Re: Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: merging mono files

It seems like what I did didn't work although I'm still waiting for a 
reply from my friend.

I am looking for converters hoping to strike gold but instead I seem to 
find myself sinking deeper and deeper in thick mud.

For instance.... there is this online converter. Ok. Select 
bit-resolution, done; sampling rate, done; audio channels, done. Then... 
show advanced options, PCM format: and a horrible list with such things 
as little-endian and big-endian crops up. What the.......! What are 
these? A new race? Aliens from outer space?

http://audio.online-convert.com/convert-to-wav

Mark


On 15/12/2016 15:20, Dr. Mark Bugeja MD wrote:
>
> I don't recall exactly what I sent to this forum though I may have 
> sent only the main file because I suspect this was at fault. I sent my 
> GO colleague a whole batch of files including the releases I later 
> suspected to be the real issue and he confirmed they were. I now used 
> Sony's Soundforge to batch process one set of release files and sent 
> him a specimen to check if the issue has indeed been addressed by what 
> I did.
>
> How these files turned out so different I have no idea and the person 
> who would have been able to answer the question is no longer with us 
> to do so. So we've got to sort out what he left behind the best way 
> possible. If the batch process I chose ie bit-depth converter, 
> selecting 24 bit instead of the default 32 that shows up on the 
> window, works fine then the matter is solved and another lesson learnt.
>
> For all its worth, this is the link to sample problem file (one of the 
> releases that is being implicated and yet to be corrected):
>
> https://mega.nz/#!pNAUmAgD!I0sh9C29SpFF7iMnf-0P4FvkfhQdqyawK5a0XMxf3DI
>
> Regards
>
> Mark
>
>
> On 15/12/2016 12:31, Jeremy Nicoll - ml sox users wrote:
>> On 2016-12-15 10:18, Dr. Mark Bugeja MD wrote:
>>> Hi, I have asked a GrandOrgue guru who has helped many times in the
>>> past and himself a sampleset creator. I sent him my main files and
>>> releases and he discovered that the issue lies in the fact with the
>>> releases, in that, for some strange mysterious reason, are saved as
>>> "Wave_ Format_Extensible (Wavex)" whilst the main files are in
>>> "Wave_Format_PCM". The latter is the correct format. This is the first
>>> time I ever came across this. I am still waiting for a reply as to how
>>> he managed to extract this information!
>>>
>>> Now for the next step: it's not so much understanding what Wavex is
>>> but what software sports and supports this feature. All software I
>>> have used so far identify one type of wav format only. No choice. No
>>> options to select other than other formats like aiff, aa3, ac3, vox,
>>> wma, wmv, mp3, flac, ogg, etc etc!
>> The .wav file format is what, in computing, is known as a 'container'
>> file.  There are many types of data that can appear inside one, defined
>> by the initial few bytes in the header of the file.  For a simple WAVE
>> file there's just the header then the audio data, but - I believe - more
>> complicated files can have non-audio data interleaved with audio data
>> throughout the file.  Each section of audio or other data is introduced
>> by something saying what follows, so programs can skip over the parts
>> they do not understand.
>>
>> For example, a Broadcast Wave file also has extension .wav, but contains
>> extra non-audio data required by the BBC, EBU and so on.
>>
>>
>> Sox does support reading and creation of files whose names end in .wav
>> but have (as the sox manual says) non-standard internal headers; there
>> are extra parameters for sox commands that will allow us to tell it what
>> form an input file has and what form the output file needs to have.
>>
>> I'm curious though why soxi did not identify the difference.  Maybe it's
>> not aware of the difference, or, the example files you've looked at with
>> soxi weren't different.  Did you send to the guru the same files as
>> those
>> that you've been issuing commands against?
>>
>> Also, if this is the problem, what you wrote implies that the funny
>> format
>> is only for release files... which would imply that the sox merge of the
>> main files should have worked.  Did they?
>>
>>
>



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most 
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot

_______________________________________________
Sox-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sox-users