I was just wondering if the original audio is always the best audio. I'm sure every compression format including vorbis is based on trying to make the output sound the closest to the listener to the input. I was wondering if there is any possibility that there would be a way of modifying the huffman tables or something in some way to make the output sound better than the original? --- >8 ---- List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/ Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/ To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'vorbis-request@xiph.org' containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body. No subject is needed. Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.
Define "better". -----Original Message----- From: owner-vorbis@xiph.org [mailto:owner-vorbis@xiph.org] On Behalf Of Corey Miller Sent: Tuesday, 4 March 2003 11:44 AM Subject: [vorbis] original audio the best audio? <p>I was just wondering if the original audio is always the best audio. I'm sure every compression format including vorbis is based on trying to make the output sound the closest to the listener to the input. I was wondering if there is any possibility that there would be a way of modifying the huffman tables or something in some way to make the output sound better than the original? --- >8 ---- --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.459 / Virus Database: 258 - Release Date: 25/02/2003 --- >8 ---- List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/ Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/ To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'vorbis-request@xiph.org' containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body. No subject is needed. Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.
Show me the choir that sounds better in an anechoic chamber than in a cathedral or a good stairwell... making them sound better might be as simple as adding an echo. Or a little extra high-frequency white noise. Or parameterising the distortions introduced by a really good tube amp. Or playing your electric guitar through an amp, for that matter! -- Ben Pearre http://hebb.mit.edu/~ben -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: part Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 190 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/vorbis/attachments/20030303/c526e6df/part-0001.pgp
Corey Miller wrote:> I was just wondering if the original audio is always the best audio.That's an esoteric question ... e.g. if you *really* hate techno, compressing it down to 0 kb/s / deleting it might be "better" for you. Otherwise I really prefer to get as much of what the artist(s) created as possible.> modifying the huffman tables or something in some way to make the > output sound better than the original?You mean like, messing up the audio with an automagic multi-band compressor and equalizer based on psychoacoustics, so it sounds "better" on (for example) yelling PC desktop loudspeakers? That abuse of music should be left to player plugins (if necessary, which it never is/should be). You're asking for something that should be done properly in the mixing and mastering stages of a production. This is difficult and nothing that can be done by a one-size-fits-all program - neither by some player plugin, nor by a broken audio codec. How good a song or a whole album sounds depends on the skills of the producer/audio engineer, who gave it the final touch. If that could be done by a single program, it would already be done that way. However, several hardware and software companies still produce expensive things that require a skilled human to control and set them up ... guess why. ;P <p>Moritz --- >8 ---- List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/ Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/ To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'vorbis-request@xiph.org' containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body. No subject is needed. Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.