I'm looking to convert some audio files into spectrograms. I'm wondering what the difference is between an m4a and wav file. If I have two of the same audio recording, one saved as wav and the other as m4a, will there be a difference in the spectrogram representations of both?
Both WAV and M4A are container formats, with options for how exactly audio data is encoded and represented inside the file. WAV file has one audio track with variety of encoding options including those possible for M4A format. However most often typically WAV refers to having uncompressed audio inside, where data is contained in PCM format.
M4A files are MP4 (MPEG-4 Part 14) files with an implication that there is one audio track inside. There are much less encoding options even though they still include both compressed and uncompressed ones. Most often M4A has audio encoded with AAC encoding, which is a lossy encoding. Depending on that loss, roughly on how much of information was lost during the encoding, your spectrogram could be different from the one built on original data.
The m4a format uses a lossy compression algorithm, so there may be differences, depending on compression level, and the resolution and depth of the spectrogram. The .wav format can also be lossy, due to quantization of the sound by an A/D or any sample format/rate conversions. So the difference may be in the noise floor, or in the portions of the sound's spectrum that are usually inaudible (due to masking effects and etc.) to humans.
I used SciPy to run a butterworth pass, removing sounds above a certain frequency from an audio file. The SciPy package is fast and easy to use but unfortunately, lacking options in terms of specifying codec to be used in the output.
My original audio files were in PCM s16LE # 16 bits per sample. The output audio files are in 64 bits floats LE # 64 bits per sample. Will the change in codec have an appreciable impact on the way the audio files sound. Would I be able to keep the sound quality similar if I were to convert the output audio codec back to its original format?
Yes, converting the audio back to the original format of 16 bit integer should not cause audible quality loss.
The higher precision format might be useful as intermediate format for processing, but converting back to 16 bit integer format does not incur any extra audible noise.
See https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html for further explanations on the matter. A few relevant quotes:
16 bits is enough to store all we can hear, and will be enough forever.
[...]
When does 24 bit matter?
Professionals use 24 bit samples in recording and production for headroom, noise floor, and convenience reasons.
16 bits is enough to span the real hearing range with room to spare. [...]
[...] Once the music is ready to distribute, there's no reason to keep more than 16 bits.
I currently have the idea to code a small audio converter (e.g. FLAC to MP3 or m4a format) application in C# or Python but my problem is I do not know at all how audio conversion works.
After a research, I heard about Analog-to-digital / Digital-to-analog converter but I guess it would be a Digital-to-digital or something like that isn't it ?
If someone could precisely explain how it works, it would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks.
digital audio is called PCM which is the raw audio format fundamental to any audio processing system ... its uncompressed ... just a series of integers representing the height of the audio curve for each sample of the curve (the Y axis where time is the X axis along this curve)
... this PCM audio can be compressed using some codec then bundled inside a container often together with video or meta data channels ... so to convert audio from A to B you would first need to understand the container spec as well as the compressed audio codec so you can decompress audio A into PCM format ... then do the reverse ... compress the PCM into codec of B then bundle it into the container of B
Before venturing further into this I suggest you master the art of WAVE audio files ... beauty of WAVE is that its just a 44 byte header followed by the uncompressed integers of the audio curve ... write some code to read a WAVE file then parse the header (identify bit depth, sample rate, channel count, endianness) to enable you to iterate across each audio sample for each channel ... prove that its working by sending your bytes into an output WAVE file ... diff input WAVE against output WAVE as they should be identical ... once mastered you are ready to venture into your above stated goal ... do not skip over groking notion of interleaving stereo audio as well as spreading out a single audio sample which has a bit depth of 16 bits across two bytes of storage and the reverse namely stitching together multiple bytes into a single integer with a bit depth of 16, 24 or even 32 bits while keeping endianness squared away ... this may sound scary at first however all necessary details are on the net as its how I taught myself this level of detail
modern audio compression algorithms leverage knowledge of how people perceive sound to discard information which is indiscernible ( lossy ) as opposed to lossless algorithms which retain all the informational load of the source ... opus (http://opus-codec.org/) is a current favorite codec untainted by patents and is open source
I have received a request to encode DPX files to MOV/MJPEG rather than MOV/H.264 (which ffmpeg picks by default if you convert to output.mov). These is to review compositing renders (in motion), so color accuracy is critical.
Comparing a sample "ideal" MOV to the current (H.264) output I can see:
resolution: the same
ColorSpace/Primaries: Rec609 (SD) versus Rec709 (HD)
YUV: 4:2:0 versus 4:4:4
filesize: smaller
The ffmpeg default seems to be better quality and result in a smaller filesize. Is there something I'm missing?
Maybe it's because MJPEG frames are independent of each other, so any snippet of video can be decoded / copied in isolation. With an inter-frame compression algorithm like H.264, the software has to scan data for potentially numerous frames to reconstruct any given one.
Some years ago I made a music audio recording, and I can't find the original WAV files, I have only compressed MP3s. Now I found an audio CD, but I don't know if it was made using the original, uncompressed WAVs, or if it was made from compressed MP3 or OGG files.
Is there a way how to detect if an audio sample has been compressed and decompressed using a lossy compression such as MP, OGG, ..., without having the original to compare to?
Update:
Trying #MisterHenson's suggestion, I plotted the spectra of the two samples, with obvious differences in the graphs:
The sample from the CD:
The sample from the MP3:
This practically solves solves my current problem, but still I have these open questions:
If the spectra were visually indistinguishable, I wouldn't know if there is a real difference, or that I just can't distinguish them (i.e. the compression would be of better quality). What else could I try?
Similarly what would I do if I didn't have the MP3 file to compare to, just a single audio sample?
Is there an automated method, that'd answer the question with a reasonable probability?
I made an example to stress the topology of all MP3 transcodes, the source material being a Chopin nocturne. MP3 on top, Lossless on bottom. All recordings have background noise of some amplitude, and that noise is faintly visible here. What the MP3 transcode (Lame's V2 preset in this case) does is create a hard limit at ~16kHz. On a 320kbps bitrate 44.1kHz sample rate MP3, this hard limit appears at around 20kHz, but it would still be visibly different in this image.
You can pick out this shelf without having the original lossless file for comparison. I'm willing to say all music has amplitude at frequencies above even 19kHz. Here's an example for which I do not have the lossless source file, just a 320kbps MP3. You can see the very hard limit at 20kHz as well as a milder cutoff at 19kHz. Were it lossless, that red blob in the middle would extend all the way up to 22kHz since the sample rate is 44.1kHz.
I would say this process is probably automatable, but I do not know of any attempts to automate it. If this were automated, though, I'd say it could pick Lossy from Lossless with much higher accuracy than you or I, by virtue of it being able to analyze the entire spectrum as opposed to just the high frequency cutoffs.
Full res images:
http://i.imgur.com/dezONol.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/1qokxAN.jpg
The above approaches sound very promising although maybe a little complicated -- you might first try something easy, like check the distribution of the least significant bit. In a natural sample, LSB should be an almost exact 50/50 distribution between zeroes and ones (actually across many samples would have some variance following a binomial distribution but with millions or billions of bits this will be ridiculously close to 50/50 in any given sample). In a lossy sample, you will find an unlikely distribution in the LSB.
Something like this:
1 -- extract LSB from each data point
2 -- apply chi-squared test to judge if distribution is unusual
Here is the deal.
A raw sample (or a raw piece of sound) is encoded in a certain quality.
Some sound cards can go further with 64bit sampling.
But let's assume that we have sound files of a certain KNOWN quality.
CD quality is okay for the human ear.
A studio, would make use of more quality samples though. Like 24bit as a standard.
So you got a waveform filename.wav that really has a sample rate 44100 Hz.
What does that mean?
It means the computer can take a huge amount of different samples per second to represent almost the exact sound.
Is the sound original? Depends on how it was made.
If it was made by your computer and a piece of software using a 16bit default sound card yes it is.
If it was from an analogue recording though, it loses some of its quality on the digitization at 44100 Hz fortunately not so significant for the human ear.
NOTE THAT mp3 recordings is a bad idea for professional recording.
But since mp3 recording do exist... this adds complexity to your question. :P
So some sound quality is lost on digitization with a 16bit sound card.
Now similar thing can happen when you encode something to mp3.
Check out your picture. Above 17000 there is no sound. It was butchered to make the sound file significant smaller, without making any significant damage to the audio quality. Is it the same piece of sound? No. It sounds the same though. But a sound engineer LOVES original and good quality samples, because of the information that is NOT cut.
Imagine me, making an original sound, so balanced and compressed that even after an mp3 converting it is hard to tell if it is original sound or not. Imagine me using equalizers to cut any sharp edges, and gate effects to extremely normalize it. Also, my sound generators are some 8bit oscillators passing through some fx and filters.
If I convert it back to wavetable, there might be no difference.
For instance:
[UNCHANGED FREQUENCIES][CUT FREQUENCIES]
Waveform: =================================
mp3: =======================
Waveform: =======================
Waveform:
[UNCHANGED FREQUENCIES][CUT FREQUENCIES]
Waveform: =================
mp3 =================
Waveform: =================
The following seems impossible to me (except if the converter has bugs thing that can be heard)
[UNCHANGED FREQUENCIES][CUT FREQUENCIES]
Waveform: =========================
mp3 =======================
Waveform: =============================
So your question depends on the original source you used in the first waveform.
Good news is that a sample is RARELY THAT limited and compressed.
So it seems to me that the CD you used will probably sound like original waveform,
while as you can see, the mp3 has cut out frequencies.
To be sure of course you need a frequency analyzer and spectrum as MischaNix already has shown.
There are many mp3 encodings too. Some are static, some dynamic, some cut more and some cut less sound information. Some are also bigger than others for that reason.
Now there are lossless formats too.
And then there is ogg that is small enough and also has great quality.
So this question can become a huge topic for no reason here. I will not talk about all these.
If the issue is giving an original sample, your pictures show me significant differences between the two samples. I mean, making a waveform out of the mp3 cut variation, should look like that cut variation. You can not get information out of nothing.
Burn the mp3 on a cd, then get the wave, compare the new waveform with the old and the mp3 waveform. It will probably not be the same thing so you might hit the jackpot here. It is possible you got an original backup on your hands.
From now on though, try sampling raw material and store them in a CD or DVD before discarding them.
Or at least keep good uncompressed samples in a backup.
Open questions:
If the spectra were visually indistinguishable, I wouldn't know if there is a real difference, or that I just can't distinguish them.
Correct. But this would occur seldom without intention on sampling.
Why asking such a question? :) Do you have steganography in mind?
If yes, make sure to keep in mind the nature of the piece of sound you are gonna use. Samples are not appropriate. "Finished songs" are!
Similarly what would I do if I didn't have the MP3 file to compare to, just a single audio sample?
Since there are many mp3 encoding settings of different qualities, you can check if the lowest quality was used. If not there is uncertainty because of the compression capabilities. If this applies to the whole sample, then you got to see if compression was needed. That's why you can not be certain on a song. You don't record with SO hard compression in the first place. I guess this is another meta-reason why you need a natural sound. So if its about a recording you might be lucky.
Now about a finished mastered song... things get rough once again. It is about the nature, the type, of the sound. A recording is easier to figure out what is going on if you knew you used waveform recording. An mp3 recording of course is a waste of time. On the other hand a finished song, usually nowadays makes compressors, limiters, gates and chain compressors burn out. The amount of use of this techniques in modern mastering is enormous. So... you will really need luck to find out if the original piece was compressed before, before having an original waveform to begin with.
Is there an automated method, that'd answer the question with a reasonable probability?
None that I know. Sorry. :(
But that doesn't mean than nobody can make one.
BUT!
A stereo sample is usually split out to two channels. Left and right.
Now if you got a spectrum analyzer in a Digital Audio Workstation,
and take a look only on the left channels of two different samples, you can on the fly see
if they are the same or not I guess.
In order to understand what I mean, take a look at THIS link.
Go at 05:00 and just watch the interface.
Phew. Hope this will help you further, since it took some time. :P
Cheers.
Edit: Fixing some stuff here and there.
I found a description of the problem, a solution and an implementation in Python by Maurits van der Schee, that works with a FLAC though.
From the sample only the first 30 seconds are analyzed. For every
second the frequency spectrum of the sample is computed by applying a
Hanning Window and doing a Fast Fourier Transform. These spectrums are
added, so that eventually you end up with 30 stacked spectrums. These
are divided by 30 to get the average spectrum. Then the spectrum is
normalized using log10. After that we applied a rolling average on the
spectrum with a window size of 1/100th of the frequency, being
44100/100=441 samples.
If there is an unnatural cutoff in the frequency spectrum, this cutoff
is the thing we need to find. We sweep the spectrum from 44100th back
to the 1st frequency, where the variable frequency is f. As soon as
the magnitude at f-220 is more than 1.25 higher than the magnitude at
f and the magnitude at f is no bigger than 1.1x the magnitude at 44100
we have found the cutoff point. The cutoff point is multiplied by 100
and divided by the frequency to get to the percentage of the spectrum
not cut off.
Things to look for:
Cut-off frequency changing on frame boundaries (not going to be a 100% hard cut, but look for "audible" to "inaudible" and vice versa)
Frequencies disappearing or appearing on frame boundaries (again, not 100%)
Noise levels changing on frame boundaries (actually pretty solid for lossy codecs)
For MP3, the frame boundaries are precisely every 1152 samples, though you might be able to "see" the granules every 576 samples.
For Vorbis, the frame boundaries are typically every 128 or 1024 samples depending on transients the encoder "saw". You can probably get away with doing every 128 samples...
You'll have to research the other formats to know their frame sizes (I don't know them offhand).