to 20-20K. (For example only 14 bits are left for actual content at 16/44 (CD) sampling rates---which results in a loss of low level information.)
    #6
    Jump to:
    © 2024 APG vNext Commercial Version 5.1