|
|
|
DAB recording issue and quality question
|
|
|
daacekin
Member
3 product reviews
|
15. October 2009 @ 13:47 |
Link to this message
|
Hello,
I can watch television on my laptop and listen to DAB radio on my laptop too. The thing is, the quality is outstanding. It's better than audio cd quality. How on earth do the dab radio staions get better quality stuff?!?
Also, I am having a recording issue. I can record this DAB audio and play it using windows media player. The software records the sound into a 'strange' mp3 format. windows can't tell me info such as bitrate and channels. Also, I can't convert the audio into another format such as wma. I can't even open the sound file using advanced audio editors such as sony sound forge! If i record the audio, not through the software but other means, such as using the volume control's stereo mix option and recording the output using sound forge, so that it's very good quality like an audio cd but i have already mentioned audio cds are not as good compared with dab, audio quality wise.
thanks,
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
2. November 2009 @ 03:00 |
Link to this message
|
DAB actually isn't better than CD quality. Technically its not quite CD quality either, since it uses a compressed lossy format. The reason why your mp3 seems strange is because its not an mp3. DAB Radio/TV (originally known as Eureka 147) uses a couple different formats. When it was first developed in the 1980s is used the MPEG-1 Audio Layer II format (mp2). A few years ago DAB started using the HE-AACv2 streaming mpeg format for audio and the H.264/MPEG-4 AVC format for video, both of which have copy protection. But recently, the standard in the US is the HD-Radio format, the same technology for AM and FM car stereos. In car stereos, HD-Radio delivers AM channels at FM quality, and FM channels at near-CD quality.
Sound Forge isn't really an advanced audio editor, but it is a decent consumer level app. You're not going to be able to convert the DAB files into other formats due to their copy protection. If you want to burn them to a CD or convert them to another file, you will have to capture analog through the line in on your computer.
|
|
daacekin
Member
3 product reviews
|
2. November 2009 @ 20:43 |
Link to this message
|
i understand, thanks,
but i have already said that recording through the sound card reduces the "hearable" quality. i understand that you said that, dab is not cd quality, yet it has more power than audio cd. so this is why i'm confused. either i record from sound card and lose slight quality (but sounds amazing) or i record it through the app and i get some sort of only-windows-media-can-play type copy protection.
i do like to convert my audio to wma so the size is halved but same quality.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
3. November 2009 @ 00:50 |
Link to this message
|
don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that its bad quality, but since it uses a lossy compression format, its not quite CD quality. how does it have "more power" than an audio cd...I'm not quite sure what you mean by that.
if the quality from recording the audio stream via analog through your line in jack isn't very good, then its probably because your computer's sound card isn't very good. the input of a sound card is much less quality than the output. do you know what type of sound card you have? is it a built in one on your motherboard?
|
|
daacekin
Member
3 product reviews
|
4. November 2009 @ 18:44 |
Link to this message
|
i'm not too bothered about lossy. i just want great sound small file size. that's why i tend to use wma.
what i'm saying is, say for example i play a cd via windows media player. no equalizers or anything. it's sounds great. now, if the same song comes through the dab radio via tv card, it sounds much better, it has more 'oomph'. i can't really describe it. it's more powerful beats, bassy cleaner. if i record via software, it records via line in. but i can't record through line in. i can't just tick the box in the recording section of vol control. it doesn't pick up any audio. i have to record via stereo mix and that makes the sound like a cd not the dab i experience.
as for sound card it's realtek. i don't know if it's built in. it's a laptop.
when i install the tv software, it also installs windows media encoder. if this helps.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 4. November 2009 @ 18:46
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
4. November 2009 @ 23:05 |
Link to this message
|
if you have a laptop then its a built in card to the mobo. you might want to consider trying using mp3 over wma. when you use the right codec (LAME) and the right quality settings (q=0 VBR...variable bitrate) you can get the closest you can to CD quality with lossy files.
Thats cool that the DAB streams sound that good, I'm glad that you enjoy them. If you really want to be able to capture the audio, here's another option. get a external USB sound card, like one from creative which is about $40, and go from the line out on your laptop audio to the input on the external card, and use sound forge to record it. that should give you pretty good quality. that might be your only option, since I'm not aware of any way to capture the streams directly due to the copy protection. just an idea...
|
|
daacekin
Member
3 product reviews
|
5. November 2009 @ 10:58 |
Link to this message
|
i understand what you mean. afterall, i have converted cassettes to audio files then use noise reduction tech on them, and after going through that long process they still sound rubbish cassettes lol. should have just got the cd versions.
anyway, i don't think that'll work because the soundcard maximises the quality as it is. and besides i have multiple pcs and laptops. with IDT high definition sound cards. it's just that they're vista and the tv drivers don't work. i've recorded streaming mp3s through the soundcard and they sound like they should but this is confusing. another thing is that, a music tv channel doesn't sound as good as dab. dab is louder, cleaner. it's amazing! but it's quite rubbish watching a black screen lol.
i have heard mp3 encoders are really good now. but i still prefer wma. let's take a 320kbps mp3. let's say it's at 10mb cbr stereo. it's cd quality. i can make it a wma 128kbps cbr stereo and it'll be 5mb. i can fit twice as much at the same quality.
i'm interested in lossless but i made a tune via sony acid once and really maxed out the bass. i noticed that no lossy or lossless format could handle it except for wav uncompressed (which i think is the audio cd format) so even lossless has limitations unless you don't mind a 50mb audio file. :-)
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
5. November 2009 @ 19:14 |
Link to this message
|
you don't need to use 320 kbps CBR encoding for mp3s. first off, I don't recommend CBR at all. VBR (variable bitrate) is a much better option...it uses the proper amount of data needed per frame of audio to properly encode and reproduce it. using 192kbps VBR as your encoding option will give you better quality than wma files, and very close to CD quality. the encoder you use has a lot to do with it as well. The best one hands down is LAME.
|
|
daacekin
Member
3 product reviews
|
6. November 2009 @ 08:47 |
Link to this message
|
true, vbr is more useful and i agree. the only reason i don't use vbr over cbr is because of some apps and maybe even devices have compatibility issues.
192 vbr mp3, i don't think the final output size would be very different from a wma 128 cbr. and i think the wma would still be smaller.
i haven't tested if 320 cbr mp3 is cd quality audio but i assume it is because it is the highest encoder option available for stereo. although i have seen greater ones which i think are pointless and should be used for more than 2 speakers. anyway, the wma 128 matches the 320kbps mp3.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
6. November 2009 @ 19:27 |
Link to this message
|
the biggest advantage wma has over mp3 is that it required less processing power to execute than mp3, but thats about it. you're not quite accurate about 128 kbps wma being the same quality as 320 kbps mp3. microsoft originally claimed years ago that a 128 wma was near cd quality, but if you sit down and listen to a CD and 128 wma side by side, you will notice a significant different. mp3 comes much close to cd quality simply because there are much better codecs developed (such as LAME) that have adapted to original mpeg logarithms to keep the file size at a 12 to 1 or 10 to 1 ratio and obtain quality very close to the original cd, much closer than wma.
but as long as wma works for you and you have happy with it, then glad it works. but you should at least look into mp3, the advantages of it are much greater than wma. just a thought.
|
|
daacekin
Member
3 product reviews
|
8. November 2009 @ 20:35 |
Link to this message
|
i fully understand what your saying but it's not the conversion from wma to mp3 because it was the conversion from mp3 to wma i did.
let me put in perspective for you, mp3 is the most common audio format. correct? if you get your first song on a computer, you can almost guarantee that it's going to be mp3. hence, a new music person can get used to the mp3 and it's great. similar was the case of me.
Now, you get a software which microsoft claims that at half the size, it's the same as mp3 quality and microsoft throw in the conversion tool to do so. so then you're like hmmmmm... i want to test this claim out.
So you pull out a mp3 320kbps stereo cbr and you convert it as microsoft recommends, which turns out to be a wma 128kbps stereo cbr.
Next, you listen very carefully to the two samples and can NOT tell the difference at all. you listen again, and again. no difference.
then you think, hmmm...microsoft seems to be telling the truth, if i convert all my audio to wma, i can half the total file size, hence save room. tempting, so that's what i did.
i admit, there have been some compatibilities with wma such as gta 3 not supporting wma as radio, but i never knew this then but things have changed since then.
i have never tested 320 mp3 but i assume it is cd, can you confirm this for me? mp3 320 is 128 wma. although i admit there are issues when using 128 mp3 and 64 wma.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
8. November 2009 @ 22:09 |
Link to this message
|
hey like I said, whatever format works for you and you are happy with, then stick with it. but let me ask something. you mentioned that you take mp3 audio files, then convert them to wma format, is that correct? why do you convert from mp3 to begin with, is it just to reduce the file size? just wanted to mention that anytime you convert a lossy format (mp3) to another lossy format (wma) there is significant quality loss, as opposed to converting from the source (CD), uncompressed format (wav), or lossless format (FLAC). if you are converting an mp3 file to a wma file, I can guarantee you that the wma file will not be the same quality as the mp3. its like taking a VHS tape, and making a copy of it, then making a copy of that copy. each generation degrades in quality. so if you listen to the mp3 and your wma made from that mp3 side by side, you will definitely notice a difference. just something to think about...
|
|
daacekin
Member
3 product reviews
|
9. November 2009 @ 09:01 |
Link to this message
|
what i'm saying is originally, all my tunes were mp3 so i converted them to wma. also, when i get more tunes in digital format, they mostly turn out to be mp3 so again, convert. but yes, a cd, i rip straight to wma. also, a single convert from mp3 to wma, has no difference in audio. it's that accurate.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
11. November 2009 @ 04:34 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
a single convert from mp3 to wma, has no difference in audio. it's that accurate.
well if that is your opinion about a lossy to lossy conversion, then there's not much i can do to change your mind, but facts are facts. you are mistaken, plain and simple. there is a difference in audio. it may not be audible to you, and i don't mean this as a criticism, but perhaps your hearing isn't trained to tell the difference. if the mp3 is a high bit rate of 320 kbps, or a really well encoded mp3, then the quality loss converting it to wma may not be that noticeable, but i assure you its there. all these formats like mp3 and wma are called lossy for a reason. it might be a minimal loss of quality, but inevitably with each generation of compressing an audio file to a lossy format, quality degrades.
here's a quote from wikipedia:
Quote:
Lossy compression formats suffer from generation loss: repeatedly compressing and decompressing the file will cause it to progressively lose quality. This is in contrast with lossless data compression.
you can check out more information on it here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lossy_compression
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 11. November 2009 @ 04:37
|
|
scum101
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
11. November 2009 @ 13:15 |
Link to this message
|
lets just think a moment here.. When I do vinyl rips (full analog) I record to RAW format (raw bitstream.. audacity does it nicely, or next best is WAV).. yes they are huge but they sound exactly the same as the source.. no conversion on the fly, which I think is where the problem is coming in to start with. Then I do whatever I need in the way of cleaning and tweaking.. splitting into tracks or whatever... Then I convert to FLAC .. because I can hear the difference between 320 vbr mp3 and flac on my setup.
Odd to have a laptop with a line in.. in fact I don't believe I have ever seen one.. unless the op means the "stereo mix" in the audio controls.
|
|
daacekin
Member
3 product reviews
|
11. November 2009 @ 16:33 |
Link to this message
|
yes i do have line in on laptop and stereo mix and they're both different.
i know for a fact there is loss of quality in lossy. i'm not daft, the name says it plain and clear. i have a great sound card even if it is built in, it is not rubbish. in built graphics and in built audio is different quality levels. also, i didn't test it with the built in speakers. i listened to it on £70 headphones. and let me tell you what this headset can do. i have a 5.1 sound card in one pc and it has adjustable bass for the subwoofer which can also be played through the speakers and/or subwoofer. these headsets can handle max bass and treble. the headphones are powerful. i can also hear the slightest of pin drops in high quality on this headset. it was the most expensive headset that was on the market at the time, which is about 1 year ago. i know speakers are better but when listening accutely, headsets are better. this is the headset i used in the test.
i could not tell the difference between a 320kbps mp3 and 128kbps wma.
now i like high quality music, movies, games the lot, so i do try to get high quality tunes, but i'm not going to increase my music size from 5mb to 50mb just because of something that changes unnoticably or even changes but hardly makes a difference. That's like saying bluray isn't good enough, you want to get the tape they play in cinemas. i mean it's taking quality too far. i mean 32kbps to 64kbps is a big difference and is worth upgrading but maximum lossy vs lossless?!? i mean with all due respect, a person is entitled to his opinion but it's pushing it saying i can't hear a slight pin drop. you might as well be calling me deaf.
i understand lossy and lossless, when converting i notice even the peaks of the audio change, and like i've said before, i've tried lossless codecs and they had negative effects too, although wav pcm seems superior but i'm not an expert, i've had a single experience with lossless.
when i said "it's that accurate" i was talking about the encoder
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 11. November 2009 @ 16:37
|
|
scum101
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
13. November 2009 @ 03:43 |
Link to this message
|
I spent 9 years as a professional sound engineer.. what I said was I can hear the difference.. on my setup. 9 years doing something you learned over 5 or 6 years previously does tend to make a person a little of a perfectionist.
there is no way you can compare a 5mb mp3 to a 50mb lossless.. no way no how.. quality is always a vs with size .. period.
|
|
daacekin
Member
3 product reviews
|
13. November 2009 @ 11:56 |
Link to this message
|
i agree with lossless is better than lossy, like djscoop said earlier, dab is less quality than cd. so how is it that lower quality sounds better? but yes i agree lossless is better but i won't go as far as to say lossy is rubbish and to scrap it. for example, phones have only got a few gb, although they are improving. if you put lossless tunes, you'll sacrifice variety of tunes and i think that's important. although when it comes to events, then lossless is better.
i have a question. you know when you play vinyls and what not in concerts and stuff and you manage to make even the worst of tunes sound amazing, how do you do it? i know the bass is very strong and that contributes, but it sounds amazingly different. how?
and btw, i was talking about 5mb wma. you won't get anywhere with a 5mb mp3, wma is better.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 13. November 2009 @ 11:57
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
scum101
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
20. November 2009 @ 13:40 |
Link to this message
|
don't care.. wma whatever.. will not sound as good at 5mb as flac will at 40mb.. it just can't because it will not have the detail required.
Audio is a funny thing. I remember back in the early 80's when I worked in a high end hi-fi shop. We spent ages tweaking and tuning extreme setups to the absolute limit.. and came across something interesting when messing with multi conductor cables (now I'm talking about direct cut vinyl on the absolute top end kit here.. systems that would buy you a damn big house for less cash.. £10k for just an amplifier for instance.. with no tone controls)
We found that the more conductors we used (checked with a scope on sine wave test disks) the closer we got to 100% signal transfer.. the higher the distortion seemed.. they didn't sound as good, though the output was technically better.
I have come across the exact same thing recently working on an experimental analog audio rip setup.. I'm sampling at 176KHz 64 bit .. and though the captures are stunning, they sound overall slightly more cluttered and even noisy by comparison to normal 44KHz..
I think it's a matter of perception.. you will prefer what you are used to.. you say lossless doesn't sound as good as lossy wma or mp3.. that's technically not true, and patently obvious, but to your ears which are used to lossy formats then the high definition and high transient edges in the lossless are being perceived as wrong.. and your brain is picking that "wrongness" up and telling you that it's not as good. It's nothing unusual.. in fact it's totally normal, Human hearing evolved to notice the unusual, and to send an alarm signal on hearing something out of the ordinary.
It's in effect like comparing a live recording to standing in the venue.. In the venue you will not be that aware of the other noises around.. the clink of glasses and people talking.. on the recording they are all too obvious. The brain is a funny thing.
|
|
