|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
98.221.76.71
In Reply to: RE: Agree with you posted by fmak on September 03, 2014 at 00:47:12
Not being a "Professional Engineer" I don't really worry about whether the way I accomplish something is "technically correct". (No intended disrespect to anyone)I take all suggestions & advice with a "grain of salt" regardless of the advisor's credentials. I
"also" have found there really is no substitute for your own personal experiences.(He,he,he "serial posters",I like that "tag",seems appropriate; You could also call some of them "serial apologists" for the explanations of how things are perceived in the realm of the working professionals)
Edits: 09/03/14Follow Ups:
are professional in engineering or IT, it is impossible, in consumer computing to know if anything is correct, since coding is 'secret' and one has to go into a lot of trouble to decode the programming steps.
When we used to do scientific computing, we had two basic rules
1. Know what the software is doing and test each element of it first
2. Write clear comments on what a sub-program does.
Believe it or not, some well tested IBM library programs produced wrong results. I used to check some really complex ones by hand!
One can go thru 500 pages of an Audition 3 manual without being much wiser on what EXACTLY some aspect is doing.
Currently I am annoyed that neither Audition or Wavelab 7 will rip audio from mpeg2 or vob, which Audition is supposed to be able to do. Read web claims and it should be possible. Read how and the instructions are wrong.
You had me worried that I had stated I "was" a Professional Engineer. I had in fact stated that I "was'nt". I was merely trying to explain why I have'nt concerned myself with technical details I don't really have any reason to find out about.
I really have no need to "reverse engineer" digital processing that is working quite well for what I use it for. I have no desire to do anything other than expand the overall dynamic contrast "ratio" of the music I convert to a "ratio"(of this element) that "I" subjectively feel was'nt sufficiently preserved in the CDs 16b/44.1 "version" of the recording.
People become defensive about the sound of CD rate music,but I'll repeat that "I" subjectively think it is only "barely" sufficient. You really don't want to know what I think about listening to any kind of compression
(FLAC or other inclusive)
No, but I am one
Oh, that was'nt clear to me.
I just thought you were an exponentially more commited Audiophile than myself. That being the case as Emily Litella would say "Never mind !!"
(or as Roberto Duran pleaded in his fight w/ Sugar Ray Leonard "No mas!")
"Currently I am annoyed that neither Audition or Wavelab 7 will rip audio from mpeg2 or vob, which Audition is supposed to be able to do. Read web claims and it should be possible. Read how and the instructions are wrong."
I suggest you convert your files before editing them. It could be worse. Your software could open the files and attempt to edit them, but then garbage up the edits. That's probably not what will happen, but it did happen to me when editing FLAC files using a version of Soundforge. It took me a while to learn not to use Sounforge to edit any file formats except WAV files.
If you want to know exactly what your software is doing, then this will be impossible unless you reverse engineer the program (e.g. using a Hex editor) and life is far too short for this level of effort. However, it is possible to see how various functions work, because all audio editors come with the ability to examine waveforms in detail down to the individual sample level, as well has having built in test generation software, spectrum analysis, etc... With some knowledge of signal processing it is possible to measure what various software (e.g. sample rate converters) do to music files in gory detail. Indeed, experience has shown that if you do not do this vetting you will probably not get good results out of most audio editor software.
The situation with IBM library routines does not surprise me, based on my experience a long time ago running benchmarks. At Digital Equipment in the 1970's there was a woman in the Research Department who was in charge of "computational quality" and it was her job to ensure that all of processors and software library routines gave correct results, down to a fraction of a bit. (Where the true answer was in between two possible floating point numbers, the "correct" version is the particular number that is closest to the actual answer.) She contacted me one time to complement me on the PDP-10 square root routine that I had written, because it made the correct rounding decision in every possible case. (Something that I was well aware of, because I had tested every possible number to verify that the square root was calculated correctly. I wasn't about to have a bridge collapse on account of one of my programming bugs.)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Why should it be necessary to convert to mp4 with probable degradation when Audition CS6 is claimed to be able to rip mpeg2?
It shouldn't be necessary. But the product you have is what it is. Or perhaps you would prefer to file a lawsuit?
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
This is a mindless comment
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: