48 kHz?

This forum is for video and audio help and discussion.

48 kHz?

Postby Kevmaster » Mon Oct 01, 2007 9:52 am

I want to ripp a .wav file from my CD with 48 kHz

Both <i>CDex</i> and <i>Exact Audio Copy</i> automatically ripp the file with 44 kHz and I just can't find any Option to change it to 48 kHz.

So Is there any Way to ripp the file with <i>CDex</i> or <i>Exact Audio Copy</i> like I want, or is there any other Software I should use instead?
Kevmaster
Eisenbahnmörser
 
Joined: 28 May 2006

Postby Qyot27 » Mon Oct 01, 2007 11:08 am

Just use a sampling converter after-the-fact. Audio on CDs is 44.1kHz, and as far as I'm concerned, don't do any extraneous compression or conversion during the ripping process - it'll be faster and should be less error-prone.

dBPowerAMP Music Converter can convert samplerates, and so can AviSynth (using the SSRC function - SSRC is also available as a standalone converter, although to the best of my knowledge it's command-line only).

My typical way of ripping CDs is to actually make a full copy of the disc as an NRG image through Nero, and then use UltraISO to extract the tracks - this nicely gets around that nasty 2-second cutoff issue that arises with a lot of ripping programs, I have a true backup of the disc just in case something happens later, and a convenient way of getting additional tracks off the CD that doesn't involve going back to the actual disc. I just go and compress the image into a RAR file and burn it off to DVD-R so I can pack it away.
User avatar
Qyot27
Surreptitious fluffy bunny
 
Joined: 30 Aug 2002
Location: St. Pete, FL
Status: Creepin' between the bullfrogs

Re: 48 kHz?

Postby Wolfy2hk » Sun Oct 07, 2007 12:10 am

Kevmasterflashdeluxe wrote:I want to ripp a .wav file from my CD with 48 kHz

Don't know why you would want to rip to 48 hertz it's all the same either way
User avatar
Wolfy2hk
 
Joined: 22 Dec 2006
Location: Tejas

Re: 48 kHz?

Postby post-it » Thu Oct 25, 2007 6:33 am

Wolffy2hk wrote:
Kevmasterflashdeluxe wrote:I want to ripp a .wav file from my CD with 48 kHz

Don't know why you would want to rip to a sample rate of 48k hertz it's all the same either way
.. on Head Banging -or- RAP type music that might sound ok with 44k@192K however .. considering the quality-lost by compressing Audio -- the higher the Sample Rate; the easier it is to listen to a year from now 8-)
User avatar
post-it
 
Joined: 17 Jul 2002
Status: Audio: bass remains; if else, 3D

Postby Corran » Thu Oct 25, 2007 7:34 am

If the audio on the CD is only 44.1KHz, what would you gain by converting it to 48?
?_?
User avatar
Corran
 
Joined: 14 Oct 2002

Postby post-it » Thu Oct 25, 2007 7:45 pm

.. hmm .. pulls-out a few CD's ... lets take a look at them ...

Def Leppard - the Definitive Collection .. recorded Digital Dolby AC_5 .. T_T

Roxette - Limited Edition with CD and DVD .. recorded Digital Dolby AC_5 .. T_T

?? who told you that that CD's are recorded at 44.1k sample rate ???
:shock: :shock: :shock:
User avatar
post-it
 
Joined: 17 Jul 2002
Status: Audio: bass remains; if else, 3D

Postby Scintilla » Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:10 pm

Oh good lord.

post-it wrote:who told you that that CD's are recorded at 44.1k sample rate ???

How about, oh, I don't know, maybe <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Book_(audio_CD_standard)">the international standard for Audio CDs</a>?



I'd also like to see a link to someplace I can buy this Dolby Digital-encoded Def Leppard album you're talking about. The only Definitive Collection I saw listed on discogs.com was <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Rock-Ages-Definitive-Def-Leppard/dp/B0009299LU/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-9300448-7301704?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1193360694&sr=8-1">this one</a>, and there's nothing anywhere to indicate that it's anything other than a standard audio CD. And even if it <i>was</i> encoded in Dolby Digital, I'd like to see a link to someplace I can buy a CD player that could play that.
ImageImage
:pizza: :pizza: Image :pizza: :pizza:
User avatar
Scintilla
(for EXTREME)
 
Joined: 31 Mar 2003
Location: New Jersey
Status: Quo

Postby post-it » Fri Oct 26, 2007 4:21 am

.. interesting list .. its missing quite a few songs on it. "New Four Letter Word" was used on my messed-up Mew Mew AMV three years ago.

AC_5 players are nothing new T_T the S/PDIF in and out has been available for years!
Computer Cards:
http://www.hdaudiovisual.com.au/mcpc/xmgold71.htm
http://www.atruereview.com/HDA_X_Plosion/index.php
http://www.extrememhz.com/xplosion-p1.shtml
USB thingy:
http://www.pcuniverse.com/product.asp?pid=4166544&m_id=
Head Set:
http://www.amazon.com/Cyberhome-CH-SRD- ... B0006688ZC
( back-up page ) http://www.weirdstuff.com/cgi-bin/item/20710
Home Players are all DVD now-days and the S/PDIF connector is either Direct -or- Fiber-Optic.
.. if your having a hard time finding AC_9 audio equipment then I'd say your in a Walmat or Target Store! :nono:
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp ... cat0203000
http://www.microcenter.com/single_produ ... id=0250620
.. that's odd T_T I don't even see my receiver listed here and I bought it months ago! -- hehe .. if the recievers not listed then I know these CD/DVD's are also not being listed :roll:
User avatar
post-it
 
Joined: 17 Jul 2002
Status: Audio: bass remains; if else, 3D

Postby Scintilla » Fri Oct 26, 2007 5:30 am

And not a single one of those products you listed is (or includes) a CD player. I'm still waiting.


If what you meant was Dolby Digital audio stored on DVDs, then I wouldn't have had an issue, but then why did you very clearly say "CD's" twice in your post?
ImageImage
:pizza: :pizza: Image :pizza: :pizza:
User avatar
Scintilla
(for EXTREME)
 
Joined: 31 Mar 2003
Location: New Jersey
Status: Quo

Postby post-it » Fri Oct 26, 2007 9:00 pm

.. well if its any conciliation to your waiting, I'll have to back down from my claims. Even after buying a DCD/CD recorder, "pdf Manual is available on-line
http://www.funai-corp.com/6pdf/om/WV10D6.pdf " I could not find reference to the 44.1k question!
.. in the manual that came with this expensive liar at $49.95 it only mentions 96k and 48k sample rates .. pages 15 & 67 of the paperback!
.. I also asked the salesman why the CD's said Remastered, 32bit and AC_5 3D sound tracks if CD's only record at 44.1k sampling rate 16bit Stereo .. he and a few other salesmen broke-out laughing T_T ever feel like you've been set-up by someone?
.. then they laughed even harder once I said that THAT was False Advertising!

.. I have no proof of what it is that I have.
.. I have no way of proving that a CD Player can decode AC_5 because everything today is all DVD Recorders and for Computers.
.. somethings not right here; how can it be available when you walk into the stores but be un-explainable because of wording on-line !?!??

.. I'll just shut my mouth and enjoy "what the Internet says is not possible." Another-Words, you win! Model SV2000 ISBN: 0-53818-57028-9 CD Player.
User avatar
post-it
 
Joined: 17 Jul 2002
Status: Audio: bass remains; if else, 3D

Postby Qyot27 » Sat Oct 27, 2007 5:12 am

post-it wrote:.. well if its any conciliation to your waiting, I'll have to back down from my claims. Even after buying a DCD/CD recorder, "pdf Manual is available on-line
http://www.funai-corp.com/6pdf/om/WV10D6.pdf " I could not find reference to the 44.1k question!
.. in the manual that came with this expensive liar at $49.95 it only mentions 96k and 48k sample rates .. pages 15 & 67 of the paperback!
.. I also asked the salesman why the CD's said Remastered, 32bit and AC_5 3D sound tracks if CD's only record at 44.1k sampling rate 16bit Stereo .. he and a few other salesmen broke-out laughing T_T ever feel like you've been set-up by someone?
.. then they laughed even harder once I said that THAT was False Advertising!

.. I have no proof of what it is that I have.
.. I have no way of proving that a CD Player can decode AC_5 because everything today is all DVD Recorders and for Computers.
.. somethings not right here; how can it be available when you walk into the stores but be un-explainable because of wording on-line !?!??

.. I'll just shut my mouth and enjoy "what the Internet says is not possible." Another-Words, you win! Model SV2000 ISBN: 0-53818-57028-9 CD Player.

That is a DVD recorder, it has no CD recording capability. 48kHz@16bit is the base samplerate and bit depth for DVD audio streams no matter what format it is - MP2, AC3, DTS, or PCM (96kHz@24bit is also possible by spec, but I don't recall seeing it as an option outside of DVD-Audio discs). Some speaker setups allow outputting 96kHz audio, and the 96kHz functions of the player allow for output to those types of setups. DVD-Audio discs can support the same ranges, including the higher samplerates such as 96kHz, but they also have dedicated audio streams and use MLP (Meridian Lossless Packing) encoding usually. An extended variant of MLP is the Dolby TrueHD format used on HD-DVD and Blu-ray, both of which also support Enhanced AC3 (EAC3), a similarly extended version of AC3 that also is advertised as being more efficient at encoding the stream intrinsically and not simply supporting more channels and whatnot.
User avatar
Qyot27
Surreptitious fluffy bunny
 
Joined: 30 Aug 2002
Location: St. Pete, FL
Status: Creepin' between the bullfrogs

Postby post-it » Mon Nov 26, 2007 12:09 am

.. ok, so they were DVD Audio "CD's" .. T_T .. I never heard of such non-sense; and, of course, a DVD Player could play them back >_<

.. now on to the real problem with 48k audio from a CD; in many of the recordings from CD's, when Cool Edit is used, the CD being recorded actually sounds better than the original CD itself. My question is, "where are these LC-AAC Encoders" that I've been reading about?
D-sound - sucks!
MP3sx - sucks!
Nero AAC - doesn't sound right!
.. also, I'd like to Encode the Audio Tracks that I've remixxed at 96k sampling rate; not 48k nor 44.1k .. is there an Encoder for That kind of MP3/MP4 Audio ??
User avatar
post-it
 
Joined: 17 Jul 2002
Status: Audio: bass remains; if else, 3D

Postby bobbias » Mon Nov 26, 2007 2:15 am

Yes, there is such thing as a DVD Music Disk. They are different than conventional CDs. DVDs are actually very different from CDs in quite a few ways (Physically they are thicker (IIRC), have a different material that the information is recorded on, etc.)

It's no use trying to convert the music to 96khz. The only reason anyone uses 96khz is when they are directly recording sound. The reason they use higher sample rates is this:

The maximum frequency that can be recorded at a given sample rate is exactly half the sample rate. Therefore, at 44.1khz, the maximum frequency that could be recorded is 22.05khz. The human ear cannot hear more than about 20khz, so 2.05khz is easily enough, and anything above that is going into sounds we cannot hear.

Also, if you have a recording is 44.1khz, and convert it to 96khz or any other higher sample rate, there will be no difference in the sound. These frequencies above 22.05khz will NOT magically appear. You will simply make the file bigger, and waste space.

SO, that means that you should give up working in anything above 44.1khz, because really, there's no point to it. Would it make sense to take an old AMV in some crappy format that looks decent, and encode it to some lossless format like Lagarith just because Lagarith has the potential to look better? You'd just end up wasting space.

Encoding anything that was originally at 44.1khz into 96khz is pretty much the same as taking that old file and encoding it to Lagarith. They're both an exercise in futility and proof that whoever is doing that doesn't know enough about what they're working with. Next time, do some more research.
User avatar
bobbias
 
Joined: 01 Aug 2003
Location: Midland, Ontario, Canada

Postby post-it » Mon Nov 26, 2007 2:57 am

.. converting something to 96k is not what I'm trying to seek here, my goal is Clarity in the higher frequency ranges of what I'm creating. If a tree of bells are shaken and twin-high-octave-tubular-bells are being played, 44.1k has a hard time distinguishing the difference. 48k is better, at least the sample rate makes it sound better. 88.2k is still experimental. I would prefer having the option of encoding things at 92k if only for experimental reasons.
.. My theory is that the higher the sample rate, the cleaner the encode and playback will be. Why bother with such things? The human voice and kettle drums are over samples so much that they can sound realistic at 44.1k however, high pitched bells and flutes sound washed-out from under-sampling.
.. At thirty to sixty inches per second, in a recording studio, not much is missed! I'd like to have that option available on my computer when I use it as a recoding studio. That sample rate would be 336k which is totally silly; so for now I'll settle for 96k sample rate at 640k bit rate joint stereo. My question is, "where is this magical encoder that can handle that sample rate?"
.. If the designed software is available I'd like to know where its at. If not, then the program needs to be made. 96K at +600k are the current standards for direct recordings .. or haven't you done your research Mr. bobbias. a 16k signal at 44.1k sample rate is only 2.5 samplings -- I want to do better than that!
8-)
User avatar
post-it
 
Joined: 17 Jul 2002
Status: Audio: bass remains; if else, 3D

Postby bobbias » Mon Nov 26, 2007 3:29 am

Unless you are recording directly from a microphone, there is absolutely no point in dealing with anything above 44.1khz. I used 96khz as a reference, but the same sort of thing applies to anything over 44.1khz. If you are referring to a recording already on your computer, or a CD, then you are shit out of luck, because converting from 44.1khz to anything above it will NOT save the sounds you'd like to hear.

If you are recording these sounds on your computer, you need to know what sort of capabilities your sound card has, because not everything can record at anything higher than 44.1khz, which would mean you're shit out of luck for recording too. Nowadays most cards can record at that, but not everyone has new cards.

In any case, unless you are recording the tubular bells yourself, there's no way you're going to hear those extra sounds, which, by the way, are out of the human hearing range. Anything that 48k and above records that is beyond what 44.1k can handle CAN'T BE HEARD BY THE HUMAN EAR.

If you're concerned with how certain things sound in different codecs, like comparing AAC, MP3, and OGG Vorbis, I cound understand talking about certain frequencies being lost and distorted in things like tubular bells and such, because "Smearing" in the high end is a common issue that CODECS have. Unfortunately, an MP3 of tubular bells in 44.1k will sound the same as one in 48k if they are both at the same bitrate. If you have the CD and it sounds normal on the CD, but it sounds like crap in an MP3, at 44.1k, then it's not the sample rate or the bit rate. It's the fact that when MP3 compresses sound, it throws out certain things that our brain can't quite understand properly. Unfortunately, stuff like tubular bells get distorted fairly badly. Try saving it in FLAC or some other lossless codec.

"At thirty to sixty inches per second, in a recording studio, not much is missed!"
What the hell does that mean? I spent a semester in our highschool studio and I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
User avatar
bobbias
 
Joined: 01 Aug 2003
Location: Midland, Ontario, Canada

Next

Return to Video & Audio Help

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests