title
Products            Buy            Support Forum            Professional            About            Codec Central
 

16 bit to 24 bit question

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • savagcl
    dBpoweramp Guru

    • Aug 2004
    • 439

    16 bit to 24 bit question

    Using latest music converter (13.1) to convert a 16 bit wave into
    24 bit wave file.

    Using previous versions converter program, waves were
    averaging 200,000 kb in size.
    Using the latest converter, output file size is much smaller
    (5047kb) for same playing time (approx 3 minutes).

    Are these settings correct for a 24 bit wave:
    channels = auto
    CBR = constant 192
    Encoding = normal

    DSP's used:
    Bit Depth = 24bit
    Replay Gain = Calculate track gain
    Volume Normalize = Adaptive, Window= 6000ms
    Channel Count = 2 'stereo' (CD)
    Maximum Amplification = 8, 0 db

    Thanks,
    savagcl
  • LtData
    dBpoweramp Guru

    • May 2004
    • 8288

    #2
    Re: 16 bit to 24 bit question

    Sounds like you made a compressed-WAV file if you have a bitrate, unless you mean the frequency.

    Comment

    • savagcl
      dBpoweramp Guru

      • Aug 2004
      • 439

      #3
      Re: 16 bit to 24 bit question

      LtData,

      Sorry bout the delay in responding, been out of town.

      You're right, compressed vs Wave - MP3 being checked makes
      the size difference. Hard to tell which of these gives the best
      quality.

      Also in the DSP effects, Volume Normalize, what does the
      'window' 6000 ms do?

      Thanks,
      savagcl

      Comment

      • LtData
        dBpoweramp Guru

        • May 2004
        • 8288

        #4
        Re: 16 bit to 24 bit question

        That's the timeframe the adaptive normalize uses to determine the correct normalization amount.

        Comment

        • savagcl
          dBpoweramp Guru

          • Aug 2004
          • 439

          #5
          Re: 16 bit to 24 bit question

          So, a longer time frame will produce a better(?) normalization, right?

          thanks for the info,
          savagcl

          Comment

          Working...

          ]]>