Re: Wav to Mp3 leads to an mp3 file that has a longer duration

[Martin Ratinaud <martinratinaud@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2871 bytes --]

Ok thanks Mikko

Maybe I'm doing it wrong but here is my initial request

the number of samples is not really important to me. What does is that the
compression algorithm does not add data at the beginning of the file, which
it does now

Do you have any idea how I can achieve that ?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
*Martin RATINAUD*
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 11:44 AM Mikko Olkkonen <molkko@gmail.com> wrote:

> If those are your requirements why dont you just stick to mp3? If your
> additional requirements would be that 1) audio quality perception remains
> OK and 2) number of samples remains intact then I believe that solution is
> nonexisting. You must relax either compression or quality requirement. My
> reasoning is as follows: you have a lot of samples in the original audio.
> If you have all those samples (in any reasonable format) in the output file
> you have large file again i.e. dont have much compression. In other words,
> if you want compression you must do more drastic processing e.g. transform
> the signal from "time domain" to "frequency domain" like mp3 does as far as
> I know. After such compression there is no any meaningful concept of a
> "sample" anymore. Thus you can not require that number of samples matches.
> The fact that sox reports number of samples for mp3 does not change this
> fact (maybe it should not report number of samples but some concept of a
> block mp3 uses). I believe that additional difficulty (e.g. the discrepancy
> you observed when you trimmed your signal) arises from aspects discussed in
> the sox manual section "Accuracy". regards, Mikko
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 6:02 AM Martin Ratinaud <martinratinaud@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Ok and what would be one that
>> - compresses the file a lot
>> - is readable on the web
>>
>> Thanks
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *Martin RATINAUD*
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 2:50 PM Måns Rullgård <mans@mansr.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Martin Ratinaud <martinratinaud@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>> > Thanks for the tip!
>>> >
>>> > What codec should I use then ?
>>>
>>> Depends on your needs.  Obviously, you have to use a codec supported by
>>> whatever is going to read the file.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Måns Rullgård
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Sox-users mailing list
>> Sox-users@lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sox-users
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Sox-users mailing list
> Sox-users@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sox-users
>

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 4794 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 0 bytes --]



[-- Attachment #3: Type: text/plain, Size: 158 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Sox-users mailing list
Sox-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sox-users