so please tell me, does the "fade in / fade out / add silence" processes make a lossless file lossy?
if it makes your music listening more enjoyable, why not.
If you have recorded in 16-bit and are only doing simple editing (cut, delete, paste, trim...) and not doing any processing (amplify, equalize, frequency filter....) then for highest accuracy dither can be set to "none". In this case, because there are no 32-bit operations prior to export there is no benefit to using dither. Exporting a 16-bit track to 16-bit with dither set to "none" will be lossless. The same applies if exporting from a 24-bit track to an uncompressed 24-bit file format with dither disabled.
oh, and Garf, if you meant a portable player, i don't have one, i'm just listening to the music in my PC.and if you meant a media playing software like winamp and such, i don't realy like it, since it's only cosmetic.
i also want to make sure that other people who aren't as techy as i am can enjoy these songs (i share them to many people) without having to download any extra software for it.
I'm not so good at explaining this, so i'll just link you to Audacity's Wiki page on the subject.
Dithering adds some noise to the least significant bits in the music signal. It is meant to 'smooth' the music after heavy manipulation of the music when simple rounding to 16 bit can have a negative effect.So if you use Audacity for fading in or out: switch dithering off.
Oh, you should have said! Definitely upsample your files to 192 kHz and 32-bit floating-point, then encode them with Blade. Happy sharing!
Let me just say that this forum is not the place to make such confessions..
unicorn20, in your original post, you mentioned gap detection. You seem to misunderstand what it is.Now consider what happens when you're using a real CD player, and you reach the end of a song. As the gap/index 00 (if any) at the start of the next track plays, you see the track number go up by 1, and the time display switches to negative numbers, counting up to 0:00, at which point index 01 plays. You don't see this when playing files or even CDs in a computer; the gap is normally just at the end of the previous track's file.For example, if there's a 5-second gap at the end of a song 3 minutes, 30 seconds long, in a computer you'll just see the counter go 3:29, 3:30, 3:31, 3:32, 3:33, 3:34, 0:00 (track number increments here). On a real CD player you would see 3:29, -0:05 (track number increments here), -0:04, -0:03, -0:02, -0:01, 0:00. The audio would be the same in either case.Gap & other index info isn't always possible or reliable (it's in the "subcode" alongside the audio data, harder to read). It all depends on the software, the drive, and the CD. When gap detection isn't done, the ripper just treats each track as if it only has one section, index 01. No audio is left out.
Quote from: db1989 on 19 February, 2013, 06:09:08 PMOh, you should have said! Definitely upsample your files to 192 kHz and 32-bit floating-point, then encode them with Blade. Happy sharing!i'm sure it's a nooby question, but why should i upsample? will it benefit the sound quality in any way?also, i've so far encoded using the latest LAME, is this blade a better encoder? and as i asked above, will it benefit the sound quality in any way?
db1989 should have made it more clear that he was being sarcastic. Blade was an awful encoder, and upsampling and 32-bit floating point have no benefit in this case.
you say rounding to 16bit can have a negative effect, what kind of negative effect?
it seems weird to me that audacity will do the dithering by default
The benefit was to discourage people from engaging in illegal distribution of copyrighted material