|
|
Posted by Wes Groleau on 09/25/81 11:37
Mike Archer wrote:
> In article <dAlyf.5304$Zo.1158@trnddc07>, groleau+news@freeshell.org
> says...
>
>>Apparently, no compromise was required. Ratio of 44 gets the entire
>>book on one CD with no discernible difference in quality. In fact,
>>I think it leaves more than enough room for the text and maybe even
>>a viewer to synch display with sound. :-)
>
> Well everybody has a different view of what "no discernible difference
> in quality" means. I'm probably on your side as in what is acceptable
> when size matters, but it's still a compromise. That's geeky talk
> anyway, glad you sorted it out :)
Bummer. I miscalculated. 44 is what I got when I demanded 42
from LAME, but it turns out that ratio results in 900 MB.
(Oh, and I should have said "Not discernible by me on these
pitiful iMac speakers" :-) but seriously, it sounded the same,
while with iTunes on some settings there was a distinct whistle
on the sibilants.)
I recalculated and asked LAME to give me 50 and I still got
44. In fact, the number of bytes per file was exactly the
same. So I must still have some misunderstanding of the commands.
I also wonder whether I am misunderstanding MP3 in general.
I studied a spectrogram of speech, seeing where the formants
were. Based on that, I cut out all frequencies above 5.5 KHz,
all below 25 Hz, and all 2520-3500 Hz. I played that and the
original (both uncompressed) and neither of my sons could tell
which was which. Then I asked LAME to run both --comp 50.
Resulting files were identical in size. I thought I had read
somewhere that filtering of that nature would allow greater
compression.
--
Wes Groleau
Answer not a fool according to his folly,
lest thou also be like unto him.
Answer a fool according to his folly,
lest he be wise according to his own conceit.
-- Solomon
Are you saying there's no good way to answer a fool?
-- Groleau
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|