a tempo only sample => the range sample was better (the difference was not that big tough, when compared to the other pretty clear results) I compared a sample using the "rate" option (tempo+pitch change) vs. tempo+pitch change sample => tempo+pitch provided better quality (the background noise sounded more than the one in the source) tempo->pitch change sample => tempo-change only provided better quality (especially regarding the background noise which the pitch change somehow seemed to filter out) I noticed that doing a length change from the source mp3 directly in audacity will lead to less quality than if feeding audacity with a. With 24.996fps the sync problems were gone, therefore i decided to use this situation for doing a 24996/25000 (99.984%) audio conversion, together with this quality comparison to be able to get sync at 25fps at the maximum quality possibleįirst of all, as most tools offer different options, i did some internal tests to find out which setting would bring the best result: The original sample was a (not good quality) recording in mp3 format i had sync problems with when combining with a 25fps video stream I tested a 12.721 secs long stereo sample with 44.1khz samplerate Ok finally i found the time to do a quality comparison of various tools able to do timelength adjustments on audio streamsįor my comparison i used the great ABC/HR audio comparison tool (simply a must when doing "ear-based" quality comparisons )
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |