On 2/13/2009 1:19 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote:
With respect, Aaron, this won't help. Converting the MP3 to WAV and back again will introduce far more artifacts than any edits you might make in Audacity,
I could be mistaken, but my impression is that when you open an MP3 in an editing program like Audacity or Soundforge, it converts it to some native, non-lossy representation of the MP3, equivalent to a WAV. This file would be no better or no worse than the source MP3, and because it's non-lossy, you could edit and save as much as you want. If you know different and have some links handy, I'd love to read more about this.
file is in a lossy format (like MP3), up-converting it to a non-lossy format won't restore any missing audio data
Right, that I know.
and will actually result in a file that sounds *worse* than the original MP3.
That's the part I doubt, although I think you work more with audio than I do.
Best to make edits in the original MP3 format to avoid the further sonic degradation of up- sampling and then down-sampling again.
Hmm. I was unaware that there were mainstream apps that could edit MP3s natively. I assumed that the process was like working with JPGs -- if you have a JPG as a source, you open it and save it as a TIF or something else non-lossy so it won't get any worse while you work on it. If you edit the JPG and save back as a JPG, it gets worse each time, because you're re-applying the lossy compression to something that was lossy to begin with. Am I incorrect?
Aaron. _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
