musikone

NCHer, thanks for your quick response. Because there was nothing in the Output Folder drop down window I tried a number of things... I typed in manually: "[same as source file]" and "C:\Users\Mark.MARK-PC\Music\[same as source file]" of which I would have thought it would have tried to write into C:\Users\Mark.MARK-PC\Music\ folder where I keep all my music. I have not had issues writing to this folder. I am thinking that the software is trying to write to a folder called: "[same as source file]" which is not a valid folder. Can you confirm that the drop down box should have "[same as source file]" as an option? Thanks again! ================================================================================ Where have you people been? This subject has already been discussed, and was answered by NCH (the old guy, not ncher, the new guy). The answer which was given, by one who apparently knew what was going on, is that NCH software currently _does not have any answer to this problem, because there is some "structural" difficulty in the programming code_. This discussion ended with the NCH person saying saying that the fix for this problem would probably be introduced in the next release of the software. This discussion may have been in the WavePad forum, rather than in the Switch forum. However, the same thing applies in both pieces of software. Musikone (and much, much more!)

Any of the lossless codecs will give mathematically perfect representations of the sound being recorded. However lossy codecs are so close to perfect that it isn't significant. 1 -------------------- Maybe to _your_ ears, but not to mine. This is an absurd statement, and I am very surprised to see it posted in this forum! If a "lossy" codec is so close to perfect that the loss is insignificant, then why on earth are there so many different bitrates available for mp3 (a lossy codec) encoding? According to your statement, the difference between an mp3 sound file encoded at an 8k bitrate and an mp3 sound file encoded at a 320k bitrate "isn't significant". I (and everyone else who knows anything at all about the subject of codecs) beg to disagree. 1 -------------------- For the record the best sounding sound card I have ever heard is an original ISA SB16. Awesome amplifiers on those cards. 2 -------------------- What does this have to do with the subject of this particular discussion thread (the flac codec)? 2 -------------------- The moral to the story is that Wavepad can use many codecs. Feel free to use almost any for essentially flawless sound reproduction. 3 -------------------- "Essentially flawless sound"? Surely you must be kidding! 3 -------------------- As for fixing flac, Wave Pad can play any format it can load. If not it should automatically download the codec to allow it to do so. Cancelling that download can cause trouble. 4 -------------------- Help!! We're all trapped in the Twilight Zone. Musikone (I'm sure glad that I don't have any questions about WavePad that I would like answered here. Perhaps NCH will provide us all with a special WavePad Discussion Forum Filter :-)) 4 --------------------

It may be illegal to edit recording depending on where you live. In addition there is the likely chance of licensing fees that should be paid to the original artist if you play the samples / tracks in a public forum. iTunes is subject to DRM (Digital Rights Management) for the vast majority of tracks available so Wave Pad, Mixpad and Switch are severely constrained with what they are able to do with those tracks. ======================================================================= I don't know where on earth you get this!! It appears to me that you have been "brainwashed" by certain individuals with connections to the recording industry, which is forever attempting to "rewrite" the laws (without the use of those irrelevant legislators) to further its own perverted interests. In point of fact, such (editing) activity is controlled by the "fair use" of copyrighted material under the _federal_ copyright law, which has nothing whatsoever to do with "where you live". The fair use of a copyrighted CD permits you to edit the sound files contained on a CD, _provided_ that (1) the CD which contains these files remains in your possession as long as your edits remain in existence, and (2) the edited material is retained for your personal use. As much as he would like to do so, the copyright owner cannot subvert the fair use provisions of the federal copyright law, under the cover of a license agreement. When push comes to shove, what DRM is all about is the use of physical means to prevent the user from doing what he/she is entitled to do under fair use. Under the copyright law, the owner of a copyrighted music CD is entitled to make backups of that software (as long as these copies are not distributed without the original), _whether or not the copyright owner agrees with this_. The copyright owner's use of copy-prevention techniques has existed since the first Apple computer was introduced for personal use. DRM is an extension of these same shop-worn copyright-evasion concepts in the modern computer age, where new hardware for music storage and playback seems to spring up almost daily. DRM permits the music copyright owner to forcefully prevent the users of copyrighted material to exercise their legal rights, but without being confronted by those nasty provisions of the copyright law that _he_ doesn't like. From the music copyright holder's perspective: "If you can't force them (users) to do what you want them to do, by using the copyright law as your enforcement vehicle, then use DRM as your own personal enforcement vehicle." And oh yes, be sure to continuously "educate" users to the "fact" that they are not permitted to do what the federal copyright law (which _cannot_ be superseded by any state licensing law) permits them to do! Let me repeat, since it undoubtedly needs repeating. The fact that DRM may prevent WavePad from doing what WavePad is designed to do is not evidence, per se, that the user who wishes to do what DRM prevents him/her from doing would be in violation of the law if he/she were able to do what the copyright owner doesn't want being done. If you possess unimagined evidence (i.e., either from the lawbooks or from case law) that there is any law, either federal or state, which prohibits the owner of a copyrighted music CD from editing the sound files on that CD _for his/her own personal use_, then please present that evidence here in this discussion forum. I would certainly like to see it. After you do this, we can continue with our dialogue on this subject (although I believe that such discussion rightfully belongs in a legal forum), now that it has been introduced here and you have responded (incorrectly, in my opinion) to the poster's question. Musikone (and much, much more!)

When it went to press just recently, Switch v1.23 used (and still does in the current version 1.24) Lame version 3.82a which, in my opinion, is an excellent MP3 encoder. This version of Lame has a Variable Bit Rate (VBR) option, which permits the user to set both the lower and upper bitrates of the encoding process separately, along with a mysterious "quality" setting which is described only in the vaguest terms. I am currently using VBR in Switch with a lower bitrate of 224kbs and an upper bitrate of 360kbs, along with a quality value of 0 (the highest quality possible). This combination of settings gives me an excellent sound quality, virtually indistinguishable from that of a CD (I find the reference to a constant bitrate of 128kbs as "CD quality" to be deplorable; it is a lie), with a compression ratio of about 6:1. That is, the compressed file size is about one-sixth of the original .wav file when extracted from the CD. The current version of the Lame encoder is 3.97. It also has VBR, but it has been "updated" (I guess that this is what is claimed for it), apparently to compete with Microsoft's WMA. This updating is a serious departure from the VBR encoding used in Lame 3.82a. Whereas in v3.82a could set the upper and lower bitrates and quality value as I describe above, the new and "improved" version has been "dumbed-down" (at least in appearance, if not in performance) to avoid confronting the unsophisticated (a PC word) user with those bewildering upper and lower bitrate settings. Now, there is simply a slider with which the audio "quality" may be set. No need to exercise any brain power in making those awful VBR adjustments! Just the way that Microsoft does it with their WMA. HOWEVER, whereas (as confirmed by _my_ ear; I don't know about the ear of anyone else) WMA does a superb encoding job (in terms of the output quality versus the encoded file size), the new Lame v3.97 is inferior to WMA, in that there is no slider quality position which gives an output quality which matches that of Microsoft's highest quality. What I get using the best that Lame v3.97 (which I have used independently of NCH software) has to offer does not live up to the best that Microsoft has to offer. While this is understandable (not everyone would agree with this), I believe that it is time for Lame to go back to the drawing board and redo its VBR encoding. In my opinion, they have taken an MP3-encoding quality step backward, while stepping forward in the version number! This leads to my (burning) question for NCH. Why is Switch continuing (a decision with which I agree) to use the older Lame v3.82a, in preference to using the newer Lame v3.97? Is this just accidental (inertia), does it have something to do with license fees paid to the Lame patent holder (yes, Lame is open-source but is _not_ license-free), or? And secondly, does the newest Switch version 1.24 perhaps contain an "upgrade" (not _my_ word!) of the Lame encoder? Alright, NCH, its your turn..... Musikone

What does Switch v1.24 have that Switch v1.23 (during its extremely short life!) did not? Is this a bug fix or a feature upgrade or neither? musikone (call me Curious)