what format to save file once opened

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

[deleted]

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

gooroo

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.

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

meotch

MichaelJee wrote:

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

meotch

gooroo wrote:

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

[deleted]

Hello Gooroo,

- Looking into what’s required for users to change the version of LAME installed

- From my understanding editing a compressed file ( of any sort) via individual samples is time consuming and VERY machine intensive; well outside the bounds of your average user.

Post away Gooroo, if I don’t like it, ill remove it. You always have / had the option of PM’ing the URL to the user direct

Thanks

gooroo

MichaelJee wrote:

Hello Gooroo,

- Looking into what’s required for users to change the version of LAME installed

- From my understanding editing a compressed file ( of any sort) via individual samples is time consuming and VERY machine intensive; well outside the bounds of your average user.

gooroo: Editing an mp3 file by using "frames" can be very machine intensive. The free application which can be obtained at the URL which I shall give shortly allows the user to vary the speed of the processing in eight discrete increments, from one to eight. The default processing speed is four. Hence the user who has a slow processor can go all the way up to eight in order to slow down the process to (hopefully) a speed that his computer can manage.

As to the matter of this type of editing being "time consuming," this depends upon what the user wants to do. I have not had this program for very long and have not explored its various facets; i.e., the various tasks that can be performed, from simple things like trimming a section from the beginning (or end) of the file, versus something more complicated like using the analogue of WavePad's "regions" to separate a file into more than one piece. My guess (without having delved into this application) is that the most common task, like "normalizing," is probably the easiest to do. I will address normalization of an mp3 file using frame-editing technique shortly.

For the moment, for anyone who may be interested in this apparently-excellent little frame-editing application that I have uncovered hanging out (but not too much in evidence) on the internet is named by its author, Martin Pesch, as "mp3DirectCut". The latest version is 2.09, dated May 30, 2008. It is available from this German website:

http://mpesch3.de1.cc/mp3de.html

On this page you will find three choices for downloading. I downloaded my copy from the download link "winfuture.de", which I suspect is the most reliable source. This program is absolutely free, no strings attached. It includes a short .pdf instruction manual which can be printed out. I should warn that, although it appears that Mr. Pesch has done an excellent programming job, his English is not too good. Although I have been able to translate some of his linguistic eccentricities, users without good skill in the English language may come away scratching their heads :-). Just be forewarned.

Please be advised that I do not intend, at least in the foreseeable future, to provide users with instructions for using this program (over and above what is provided in the adequate-for-skilled-computer-users help file. You are on your own here, and I agree that a novice user may have trouble figuring out what this small program is all about, since it uses an editing approach which is entirely different from that used in WavePad. However, one who can use WavePad with facility should be able to make the transition to mp3DirectCut without excessive difficulty.

So I would recommend downloading it if you are interested in the general editing of an mp3 file without any loss of quality due to the necessity for first decoding the mp3 file to a wav file, then editing it with something like WavePad, then encoding it back again to an mp3 file.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The only mp3 frame editing that I have done so far has used a second small, very impressive entirely free application with the name "mp3Gain". Its sole purpose is to normalize files, where "normalize" as used here means either to adjust the volume level of a single file to an absolute standard of loudness, or to adjust the volume levels of a group of files to an arbitrary level. Whatever arbitrary level is chosen, the group of files are then likely (based upon a statistical probability) to have a similar loudness. I have found this loudness adjustment process to be extremely useful and very easy and quick to accomplish using mp3Gain. I cannot recommend it too highly. Instructions are included; while a bit sketchy, even the novice user should be able to get the gist of this business rather quickly.

The major thing that this program accomplishes is to make it very clear when clipping will occur, and the user can adjust the volume level to avoid such clipping. If necessary, the volume level can be increased (without resulting in clipping) by using WavePad's AGC compression technique to reduce the instantaneous range of volumes. By using compression, a higher average volume can be obtained without having the peak volume become so high as to cause clipping. All of this is much easier to do than to explain here :-). Since I know in detail what this little program is about, I will be able to answer your questions on how to use this specifically-targeted application.

For the moment, run (do not walk) to the website "http://mp3gain.sourceforge.net/download.php and download the following file, from a number of choices which are offered:

mp3gain-win-full-1_2_5.exe

If you cannot figure it out, come back here, ask, and I will try to explain it to you. Just remember, using this application is very simple and straightforward, but the only thing that it does is normalize volume levels. If you want to do other mp3 editing without quality loss, then you will have to use something like the mp3DirectCut application that I described above (with perhaps a few linguistic somersaults to understand the author's English). Don't get me wrong; I am not criticizing him for this. After all, I cannot speak any German!

This should be enough information to get started.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Post away Gooroo, if I don’t like it, ill remove it. You always have / had the option of PM’ing the URL to the user direct

gooroo: Yes I know, but I think that many users may benefit from the information which I am posting out here in the open

gooroo

--------

Thanks

M