Re: filtering bad recordings

Marty,

Unfortunately, Lame is known to be not really optimized for low-bitrate
encoding. The closest option would be to the Fraunhofer codec at 22 KHz/32
kbps (the ACM codec bundled with Windows can encode at that rate). If it is
voice, you should try speech codecs - they will get you much better quality
at the kind of bitrates you want. I'd suggest Speex.

Are you transcoding? (i.e. you don't have the original 22 KHz/16-bit PCM
(WAV) audio, but are using the 192 kbps MP3 as the "source")?

Cheers,
-Ishaan

On 3/15/07, Marty Huntzberry <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> The only effect in audacity and lame that seems to work is reducing the
> audio.  Why does it sound good in it's original mp3 format of 192 kbps and
> 44
> khz but sounds bad at 24 kbps and 22 khz?  It's mainly a voice lecture.
>
> On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 16:12:53 +0530
> "tech list" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Marty, unfortunately, there's not much you can do since the recording
> itself
> was low quality. 22KHz should have been OK for voice, but looks like the
> mic
> was placed badly
> or the acoustics of your room/hall was not the best.
> Your best bet would be to forget about lame for the moment and try out
> with
> some audio
> tools like audacity. Keep a copy of the original recording and play around
> with some noise
> cancellation, filtering etc. to see what sounds best.
>
>
> On 1/24/07, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > I have a lecture recording (no music, just voice) that was recorded with
> a
> > digital recorder about 1 foot from the speaker at 22 kHz and 16 bit
> > mono.  It sounds like the speaker is in a well.  Can I clean the
> recording
> > up a bit with a filter in lame?
> >
> > Marty
> >
> _______________________________________________
> mp3encoder mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/mp3encoder
>