Previous Page | Next Page
- by hcs at 2:49 AM EDT on May 30, 2016
- > But I found how to remove the noise of XMA, you just have to use ffmpeg to convert into 320k WMA, and it works
That seems odd, does converting to uncompressed 16-bit PCM WAV sound different than converting to 320k WMA?
I'd think that purely decoding to PCM with ffmpeg (vs with toWav) might produce better audio, whereas converting to WMA would involve another lossy encoding step. (unless ffmpeg has some way to losslessly rebuild XMA as WMA, which I doubt)
edited 2:53 AM EDT May 30, 2016
- by Mygoshi at 7:36 AM EDT on May 30, 2016
- I forgot to add -ar 48000 (it's better). But I mean, when I convert into wav with towav, there's artifact (don't know how to explain) but with saxopohne instrument or guitar instrument there's a problem of artifact, like in this video :
Hear the beginning, there's clearly a problem : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwyYl8jEKyc
compared to this : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1oVL0GDIKA
AND CONVERT INTO WMA is like the second video, and normal towav is the first. The second is not produced by ffmpeg through, I foudn it on the composer's website, but it's an example, the WMA conversion looks like the composr's website quality (and remove the artifact)
edited 7:39 AM EDT May 30, 2016
- by hcs at 4:09 PM EDT on May 30, 2016
- But what about converting to WAV with ffmpeg?
- by Mygoshi at 4:25 PM EDT on May 30, 2016
- It gives the same quality as towav
- by AnonRunzes at 5:13 PM EDT on May 30, 2016
- So you think that decoding .xma to .wma is going to give better quality reuslts than .wav? Cool story, gotta try that out.
- by Mygoshi at 5:39 PM EDT on May 30, 2016
- What? I didn't say that convert to wma give better quality, I said WMA remove the artifact compared to other formats. It's all about artifact, not quality.
- by AnonRunzes at 5:40 PM EDT on May 30, 2016
- @Mygoshi - Ahh, I see what you were trying to do now. So that means...
- by Mygoshi at 6:00 PM EDT on May 30, 2016
- That means what ? Listen to the two youtube videos, you can clearly see the difference with saxophone
- by hcs at 10:50 PM EDT on May 30, 2016
- Very strange, can you post the source XMA file for that track?
- by kode54 at 12:16 AM EDT on May 31, 2016
- But XMA _already is WMA_, just _lower quality WMA_. So when you're converting WMA to WMA, you're transcoding lossy to lossy, with another step of degradation.
I suppose if you think converting to higher bitrate WMA masks the artifacts of the lower bitrate WMA, you're welcome to do it. Just don't try to distribute the results to anyone.
Previous Page | Next Page
Go to Page 0 1 2 3
Search this thread
Show all threads
Reply to this thread:
HCS Forum Index
Halley's Comet Software
forum source