meotch

MichaelJee: date='Dec 3 2008, 09:24 PM' post='25143'

Hi,

 

In case you didn’t realize, NCH don’t make codecs, it utilizes them. For .mp3 we are of course using the LAME codec.

 

gooroo: Unfortunately, however, NCH is using the older version of LAME, which is 3.82. This version has now been upgraded to version 3.98.2, alternately referred to as 3.98r ("r" for revised). This newest revised version of 3.98 contains the superior form of VBR (Variable Bit Rate) used in the earlier version 3.82 and still used today by NCH. Just recently I told a poster who asked about the use of the newer version of LAME that "Old is Gold."

 

This newest version of LAME is in a form in which the user sets the upper and lower instantaneous bitrates. I normally use a Variable Bit Rate from 224 kbps to 320 kbps, which averages out somewhere near 220 kbps and gives a reproduction quality which is virtually indistinguishable from the original sound.

 

Unfortunately still, NCH (unless I am mistaken; please feel free to contradict me) does not provide instructions which permit the user of its software (such as Switch and WavePad) to install the latest downloaded version of the LAME encoder in the proper folder so that these NCH programs can utilize it. If you have any information which contradicts what I am saying, I would be more than glad for you to post it here, since I understand that the latest improved version of LAME is very good indeed and corrects some past problems with version 3.97, which has now been retired from the LAME website.

 

MJ: You shouldn’t theoretically loose quality going from .mp3 > .wav, though you will slightly from going back to .mp3. There is no way around this.

 

gooroo: You are correct in that the loss in quality occurs when .wav is encoded as .mp3, and not in the decoding of .mp3. If one starts with a .wav file, converts it to .mp3, then discovers that he wants to edit it, he will lose some quality if he decodes the file, edits it, and then once again converts it to .mp3. It is the encoding to .mp3 in this cycle which the poster would like to avoid.

 

However, there are specialized small and completely free forever, without any chameleon change at some later time, applications available on the internet which permit a certain specialized type of editing of .mp3 files, in which decoding is not required. Hence this limited editing can be performed upon an mp3 file, without the inevitable loss of quality that results when the file is decoded before it is edited. If NCH has no objection, I will be happy to post the URL for downloading one exceptionally good free application of this sort, which can be used in conjunction with NCH conversion software.

 

MJ:Simply keep a copy of the original source material. If you will work on the file for while, keep it in the .wav format until you need to output it.

If you look about, you can find more details on the inner working of the algorithm that LAME use.

 

I agree with you, with it not hard to find 1TB drives for AU$150.00, the size of audio files really isn’t a concern. If you need to retain that quality, keep it as a .wav. if you need to stick it on a smaller portable music device, then compress back down again.

 

gooroo: And I submit that this may be easier said than done! I am guessing that the poster who is lamenting the loss of quality in the decode mp3-edit-recode mp3 does NOT have the .wav original and wants to edit the mp3 version, which is almost surely the only version in his (or her) possession. If so, then perhaps the use of the small, specialized .mp3 editor which I have described will permit this individual to avoid this quality-loss cycle, when he has no control over the fact that the original .wav file was encoded to mp3 "behind his back," so to speak.

 

MJ:Losses like you describe are why professional studios use ultra high sample rates and frequency ceilings to minimize the loss of quality you speak of. When complete, they downgrade 44.1hKz sample / 20kHz ceiling.

 

Hope this helps

----------

gooroo:Somehow, I seriously doubt that it will. But then again, I could be wrong. I have been before. Perhaps the poster will step forward and admit that he does not possess the .wav version of the file--assuming of course that this is the case. If it is the case, then I suspect that the use of the type of mp3 editing program that I have described above will help :-).

 

Do you suppose that NCH is willing for this kind of help (i.e., its internet location) to be posted right here in this forum?

 

gooroo

thank you also gooroo as your response was extremely helpful and right on target. i do NOT have the original source in .wav so indeed if you are permitted, i'd love to know about the mp3 editor of which you speak.

thanks!

-Meotch

Hi,

 

In case you didn’t realize, NCH don’t make codecs, it utilizes them. For .mp3 we are of course using the LAME codec.

 

You shouldn’t theoretically loose quality going from .mp3 > .wav, though you will slightly from going back to .mp3. There is no way around this. Simply keep a copy of the original source material. If you will work on the file for while, keep it in the .wav format until you need to output it.

If you look about, you can find more details on the inner working of the algorithm that LAME use.

 

I agree with you, with it not hard to find 1TB drives for AU$150.00, the size of audio files really isn’t a concern. If you need to retain that quality, keep it as a .wav. if you need to stick it on a smaller portable music device, then compress back down again.

 

Losses like you describe are why professional studios use ultra high sample rates and frequency ceilings to minimize the loss of quality you speak of. When complete, they downgrade 44.1hKz sample / 20kHz ceiling.

 

Hope this helps

 

M

Thank you Michael - indeed this was helpful as I will now just leave these as .wavs.

cheers!

-Meotch

Neil,

 

I would suggest asking for help and then inferring we are being “dishonest” in the one post, might not be the best way to go about things.

 

The free version could have been found by clicking on Site Map at the top of the main homepage.

 

http://www.nch.com.au/wavepad/wpsetup.exe

 

 

Cheers

M

Hi Michael -

I swear that I made double sure to download the free version - I am fairly certain I did so from the link in the FAQ that says "click here for free version", yet today when I tried to open WP for the first time in a few weeks, I am told "The trial version has expired. You must purchase to continue to use it. Purchasing is easy and can be done immediately online".

I went back to the FAQ to verify the name of the downloaded .exe (I still have the one I originally downloaded) and they are both the same name - wpsetup.exe.

Should I uninstall what I have now and reinstall a newly re-downloaded wpsetup.exe?

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Meotch

so i opened a 192kbps .mp3, made a couple of minor edits (just chopped out some bits - no effects, normalization, etc to actual sound) and then went to "save as" and realized that wavepad opened it up to edit it as a .wav.

so i assume there is already some loss of quality due to the program approximating the missing pieces of the .mp3 in order to render a .wav - i guess that is the way it goes, so no big deal there.

but my question is now that i have this .wav, should i not just leave it as a .wav rather than re-compressing to an .mp3 (at any bit rate)? i.e., i'm already one step away from the original b/c wavpad edits as .wav, and i don't want to take another step away by taking that .wav and transcoding it to another format. by any crazy chance if i save it again at a 192 .mp3 would i be taking a step BACK to the original quality?

storage space is a total non-issue to me but sound quality is very important. (and yes i realize that a 192 .mp3 is a poor start, but i'm trying to preserve as much quality as i can and not loose more thru this editing and resaving process and i can't get a hold of a higher quality original)

thank you kindly for any guidance anyone can provide