Author Topic: Wav export  (Read 5427 times)

Sam_Zen

  • Posts: 113
Wav export
« on: 13 Nov '06 - 04:43 »
I'm quite fresh with using XMplay, and I'm beginning to become a fan of it.
But, if using new things, I explore all corners of an app. and I noticed an unnecessary thing if
the device output mode is changed to the Wav Writer :
If a file "noise.ogg" is opened, and I want to save it as a wav, the export name will be "noise.ogg.wav"
I don't think this is very elegant.

raina

  • Posts: 1163
Re: Wav export
« Reply #1 on: 13 Nov '06 - 10:22 »
This way you instantly see if the particular wav was recorded from noise.ogg or noise.mp3 in the same directory for example.

Torkell

  • Posts: 1169
Re: Wav export
« Reply #2 on: 13 Nov '06 - 13:47 »
A workaround to remove this would be to run something like

Code: [Select]
ren *.ogg.wav *.wav
in a command prompt in that directory.

Sam_Zen

  • Posts: 113
Re: Wav export
« Reply #3 on: 14 Nov '06 - 00:38 »
2 Torkell
Of course I renamed the files to their proper format, so I agree, it's easy to correct.

2 raina
I never would have "noise.ogg.wav" and "noise.mp3.wav" in the same directory, because I prefer the ogg-format.
So if I get an .mp3, the first thing I will do, is a conversion to an .ogg, to add to my archive.
But more important : It's stll quite tricky (in Unix it's not done) to use more than one dot in a full filename.
According to the syntax, it would be acceptable to use "noise_ogg.wav". This shows the same info i.m.o.

raina

  • Posts: 1163
Re: Wav export
« Reply #4 on: 14 Nov '06 - 08:37 »
So if I get an .mp3, the first thing I will do, is a conversion to an .ogg, to add to my archive.

Transcoding, ouch! The format is more important than the number of layers of lossy compression artifacts?

You're right, the underscore model shows the same info but I think the current way looks cleaner. However, I don't think making the inclusion of the original extension optional would require Ian much effort, so you could try adding it to the feature requests.

Sam_Zen

  • Posts: 113
Re: Wav export
« Reply #5 on: 14 Nov '06 - 23:45 »
I will do so.
Quote
Transcoding, ouch! The format is more important than the number of layers of lossy compression artifacts?
I know it's twice a compression, but as you say, both are lossy methods. So it's of no use decoding a mp3 first back to wav, because no original data is added again. So if one only has the mp3, not the original wav, then transcoding is the shortest way.
The format is more important for me here for 3 practical reasons :
1) The mp3-format is a copyright thing, while the ogg-format is open-source.
2) Lots of music-slurper robots on the net are programmed to look for ".mp3" in a directory.
3) Last but not least : Ogg's sound better. Not so much in tonal quality, but it has better dynamics and a better panorama.

Knurek

  • Posts: 523
Re: Wav export
« Reply #6 on: 15 Nov '06 - 06:39 »
I will do so.
Quote
Transcoding, ouch! The format is more important than the number of layers of lossy compression artifacts?
I know it's twice a compression, but as you say, both are lossy methods. So it's of no use decoding a mp3 first back to wav, because no original data is added again. So if one only has the mp3, not the original wav, then transcoding is the shortest way.
The format is more important for me here for 3 practical reasons :
1) The mp3-format is a copyright thing, while the ogg-format is open-source.
2) Lots of music-slurper robots on the net are programmed to look for ".mp3" in a directory.
3) Last but not least : Ogg's sound better. Not so much in tonal quality, but it has better dynamics and a better panorama.

The thing is - transcoding a lossy format is like taking a photo of a picture (say, Mona Lisa), then printing it in original size, and then taking a photo of that print. Best case scenario - you lose time, worst case - you lose much quality.

Tsorovan

  • Posts: 1247
Re: Wav export
« Reply #7 on: 15 Nov '06 - 21:29 »
I'm with Knurek; transcoding is a terrible practice, and only justifiable if you really only have access to the material in the first format, and you really need it to be in another format, for the purpose of, say, a portable player that does not support the original format.

Regarding OGG Vorbis...
1) That's unclear at the moment. According to the folks at hydrogenaudio, OGG Vorbis is using parts of copyrighted code. Or at least it used to. Maybe they've removed it, but I'm not sure if that dud of a format is even developed further anymore.

3) Disregarding the fact that you can't compare these formats on such a broad level ("MP3" doesn't say much, since there are tonnes of MP3 codecs, many with big differences in quality), and thus assuming you mean to compare OGG with any LAME codec version v3.9 or higher at similar file sizes, it's not particularly true at all.

In blind tests, OGG scores pretty well in very low bitrate situations, but that's it. Uttering prefabbed or rectally extracted phrases like "better dynamics and panorama" is quite telling anyhow... (:

« Last Edit: 15 Nov '06 - 21:35 by Tsorovan »

Sam_Zen

  • Posts: 113
Re: Wav export
« Reply #8 on: 16 Nov '06 - 00:30 »
As I said, I know transcoding is twice a compression. And said also, as Tsorovan stated, just if I have only access to a file already compressed,and I need to convert it to another compression-format.
I'm a bit sorry to have brought this up, because it's starting to get somewhat off-topic.

Torkell

  • Posts: 1169
Re: Wav export
« Reply #9 on: 16 Nov '06 - 09:47 »
Regarding OGG Vorbis...
1) That's unclear at the moment. According to the folks at hydrogenaudio, OGG Vorbis is using parts of copyrighted code. Or at least it used to. Maybe they've removed it, but I'm not sure if that dud of a format is even developed further anymore.
Links? One of my reasons for using OGG is that there certainly were no licensing restrictions with it.

(other reasons include that at the time it beat MP3 hands down, and I prefer how it sounds at low bitrates - sounds to my ear more like an old tape than underwater metallic warbeling).

Knurek

  • Posts: 523
Re: Wav export
« Reply #10 on: 16 Nov '06 - 15:37 »
(other reasons include that at the time it beat MP3 hands down, and I prefer how it sounds at low bitrates - sounds to my ear more like an old tape than underwater metallic warbeling).

I just hope you aren't trying to say that by transcoding low bitrate MP3 to low bitrate OGG you will get a better sound quality...

Tsorovan

  • Posts: 1247
Re: Wav export
« Reply #11 on: 16 Nov '06 - 19:30 »
Links? One of my reasons for using OGG is that there certainly were no licensing restrictions with it.
This is the most pertinent thing I could find right now. As I said, I haven't followed it in years. It seems xiph.org hasn't been forthcoming since then either.
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=13531

In any case, how this (or the MP3 licensing stuff) could ever affect any end-user is truly beyond me, so it's an odd stance unless you're making a commercial app...

Torkell

  • Posts: 1169
Re: Wav export
« Reply #12 on: 16 Nov '06 - 22:28 »
(other reasons include that at the time it beat MP3 hands down, and I prefer how it sounds at low bitrates - sounds to my ear more like an old tape than underwater metallic warbeling).

I just hope you aren't trying to say that by transcoding low bitrate MP3 to low bitrate OGG you will get a better sound quality...
No, you'll lose quality (quite a lot at low bitrates). However transcoding low bitrate OGG to low bitrate WMA can be useful for things like MP3 players, especially ones like mine which don't understand OGG.

My rough understanding of the formats is that OGG > WMA > MP3, although this depends a lot on what encoder you use, what bitrate you use, and what phase of the moon it is.

@Tsorovan: presumably they're either waiting for the patent to expire or have settled it in some way.

Reading through that, I like this quote: "Fraunhofer guys at IBC2003 claimed that Vorbis is indeed infringing patents, but that no action will be taken yet because it's not bothered at this point, because there's not enough financial gains at stake yet." Dunno about the US, but I believe in the UK there's a clause which roughly states if you don't take action when you first find out about the violation, then you can't take action several months/years later as you're deemed to knowingly allow the violation.
« Last Edit: 16 Nov '06 - 22:35 by Torkell »