Re: best archiver? (for music)

2009-03-15 Thread Roland Smith
On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 09:42:25PM -0700, Gary Kline wrote: On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 08:36:25AM +0100, Wojciech Puchar wrote: There is a special codec for speech. You'll find it the audio/speex port. From the pkg-descr: actually i use it with asterisk - at about 15kbps (VBR) there are

Re: best archiver? (for music)

2009-03-15 Thread Roland Smith
On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 08:51:02PM -0700, Gary Kline wrote: On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 08:26:02AM +0100, Roland Smith wrote: On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 08:05:59PM -0700, Gary Kline wrote: lame -h -V 3 - nobody could tell the difference, it gives 200kbps bitrate lame -h -b 192 - as above

Re: best archiver? (for music)

2009-03-15 Thread Wojciech Puchar
That's the idea: take telephone/voice @ what? 4kbps? -- it was standard means between 300-3100Hz. often - sounds below 300Hz are now that filtered today. record your voice at 8Khz sampling rate and then compress with speex various options and compare compressed and uncompressed.

Re: best archiver? (for music)

2009-03-15 Thread Wojciech Puchar
If you're not an expert you should probably stick with one of the --preset modes. E.g. '--preset medium' or '--preset standard'. That will give you variable bitrate files with good quality. lame -h -V 3 is what i use. The speakers in telephones are tiny. That's probably a large part of it.

Re: best archiver? (for music)

2009-03-14 Thread Wojciech Puchar
lame -h -b 96 - i was able to tell the difference on every song, but it wasn't really huge deal. hm. oh, yeah, my new box has to have a superior soundcard. and i'll pony up for even better speakers too. (so when i'm ready, i'll ask what's best. maybe find

Re: best archiver? (for music)

2009-03-14 Thread Roland Smith
On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 08:05:59PM -0700, Gary Kline wrote: lame -h -V 3 - nobody could tell the difference, it gives 200kbps bitrate lame -h -b 192 - as above lame -h -b 128 - they were able to tell difference, but not on all music/songs lame -h -b 96 - i was able to tell the

Re: best archiver? (for music)

2009-03-14 Thread Wojciech Puchar
There is a special codec for speech. You'll find it the audio/speex port. From the pkg-descr: actually i use it with asterisk - at about 15kbps (VBR) there are audible differences between this and standard 64kbps a-law - but the differences are POSITIVE - speech sounds clearer! The

Re: best archiver? (for music)

2009-03-14 Thread Jan Henrik Sylvester
Gary Kline wrote: my hearing is exceptionally good and while call myself an audiophile, [...] lectures. when i tried to cut the quality even by a bit it was evident immediately. rar compresses these file to If you care for quality (and call yourself an audiophile), you should read up on

Re: best archiver? (for music)

2009-03-14 Thread Wojciech Puchar
For the same reason, you do not convert between lossy formats. Each might give different kinds of artifacts that you do not want to combine. (Of especially true with mp3 and ogg Are you sure you can hear the difference between your flac originals and --preset standard lame encoded mp3?

Re: best archiver? (for music)

2009-03-14 Thread ChenLong
I use ape :) ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org

Re: best archiver? (for music)

2009-03-14 Thread Gary Kline
On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 08:26:02AM +0100, Roland Smith wrote: On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 08:05:59PM -0700, Gary Kline wrote: lame -h -V 3 - nobody could tell the difference, it gives 200kbps bitrate lame -h -b 192 - as above lame -h -b 128 - they were able to tell difference, but not on all

Re: best archiver? (for music)

2009-03-14 Thread Wojciech Puchar
listened-to (kttsd) the man lame. Then surfed around; then came back to the man page and read the several examples. So: the idea is that lame [just] converts WAV files to mp3. There is a as every good unix tool - it does exactly what is supposed to do. nobody forbids

Re: best archiver? (for music)

2009-03-14 Thread Gary Kline
On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 08:36:25AM +0100, Wojciech Puchar wrote: There is a special codec for speech. You'll find it the audio/speex port. From the pkg-descr: actually i use it with asterisk - at about 15kbps (VBR) there are audible differences between this and standard 64kbps a-law - but

Re: best archiver? (for music)

2009-03-14 Thread Gary Kline
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 05:18:06AM +0100, Wojciech Puchar wrote: listened-to (kttsd) the man lame. Then surfed around; then came back to the man page and read the several examples. So: the idea is that lame [just] converts WAV files to mp3. There is a as every good unix

Re: best archiver? (for music)

2009-03-13 Thread Roland Smith
On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 12:15:24PM -0700, Gary Kline wrote: guys, this is for any compression experts on-list. my main desktop is nearly full. i'm looking for the best means of compressing [mostly] audio files. mp3, ogg, and .flag. All of these are already compressed.

Re: best archiver? (for music)

2009-03-13 Thread Wojciech Puchar
- The general archivers can compress the wav somewhat without loss, but none do as well as the dedicated lossless compression program flac. - Trying to compress mp3, ogg and flac files further is a waste of time. - If you want smaller files, use lossy compression like mp3 or ogg vorbis, and

Re: best archiver? (for music)

2009-03-13 Thread Gary Kline
On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 09:31:50PM +0100, Wojciech Puchar wrote: - The general archivers can compress the wav somewhat without loss, but none do as well as the dedicated lossless compression program flac. - Trying to compress mp3, ogg and flac files further is a waste of time. - If you want