Which is higher quality--mp2, mp3, aac - Page 2 at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > Apple / Mac Post Production Solutions > Final Cut Suite

Final Cut Suite
Discussing the editing of all formats with FCS, FCP, FCE


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old October 5th, 2007, 06:31 AM   #16
Major Player
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Madrid, Spain
Posts: 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Ross View Post
No. Don't save to a lower format.

The 48 is a container, and can hold up to 24khz in it.

I'd need to brush up on my physics to give a better explanation. Can't remember right now.
Simple: a 24kHz sound has 24.000 oscilations per second, if you look at the sinus curve, there are 24.000 ups and 24.000 downs. To represent all of them you need 48.000 numbers minimum per second, which can exactly indicate the max amplitude of the wave in each up or down.

Of course, this will be very squared, lower frequencies are better represented. But this is OK since 24kHz is way beyond recognizable by the human ear. The higher the sampling frequency, the less "squared" the curve is in the audible spectrum.

The sample frequency just means how many chunks you split a second into. So, for 24kHz, you need 48k chunks per second, or 48kHz sampling frequency.

Cheers, Erik
Erik Norgaard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 5th, 2007, 01:41 PM   #17
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Tucson AZ
Posts: 2,207
I always also thought that frequencies above 20kHz were imperceptible, but lately there seems to be some thought that the higher frquencies are in fact perceived although not "heard" in the normal sense of the word.

Isn't DVD sample rate 96kHz? If there's no effect perceptible to humans, why would they use the higher sampling frequency?

Not being snippy, just curious.
Jim Andrada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 5th, 2007, 02:22 PM   #18
Major Player
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Madrid, Spain
Posts: 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Andrada View Post
I always also thought that frequencies above 20kHz were imperceptible, but lately there seems to be some thought that the higher frquencies are in fact perceived although not "heard" in the normal sense of the word.

Isn't DVD sample rate 96kHz? If there's no effect perceptible to humans, why would they use the higher sampling frequency?

Not being snippy, just curious.
It is possible that audio-dvd (not to confuse with video dvd) have a higher sampling rate, and I think that the production stage is done at a higher sampling frequency.

But think of this: At 48kHz, one oscillation at 24kHz is represented by two numbers giving a very square wave. At 12kHz you get 4 numbers, but still a very square wave. At 6kHz you have 8. It starts to get detail but now you get into the sensible area.

If you start at 96kHz you get a much smoother wave form at 6kHz, you will have 16 numbers for one oscillation. So, the higher sampling frequency doesn't add more in terms of audible frequencies, but does give a truer representation of the sound.

I guess that is why audiophiles claim to be able to hear the difference between analog and digital recordings.

Cheers, Erik
Erik Norgaard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 5th, 2007, 02:29 PM   #19
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Tucson AZ
Posts: 2,207
I think you're on to something there because my classical pianist wife always complains about the "coldness" of digital recordings. I notice it too. Could well be due to the "squaring of the higher frquencies.

So we got a CD player with a vacuum tube final stage - sounds better to both of us.
Jim Andrada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 5th, 2007, 05:23 PM   #20
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Marin & Davis, CA, USA
Posts: 418
Thanks, Erik. Now it's less vague. That's generally what I thought, but it was very unclear.
Daniel Ross is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 8th, 2007, 09:04 AM   #21
Major Player
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Portsmouth, UK
Posts: 611
Forget FFmpegX - it's great for making mpeg4 files and not bad for progressive scan DVDs or VCDs, but it's not a serious audio tool (and was never intended to be).

You want Audacity: http://audacity.sourceforge.net/. It's free, despite being a brilliant audio editor! (the 1.2.6 version is stable and a little easier to use and has the features you need.)

It can import .ogg files and output them as 48khz .aiff files which is what FCP wants. There are loads of settings that allow you to optimise the resampling from 24khz or 44.1Khz up to 48Khz, but if you leave it on the defaults it will do a pretty good job. There are extensive help files, online documentation and a forum, but basically it will quite easily do what you want.
__________________
Shorts::Cut - www.shortscut.org.uk
The Short Film Festival for Portsmouth & Southsea.
Dylan Pank is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 8th, 2007, 11:48 AM   #22
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: NY, NY
Posts: 319
Another interesting thread and thanks to all for the tips and explanations!
Elmer Lang is offline   Reply
Reply

DV Info Net refers all where-to-buy and where-to-rent questions exclusively to these trusted full line dealers and rental houses...

Professional Video
(800) 833-4801
Portland, OR

B&H Photo Video
(866) 521-7381
New York, NY

Z.G.C.
(973) 335-4460
Mountain Lakes, NJ

Abel Cine Tech
(888) 700-4416
N.Y. NY & L.A. CA

Precision Camera
(800) 677-1023
Austin, TX

DV Info Net also encourages you to support local businesses and buy from an authorized dealer in your neighborhood.
  You are here: DV Info Net > Apple / Mac Post Production Solutions > Final Cut Suite

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:42 PM.


DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2017 The Digital Video Information Network