Size Of Edited Files

Help for Audacity on Windows.
Forum rules
ImageThis forum is for Audacity on Windows.
Please state which version of Windows you are using,
and the exact three-section version number of Audacity from "Help menu > About Audacity".


Audacity 1.2.x and 1.3.x are obsolete and no longer supported. If you still have those versions, please upgrade at https://www.audacityteam.org/download/.
The old forums for those versions are now closed, but you can still read the archives of the 1.2.x and 1.3.x forums.
kozikowski
Forum Staff
Posts: 69367
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:57 pm
Operating System: macOS 10.13 High Sierra

Re: Size Of Edited Files

Post by kozikowski » Sat Jan 03, 2015 7:23 pm

MP3 doesn't make very good archive because all you can do with the work is listen to it. If you try to make lower quality MP3s for your Portable Listening Device, the quality of the sound will be the combination damage of the two MP3s. That's why even though additional storage medium needed, uncompressed WAV or equivalent archive is highly recommended. You can make those into anything.

Koz

Likekinds
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 3:15 am
Operating System: Please select

Re: Size Of Edited Files

Post by Likekinds » Sun Jan 04, 2015 5:35 am

I'm going to try the ABX test. It sounds interesting. I seriously doubt though that I would ever switch to an all mp3 library.I have listened to flac that was worse than mp3, about equal to mp3, better than mp3, and far superior to mp3. (I'm guessing this is due to how the file has been manipulated before I get it. I also feel that when I get a bad flac file it is usually due to over compression. Compression is one tool I use cautiously and sparingly).

With my library approaching 100,000 files, I firmly believe that as a rule, though not always, flac sounds much better than mp3.

I have learned a lot from this session. I'm going to keep my time shift technique, but make sure the files are rendered at 16 bits. This may keep the file size at a reasonable level.

One question before we close this thread: DVDdoug states that 16 bits is already better than human hearing. He's the pro and I'm sure he's correct. But, since 16 bits is already better than human hearing why are we offered 24 bits? It seems that would be jacking up the file size without any benefit.

Thanks for all the information

Doug

steve
Site Admin
Posts: 81627
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 11:43 am
Operating System: Linux *buntu

Re: Size Of Edited Files

Post by steve » Sun Jan 04, 2015 12:01 pm

Likekinds wrote:But, since 16 bits is already better than human hearing why are we offered 24 bits? It seems that would be jacking up the file size without any benefit.
24 bit and higher have benefits during audio production. They provide more headroom in the digital domain, and greater precision when processing. Applying multiple processes to audio in 16 bit will have a cumulative effect - the quality will gradually degrade. 32 bit float format (used internally in Audacity) is extremely precise, so even with lots of processing there will be virtually no degradation due to rounding errors while in 32 bit float format.
9/10 questions are answered in the FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQ)

Post Reply