mp3 quality
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Other music related lounges
Forum Name: Tech Talk
Forum Description: Discuss musical instruments, equipment, hi-fi, speakers, vinyl, gadgets,etc.
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=23191
Printed Date: November 25 2024 at 17:21
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: mp3 quality
Posted By: Tuzvihar
Subject: mp3 quality
Date Posted: May 11 2006 at 13:47
|
I was wondering how much mp3 compression affects music quality. Is it a big difference between 128 kbps mp3 and, let's say, 256 kbps mp3? I mean: can you distinguish between them just from listening experience? ------------- "Music is much like f**king, but some composers can't climax and others climax too often, leaving themselves and the listener jaded and spent." Charles Bukowski |
Replies:
Posted By: Empathy
Date Posted: May 11 2006 at 14:17
|
I can hear a big difference between 128kbps and 160kbps, primarily in
the high end (cymbals, etc). From 160kbps up, the differences are
_very_ subtle, IMO.
------------- Pure Brilliance: 
|
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: May 11 2006 at 15:31
|
I find at 320 kbps the volume can be a little higher than usual and the sound is definitely less harsh on headphones. But with limited disc space, then 128 or 160 are the best for me.
-------------   
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: May 11 2006 at 17:52
|
There are even huge differences between 128kbps and 128kbps! What I mean is that there are many things that can go wrong while creating the mp3s. So if you happen to be listening to some 128kbps mp3 and it sounds like crap, don't blame the compression ONLY. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to: 
|
Posted By: Tristan Mulders
Date Posted: May 11 2006 at 18:28
|
I most of the time use 192kbps which seems to be 'cd quality' ------------- Interested in my reviews? You can find them http://www.progarchives.com/Collaborators.asp?id=784 - HERE "...He will search until He's found a Way to take the Days..." |
Posted By: goose
Date Posted: May 12 2006 at 05:59
| The general standard for what's transparent for most people with most equipment most of the time is called LAME -V2, which averages out at around 210 kbps usually. Any constant bitrate below that is likely to have audible differences. Constant bitrate in general is a waste of space apart from for most iPod users because a lot of models aren't capable of playing properly encoded VBR MP3s. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: May 12 2006 at 06:03
|
^ my previous player couldn't play anything beyond 192kbps ... I'm glad that my new one has no limitations (up to 320kbps), so I can listen to emusic.com files on it.
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: May 12 2006 at 06:08
| The higher the compression, the worst the sound. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: May 12 2006 at 06:12
|
^ that's true of course. But the quality also greatly depends on how the file was built. Like I said above ... there are some really great sounding 128kbp mp3s, and there also are some crappy sounding 192kbps mp3s.
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: wolf0621
Date Posted: May 26 2006 at 09:47
|
To address the above points, the key to any compressed audio is the encoding & decoding process. This may seem obvious, but too much emphasis is placed on the rates & sheer numbers, because they're easily published & everyone thinks they know what they mean. It's like saying that a 50" tv is better than a 40" set, and that this is always true because 50 is a bigger number than 40...
MP3 was the successor to MP2, with the stated goal that it should produce the same fidelity at 128kbps that MP2 produced at 192kbps (vs uncompressed 16-bit cd audio at approx 1.4mbps). That fact alone demonstrates that compressed audio's sound quality is not just a numbers game...
The encoding process generally relies on psychoacoustic models & perceptual coding, which determines which parts of the source music can be discarded because it's "not significant" to the listener. This can be because adjacent notes audibly mask other notes & so they're dropped (called "noise masking"), and this is based on extensive listening tests...
Encoders implement this via algorithms, which are mathematical formulas that attempt to apply the bit reduction specified by these coding models. The biggest player is Fraunhofer, inventors of the original MP3 algorithm, and there are many encoding schemes based on their work. The one I've been using is based on the LAME encoder (by Mike Cheng)...and it's FREE...
Some other factors that affect sound quality: Complexity of the music...The environment you'll be listening in...The quality of your playback gear...Which exact formats your playback gear supports...The quality of your hearing (or what's left of it)...Also depends on what you'll be doing with the compressed audio, just playing it back or further editing/mixing it...Since MP3 is considered to be a "lossy" scheme, if you need a Lossless compression scheme there's: Monkey's Audio, FLAC, TTA & others (I've played with Monkey's & it sounds great to me, but was eating up too much space)...They generally stipulate a compression ratio for 16-bit audio to about 38% of the original size (or about 1/3)...
There's also Constant Bit Rate (CBR) vs Variable Bit Rate (VBR)...By dividing the audio content into frames, many encoders can intelligently reduce/increase the bit rate used while encoding the source material, depending on the dynamics of each frame...The LAME encoder supports up to 640kbps in VBR mode (although I don't think too many MP3 players can play it back)...The net result is usually smaller sound files that still manage to sound good to most listeners...
For all of these reasons & more, it's really only meaningful to specify bit rates in conjunction with the particular associated encoder...
I've personally had great success using the LAME encoder, running at 192kbs using VBR...Can get approx 100-110 tracks onto a single 700MB CD-R disk...
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: May 26 2006 at 10:10
|
^ As I said above, there are even more factors to be considered. Suppose you are using the LAME encoder (that's the default if you're using for example CDex), then you also need to pay attention to this: - Is the CD drive configured properly ... or more precisely: Are you sure that it uses digital extraction? Analog extraction is very unlikely today, but may happen on old computers. Of course if you use analog extraction the result will sound crappy, as the signal is extracted using really cheap D/A converters, transfered through a crappy cable inside the computer and then converted to digital again. - Is the extraction tool configured to use error detection? If not, the extracted audio may not be bit-correct ... there may be dropouts or subtle jitter-related errors. - Is the encoder configured for high quality? With many extraction tools you can't configure this ... so use a proper tool like CDex, which enables you to tweak the LAME encoder settings. If you set it to very high quality, the conversion will take slightly more time. But especially when using VBR you get a much better result, because the encoder will decide more accurately which bitrate to use for the different parts of the track. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: wolf0621
Date Posted: May 26 2006 at 15:48
|
I've had very good results using EAC (Exact Audio Copy). It allows for extensive error correction settings & tweaking, as well as allowing the user to choose their preferred encoder. Also, it features auto speed reduction when encountering errors, normalization across tracks, manual defining of "ranges" that can parse/combine tracks, testing utilities to sense the capabilities of your cd drive & help you configure the app's settings properly, CUE sheets, ability to choose from multiple bit rates, sample offsets, CDDB disk info integration (via lookup), naming of tracks via ID3 tags, and much more...Also pretty good integrated help if you take the time to study it... See here for the scoop & to download (free):
http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/ - http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/
|
Posted By: aapatsos
Date Posted: May 26 2006 at 18:14
agree totally
for me 192 is almost perfect most of the times, at least 160
eventhough 128 could be good also sometimes
|
MikeEnRegalia wrote:Posted By: Sacred 22
Date Posted: June 04 2006 at 04:42
you got that right
 Just say NO to compression, because if you don't one day all music will be in some kind of compressed format and the death of high fidelity will be all over except the crying...........
 |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: June 04 2006 at 05:27
"Say no to compression"? Even your good old Sony walkman uses compression ... I think the key is to always only use the amount of compression that is necessary. My old mobile player could only play mp3s up to 192kbps, and my new one can play anything up to 320kbps. And I'll choose the next one (in 2+ years) so that it can play files in lossless formats. So: Don't say "no", but say "as little compression as necessary".  ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: June 04 2006 at 09:39
|
"Say no to compression"? Even your good old Sony walkman uses compression ..."
We are not talking about the same thing. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: June 04 2006 at 10:38
I was only saying that most consumer audio formats use compression. Even the vinyl record uses compression, as the bandwidth of information is lower than that of the original tapes. Of course that's not the same as mp3, which analyses the audio data and selectively removes information. But the motivation is the same: To reduce the cost of the hardware needed to listen to the music. So while I don't like what compression (especially mp3) is doing to the music, I accept it as a necessary "evil" if i want to carry 30 albums with me on my mobile player - and I'll stop using mp3 as soon as there are players who have 10x the storage capacity and allow me to use lossless compression. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: June 04 2006 at 10:43
|
I have always used 128kpbs and it sounds fine to me. I have known
audiophiles who claim that anything less than 160 hurts their ears, but
it doesn't bother me, plus it saves a load of hard disk space.
------------- 
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: June 04 2006 at 11:11
Some audiophiles even say that CD audio hurts their ears, so go figure.  ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Güdron
Date Posted: June 04 2006 at 11:34
|
Although no audiophile as far as my ears are concerned, normally I find mp3s at lower bitrates watery and lacking substance, and those at bitrates 192kbps and higher - much tighter and more enjoyable. ------------- resistance is futile |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: June 04 2006 at 11:37
|
^ that goes without saying ... but I still can enjoy listening to a 128kbps, ignoring the effects of the compression. If I really like it, I'll of course try to obtain the album and rip it in 256kbps mp3.
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|