| 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 | ||
| 83263 | 2002-09-27 06:40:00 | Hi,- You want to remember that you can't get more out of a recording than is present in it's source. Recording a CD at better than CD quality won't give any improvement. Vince | Vince (406) | ||
| 83264 | 2002-09-27 08:28:00 | Well done Vince. The thing is any lossless codec (WMA, MP3, Real Audio etc) are well lossy so that you aren't and can't record at a higher quality than a CD even if you recorded at 512Kbit's a second. as regards to our discussion. OGG is gonna become more prevalent, basically because it's open source and it is apparantly better. MP3Pro sucks, it was designed to make things sound better at low bandwidths ie 64Kbits, but it does not give much improvement if you were say to record MP3Pro at 160kbit etc |
roofus (483) | ||
| 83265 | 2002-09-27 08:54:00 | Does anyone know when NASA is going to release its 80:1 compression ratio? The 12:1 ratio for mp3 is getting a bit outdated.... ==orac== |
Orac (656) | ||
| 83266 | 2002-09-27 09:00:00 | how many people rip cd's at cd quality? just about noone. remember the so called "128kb/s is cd quality" is a load of @#$%, don't confuse it with the real cd quality. |
tweak'e (174) | ||
| 83267 | 2002-09-27 09:52:00 | Anything that I rip myself. I use a good ripper (EAC or CDex) with them on the setting which takes the longest. I rip into WAVs (full CD quality). Then I encode them into a 128Kbps(variable by default) OGG with OggDropXP. These are fine for me at the moment. But no doubt if given some really nice headphones and a really nice sound card I'd probably end up complaining about them. Comparing the volume (dB) is not an accurate representation as to what is better. When it comes down to it all that matters is that it suits your ears and your equipment. But in saying that it is also very annoying when you get music files off people that can't hear the difference and you end up with <128Kbps mp3s. Also mp3 pro is not good. |
-=JM=- (16) | ||
| 83268 | 2002-09-27 22:28:00 | Hey guys, anyone want to give a lowe down on the differences between the 3 typical settings you can have at a certain bitrate in the lame encoder. ie, fast, quality normal. i don't quiet understand that one |
roofus (483) | ||
| 83269 | 2002-09-27 23:19:00 | Quality (default value Normal): With the LAME encoder, you can specify the output quality; thus you can trade off encoding time against sound quality. The default (normal) is recommended for the lower bitrates (<160 kbps), high quality for bitrates >160 kbps. The voice quality is more or less optimized to generate the best quality for voice. Details of the R3Mix quality option can be found at http://www.r3mix.net. VBR Method Setting The VBR method setting allows you the change the VBR algorithm which is used for the encoding (detailed information can be found in the LAME user documentation - see www.sulaco.org). The following selections are available Disabled: Don't use VBR; instead encodie with a Constant Bit Rate (CBR) VBR-Default: Use the default VBR method (currently set to VBR-MTRH) VBR-Old: LAME's first functional approach, based on masking, bisection in the bit domain. VBR-New: LAME's second approach, based on masking and direct noise allocation. VBR-MTRH: a combination of old and new (VBR) routines VBR-ABR: The Average Bit Rate (ABR) setting, the encoding principle is similar to what AAC uses as VBR encoding, it is based on perceptual entropy, but more like CBR than VBR. When you select the ABR option in the VBR Settings box, the ABR edit box will be enabled. In this edit box you can specify the target average bit rate. Of course, a larger bit rate will yield generally better-sounding (but larger) MP3 files. thats from the cdex help file. ogg is so much simpler ;-) |
tweak'e (174) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 | |||||