| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 25097 | 2002-09-26 00:16:00 | MP3 conversion rates | Greg S (201) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 83243 | 2002-09-26 21:39:00 | Hello Greg, I think it's generally accepted that mp3 128kps is the middle ground for 'near cd quality', and the lower you go, the smaller the file but you loose quality, and the higher you go should be better, although I agree with you, I find very little difference, expecially tweaking an mp3 to a higher rate. to keep the 128kps, middle ground, I tend to use an editor, to tweak things if required. cheers, Bob |
Bob Kehely (621) | ||
| 83244 | 2002-09-26 22:41:00 | Ok tweake i did a little investigation myself into this whole OGG/MP3 thing. Yes you were right, there is no resource difference. The reason i though there was, was because i ripped a song from 1 of my CD's in OGG and it had heaps of stops n starts (like when ur system is overloaded) however i found that it was actually cause the CD has scratches on it :-) My Bad |
roofus (483) | ||
| 83245 | 2002-09-26 23:24:00 | Well, now here's a man-with-a-mission. I'm going to go and do a series of tests, based muchly on the input from here, and see if I can come up with a strong argument for ripping to a particular size/bitrate/format. A question I have for Tweeky - if you're downloading an MP3, is it possible to determine whether it's OGG or not? (And wth does OGG stand for anyway?) |
Greg S (201) | ||
| 83246 | 2002-09-26 23:30:00 | hi bob how do you use an editor to tweak things? >expecially tweaking an mp3 to a higher rate. how to do mean "tweaking to a higher rate"? mmmm....i love tweaking :) |
tweak'e (174) | ||
| 83247 | 2002-09-27 00:26:00 | Ok - started... I'm going into this from as close to a scientific angle as I can, with the compromise of being somewhat subjective to my own tastes. However, to make it as objective as I can, does anyone happen to have a loose DB meter lying around to loan me? *cheesy grin* I'd gladly pay forward and return postage, natuurlik. :) | Greg S (201) | ||
| 83248 | 2002-09-27 00:43:00 | Grrrr . . . it really worries me when ppl "transcode" mp3s . . . that is by "tweaking" to a higher level as Bob has put it . . . The problem is, that you are tweaking a lossy compressed format which has a lot less info than a wav file . Put simply, you CAN'T make something better quality when it wasn't to begin with . It might SEEM that way, but no amount of tweaking will replace missing data, which is what mp3 is essentially . Your best bet would be to download an mp3 at 192kbps, rather than get a 128kbps (suitable for like 5 years ago) . I personally would not even bother putting a 128kbps encoded mp3 onto CD . The time spent downloading a 128kbps vs a 192kbps is minimal at best given the multi-source downloading used nowadays by progs such as WinMX, Kazaa Lite, etc . Whew, that aside, you should also understand that not all encoders are created equal . The more popular codecs used in encoding wav to mp3 that I am aware of are; "Fraunhofer (original inventors of mp3), LAME, and Xing . " Different rippers use different codecs . . . for example, Audiocatalyst uses Xing, Musicmatch uses Fraunhofer, and CDex uses LAME as a default . Xing might be a fast encoder, but it destroys any levels above 16khz which in layman's terms, munches the treble . Fraunhofer and LAME are 2 codecs which are most popular, with people preferring one or the other . LAME can be used as an external encoder, while Musicmatch has built in the Fraunhofer codec, LAME is generally an exclusive codec which can be used by different "front end" rippers . . . eg . CDex and EAC . That being said, there IS a hack of the Fraunhofer codec which can basically enable you to select the "Fraunhofer (Fhg)" codec similar to how you would select the LAME codec . This is the Radium hack, and searching in google for "Radium + Fraunhofer" will give a huge number of hits back . Ok . . . to "tweak" an mp3, a popular prog to use would be "Cool Edit Pro" available from here (http://www . syntrillium . co . nz) . With this, you are able to run the waveform through a series of filters, removing bass, adding volume, and so on . . . a very powerful tool, and one which I frequently use for the purpose of remixing music (yes, I am a DJ) . . . Another popular prog available is the Soundforge program . I use Acid Pro 3 . 0 for remixing, with Cool Edit Pro to get the levels "just right" . . . When shared on the net, 192kbps is fine for quality in a large club, but basically, the higher the better . . . :D What I am saying is not gospel, but based on an extensive knowledge derived from using the mp3 format for over 7 years . I've read up on competing formats such as ogg, wma, etc, but in terms of sheer market penetration and "shareability" nothing will touch mp3 for a while yet . My suggestion would be to read articles such as this one ( . digit-life . com/articles/mp3pro/" target="_blank">www . digit-life . com) to understand mp3pro, and this one ( . modatic . net/audio/stereo_vs_jointstereo . php" target="_blank">www . modatic . net) to understand the differences between codecs, and joint stereo vs stereo modes of encoding . Finally the r3mix (http://www . r3mix . net/) website should be one any serious mp3 user should visit and read . . . they DO have a very strong LAME bias, but hey . . . it's a case of a Honda vs Toyota . . . ie . much of a muchness . . . Whew . . . ok then! Those are my thoughts on mp3 . . . hope it has helped and sorry to have blabbed on for so long . . . I didn't want to get caught up in the discussion, until the suggestion of "tweaking" mp3s cropped up . . . :) Let us know how you get on . Lo . |
Lohsing (219) | ||
| 83249 | 2002-09-27 00:43:00 | sorry greg i didn't see your post there . to tell the difference between ogg and mp3 is easy . ogg music file ends with . ogg and 'mp3' ends with . mp3 :) . vorbis . com/faq . psp" target="_blank">www . vorbis . com you may want to look at compare mp3 ( . arstechnica . com/******desk/1q00/mp3/mp3-2 . html" target="_blank">www . arstechnica . com) with lossy compression its more to do with how the human ear hears the music rather than the technical side of it . i would suggest get a audiophile to listen to a song that has been ripped to different formats and compare them . |
tweak'e (174) | ||
| 83250 | 2002-09-27 00:46:00 | Ooops! The syntrillium website is here (http://www.syntrillium.com) not the .co.nz one!! | Lohsing (219) | ||
| 83251 | 2002-09-27 00:50:00 | Awesome - it's always a pleasure to hear from a pro in the field. And thanx for the excellent links. | Greg S (201) | ||
| 83252 | 2002-09-27 02:35:00 | Has nobody heard of Mp3Pro????? It does 96 at the same quality at 160. MP3s recorded in the pro format can be played back in a normal MP3 player with a loss of quality, however there's a plugin for Winamp and Nero available (I think Nero comes with a MP3Pro demo) |
SoniKalien (792) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 | |||||