Audacity Forum

QUESTION (export/import quality):

Per saving a copy of say an early stage of a song's edit in case one later wanted to go back to it and reedit from there as opposed to starting all over again..

This, considering you did not want to just keep a duplicate in the project but rather wanted to export it, getting it out of the way.

So, the question is: Is there a format/export option to export as that will result in a zero quality loss? In case one wanted to later import this file back into the project.

In other words, an export format option or options that would result in no quality loss when imported back into the project, where it would still have the same quality as if it was never exported.

Example: If I am editing at 32 bit float, 44 kHz and I export the resultant track as WAVE 32 bit float, 44 kHz, then I later import it back in to the project, would it suffer any loss of quality from this?

BLACK DOG Acoustic guitar and vocals. https://soundcloud.com/blackdogsongs

Black Dog Bluez wrote:QUESTION (export/import quality):

Per saving a copy of say an early stage of a song's edit in case one later wanted to go back to it and reedit from there as opposed to starting all over again..

This, considering you did not want to just keep a duplicate in the project but rather wanted to export it, getting it out of the way.

So, the question is: Is there a format/export option to export as that will result in a zero quality loss? In case one wanted to later import this file back into the project.

In other words, an export format option or options that would result in no quality loss when imported back into the project, where it would still have the same quality as if it was never exported.

Example: If I am editing at 32 bit float, 44 kHz and I export the resultant track as WAVE 32 bit float, 44 kHz, then I later import it back in to the project, would it suffer any loss of quality from this?

BLACK DOG Acoustic guitar and vocals. https://soundcloud.com/blackdogsongs

No, it won't suffer.
However, the file size might be extensively large...

24 bit is probably enough for storage.
Make the following test:
- create a chirp
- duplicate the track
- open the track drop-down menu and change the format to 24 bit
- invert one track
- select all tracks and mix and render (Tracks menu)
amplify this track and listen
You will probably have to amplify a second time because the quantization noise is so low.
I got a peak of the difference track of -106 dB.

Of course, you can export as 32 bit float but the crucial point is that your song is probably already under 0 dB Full Scale.
This means that only 25 bits are actually in use and the rest is just unnecessary burden.
In fact, it would be wiser to export as 32 bit integer...
...but only if the processing/editing would also have been done in this format.

That's why I prefer to export as 24 bit FLAC files.

Another thing I'm just testing:
- Export as 32 bit float wav.
- compress all wav files with WavPack--generally the only one that accepts 32 bit float files.

The files can be reimported into Audacity (with FFmpeg presumably)

Theoretically, the files could directly exported in the WavePack format but the available export options seem to be buggy.
I've tried the custom FFmpeg export and also the *external program* feature but the results are highly unsatisfactory, namely 16 bit instead of 32 bit float. If I enforce the latter, the file will be corrupted somehow.
Anyway, the standalone packer, along with the mini GUI are great--you can even produce self-extracting archives (available feature for Windows only).
http://www.wavpack.com/index.html

thanks Robert.

UPDATE ---old post/song/s since removed from link/s

Song: Bananas (LANDR master and My master for comparison) /here--> https://soundcloud.com/blackdogsongs

Recording my own acoustic guitar and vocal performances on one track, in one take, with one of the least expensive recorders, the Tascam DR-05. Then editing with Audacity.

Does using LANDR (an online song mastering website) now mean my amateur editing is best avoided? I don't know. I did conjecture a "click here do-it-all plugin" to do all the deeds ... well LANDR does this ... better than I did it anyway. See both tracks at my site for comparison ... BTW: The LANDR version is my edit (peaks reduced with amplification, envelope, and de-essing) uploaded to LANDRs. I did not send a rough, and this is my first LANDR trial.

Which would be better? Send rough no editing or do some preliminary editing with Audacity first, before letting LANDR perform it's mostly undisclosed editing processes? They do disclose a general description of what they do, but nothing specific! Thus, unrepeatable.

I'll guess, doing some preliminary editing with Audacity would be best. At least, trimming the ends and bringing down excess peaks --- using Amplification, Envelope, and possibly de-essing ... as far as Compressor and other effects, I don't know. If I compress then LANDR compresses, will that be too much compressing?? I've yet to try LANDR straight, letting them do all the editing, so I'll see.
LANDR will no doubt decrease the need for Audacity. Though, it is only free for a resultant 192k MP3 (--- I uploaded WAVE 16 bit/44 kHz).

Here are the spectrum analysis' of the different versions on my linked above webpage:

My edit:
LANDR's edit of my edit:
You can simply conclude LANDR added High Pass Filter and EQ but that would be a guess, exactly what they did and how they did it is a mystery. BTW: Also some interesting editing by LANDR going on in the 20k area. ALSO: LANDR's version is 192k MP3, so does uploading and viewing the plot spectrum with Audacity of a lossy file distort what the true spectrum is? Being that a lossy file becomes degraded or damaged at some point with such processing.

BLACK DOG "Bananas" Fifty one years in the making. Improvised to endorse the fleeting now. soundcloud.com/blackdogsongs

Black Dog Bluez wrote:UPDATE Oct. 1 2016 "The LANDR Master"

Song: Bananas (LANDR master and My master for comparison) /here--> https://soundcloud.com/blackdogsongs

Recording my own acoustic guitar and vocal performances on one track, in one take, with one of the least expensive recorders, the Tascam DR-05. Then editing with Audacity.

Does using LANDR (an online song mastering website) now mean my amateur editing is best avoided? I don't know. I did conjecture a "click here do-it-all plugin" to do all the deeds ... well LANDR does this ... better than I did it anyway. See both tracks at my site for comparison ... BTW: The LANDR version is my edit (peaks reduced with amplification, envelope, and de-essing) uploaded to LANDRs. I did not send a rough, and this is my first LANDR trial.

Which would be better? Send rough no editing or do some preliminary editing with Audacity first, before letting LANDR perform it's mostly undisclosed editing processes? They do disclose a general description of what they do, but nothing specific! Thus, unrepeatable.

I'll guess, doing some preliminary editing with Audacity would be best. At least, trimming the ends and bringing down excess peaks --- using Amplification, Envelope, and possibly de-essing ... as far as Compressor and other effects, I don't know. If I compress then LANDR compresses, will that be too much compressing?? I've yet to try LANDR straight, letting them do all the editing, so I'll see.
LANDR will no doubt decrease the need for Audacity. Though, it is only free for a resultant 192k MP3 (--- I uploaded WAVE 16 bit/44 kHz).

Here are the spectrum analysis' of the different versions on my linked above webpage:

My edit:

CaptureROOT.PNG

LANDR's edit of my edit:

CaptureLANDR.PNG

You can simply conclude LANDR added High Pass Filter and EQ but that would be a guess, exactly what they did and how they did it is a mystery. BTW: Also some interesting editing by LANDR going on in the 20k area. ALSO: LANDR's version is 192k MP3, so does uploading and viewing the plot spectrum with Audacity of a lossy file distort what the true spectrum is? Being that a lossy file becomes degraded or damaged at some point with such processing.

BLACK DOG "Bananas" Fifty one years in the making. Improvised to endorse the fleeting now. soundcloud.com/blackdogsongs

They do not mention it but you can upload a *.Flac file, thus no quality loss on your side.

You can directly master to SoundCloud as private track (initially).
You'll have a CD quality file *.wav file for free.

What's more:
You can share for free as *.ogg stream which doesn't seem to have the two file per month limitation.
The bit rate is very high (290/320 kbs, see below) but it may go back to a lower quality if your connection is not fast enough. But I suspect rather that it gives those drop-outs that I've mentioned in an earlier post if it can't keep up.
Ogg has the other advantage of not being zero-padded at the beginning and should make it easier to have a 1:1 comparison.
To retrieve the file and convert it:
Enable download for the uploaded track and do just that.
Open it in e.g. Foobar2000 and save it as *.wav (context/right click menu).

There's a free tool, called ABX that is very handy for blind testing one song version against another.
However, you can do it in Audacity as well, at least the AB part.
Set the solo button to multi track mode (in preferences).
Load the two files and mute one. Click solo on this track (it overwrites mute) alternatively and listen to the comparison. Adjust the gain e.g. with help of the wavestats plug-in.

Argh, there would be so much more to say, I have to write a book one of these days...

Robert

Thanks for the info Rob.

Based on your info my primary interest is receiving a free .wav LandR master ('for my upcoming new, anticipated multi-million-selling album "Bananas!"')

Are you stating that to get a .wav LandR master for free one has to upload to LandR a ".Flac" file and choose to have it delivered to one's SoundCloud account? This combination only, or is the only prerequisite --- being that you use your SoundCloud account to recieve the master?

Also, per your mention of sharing ".ogg stream" without the two file per month limit I am not clear on what the .ogg related procedure you are stating is, as I don't recall LandR having such an option, though I did not choose to receive the master directly to my SoundCloud account ..yet.

Also, I have never tried .flac (lossless?) or .ogg, (lossy?) are these considered better than .wav and .mp3?

"A book"? Sure ... or a chart would be cool, especially per the numerous LandR/SoundCloud options you're sharing. --- thanks again.

Black Dog Bluez wrote:Thanks for the info Rob.

Based on your info my primary interest is receiving a free .wav LandR master ('for my upcoming new, anticipated multi-million-selling album "Bananas!"')

Are you stating that to get a .wav LandR master for free one has to upload to LandR a ".Flac" file and choose to have it delivered to one's SoundCloud account? This combination only, or is the only prerequisite --- being that you use your SoundCloud account to recieve the master?

Also, per your mention of sharing ".ogg stream" without the two file per month limit I am not clear on what the .ogg related procedure you are stating is, as I don't recall LandR having such an option, though I did not choose to receive the master directly to my SoundCloud account ..yet.

Also, I have never tried .flac (lossless?) or .ogg, (lossy?) are these considered better than .wav and .mp3?

"A book"? Sure ... or a chart would be cool, especially per the numerous LandR/SoundCloud options you're sharing. --- thanks again.

(Hush, that's all confidential... )

1. Export your file as *.flac (either 16 or 24 bit). The quality is exactly the same as that of a *.wav file but the file size is about 50 % of it. The peak should be at about -7 dB because LandR's compressor needs something to chew on.
2. Sign in into LandR, connect with your SoundCloud account, if not already done so, and "Master a new track".
3. Adjust the intensity.
4. Save and choose share it, click on the streaming option (free).
5. In SoundCloud click 'Edit' on the track, go to permissions and enable the download.
6. Download the track. It now has the extension *.ogg.
7. Open in Foobar2000. Open the right click menu. You can choose properties in order to see the bit rate (second tab) or directly convert the file back to Wav (or Flac, or whatever) under the file utilities. There's also ReplayGain available.
The file could of course be newly uploaded to SoundCloud, does also accept Flac files.

Optionally, you can use AAMS (automatic audio mastering system) to compare the original with the master.
- analyze the master, creates an *.aam file.
-master the original with the created file as reference, gives you an *.aam, two *. wav (16 and 32 bit), an Mp3 and a word document with the applied settings for EQ, compression, loudness etc.

Robert

Peaky Notes Update October 4, 2016.

Thanks Robert, great breakdown.. but I'm having second thoughts about LandR..

Seeking the best sound scheme for solo vocals and acoustic guitar recorded on one track.. (with a cheap recorder) Things are always changing here for me, I know --- my trial and errors.. (with my newest posted last here). So far my recommendations are: No Noise Reduction, No High Pass Filter and no Equalizer with the main use of Audacity being to bring down the peaks to achieve a good volume with not too much volume differences throughout the song. SC4 will be a big help set to Peak, and Threshold set above highest RMS peak using Plot Spectrum Analysis to determine that peak, example -15 peak then set threshold to -14. Attack/Delay 1.5/200 ms, Ratio 1.4 to 3 is usually enough to lower the peaks and raise the songs volume near 16 RMS (plenty loud). Any louder will be louder at the cost of losing the differences between volumes in the song, differences (when not too great) always enrich a song. This is why I've decided against using LandR (thanks though Robert --- probably not good for my sound situation).

LandR on closer inspection I feel did not improve my song but only did to some extent what I already tried --- and again vocals and acoustic guitar on one track I feel is best without high pass.. or EQ, or excess compression as explained. Another thing about LandR is they are not, to my knowledge (for free anyway) mastering per track then rendering all tracks to a master. I would imagine if one wanted that -- they would have to have each track mastered and then mix all together by their self afterward. Well regardless, I am not multi-tracking as explained and such approach to multi-sounds on one-track is well sub par for the course --- at least from such a vantage as we have possible with Audacity.

PEAKY NOTES Update Oct. 27, 2016. REMOVED

Listened to your songs on the link provided, nice job recording/mixing. Looked at it in Audacity, you did'nt compress it to death and kept some dynamics. Nice.
Bob