steve wrote:
Using the link you sent in your first mail ...
$ file mera_naam_joker_--_09_jeen_yahan_marna_yahan.mp3 mera_naam_joker<...>.mp3: MPEG ADTS, layer III, v2, 16 kbps, 16 kHz, Monaural
Here's the problem ..................................^^^^^^^^
The mp3 has been encoded using a low bit rate. Most people prefer using 128kbps or 192kbps to get a decently good audio quality[1].
I know but is there any way to remove the tinny sound in the background or I say goodbye to such files?
Saying goodbye is the only option available. By encoding music in lower bit rates, a lot of stuff required to make it soothing to the ear has been removed from the resultant file. Since missing parts can't be predicted using some formula, one can't recreate original audio signals. Even if some processing is done to remove the tinniness of voice, human brain is sharp enough to detect the differences in the original voice and the processed one.
Unlike predictable signals like a sine wave of given amplitude and frequency, music consists of unpredictable signals. To store a predictable signal of infinite duration, one needs negligibly small amount of storage space. But for storing an unpredictable signal of limited duration, one needs comparably larger storage space.
Looking at this issue from another angle; if we could re-create the missing parts from a smaller file, then why do we need a larger file in the first place? MP3 itself is a compressed audio format where a lot of undetectable (for human ear) audio signals are removed from the original using some sophisticated filtering. But there are people who can detect the differences between a CD quality audio and its MP3 form.
Raghu
By the way I am a "shaukin " of good music and just like programming is my heartbeat, Gazals, indian classical etc is my oxygen. I would not take files encripted in such low bit rate. As rightly said in the previous email, human brain is smart enough to figure out such compromise on sound quality. So IMHO such files are a big "NO" for me.
happy hacking. Krishnakant.
On Mon, 2009-06-08 at 12:16 +0530, Raghu Prasad wrote:
steve wrote:
Using the link you sent in your first mail ...
$ file mera_naam_joker_--_09_jeen_yahan_marna_yahan.mp3 mera_naam_joker<...>.mp3: MPEG ADTS, layer III, v2, 16 kbps, 16 kHz, Monaural
Here's the problem ..................................^^^^^^^^
The mp3 has been encoded using a low bit rate. Most people prefer using 128kbps or 192kbps to get a decently good audio quality[1].
I know but is there any way to remove the tinny sound in the background or I say goodbye to such files?
Saying goodbye is the only option available. By encoding music in lower bit rates, a lot of stuff required to make it soothing to the ear has been removed from the resultant file. Since missing parts can't be predicted using some formula, one can't recreate original audio signals. Even if some processing is done to remove the tinniness of voice, human brain is sharp enough to detect the differences in the original voice and the processed one.
Unlike predictable signals like a sine wave of given amplitude and frequency, music consists of unpredictable signals. To store a predictable signal of infinite duration, one needs negligibly small amount of storage space. But for storing an unpredictable signal of limited duration, one needs comparably larger storage space.
Looking at this issue from another angle; if we could re-create the missing parts from a smaller file, then why do we need a larger file in the first place? MP3 itself is a compressed audio format where a lot of undetectable (for human ear) audio signals are removed from the original using some sophisticated filtering. But there are people who can detect the differences between a CD quality audio and its MP3 form.
Raghu
Krishnakant wrote:
By the way I am a "shaukin " of good music and just like programming is my heartbeat, Gazals, indian classical etc is my oxygen. I would not take files encripted in such low bit rate. As rightly said in the previous email, human brain is smart enough to figure out such compromise on sound quality. So IMHO such files are a big "NO" for me.
So its time to look for more websites. :-)
-
Krishnakant -
Raghu Prasad -
Rony