mp3: Different codecs/params -> 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=31814
Printed Date: November 25 2024 at 05:42
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: mp3: Different codecs/params -> Quality
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Subject: mp3: Different codecs/params -> Quality
Date Posted: December 03 2006 at 05:27
|
Most people don't know much about mp3 encodings other than that there are different bitrates (e.g. 128kbps, 192kbps etc). Every now and then I read comments about how bad mp3s sound in comparison to the CD ... but it highly depends on many things:
I'll show you how I rip CDs: http://sourceforge.net/projects/cdexos/ - http://sourceforge.net/projects/cdexos/ First of all - in settings -> CD Drive choose "Ripping Method = Paranoia, Full". This will ensure that the audio data will be extracted correctly even if the CD is badly scratched ... if the CD should be beyond repair, it will be shown during the extraction process. In settings -> Encoder, choose the Lame encoder (default) and these settings:
 ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to: 
|
Replies:
Posted By: N Ellingworth
Date Posted: December 03 2006 at 07:18
| Thanks for that, I'll give it a go when I add a couple more albums to my mp3 player. |
Posted By: Tuzvihar
Date Posted: December 03 2006 at 12:31
|
I use Exact Audio Copy + LAME. ------------- "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 |
Posted By: Vompatti
Date Posted: December 03 2006 at 12:41
I use Windows Media Player. 
|
Posted By: andu
Date Posted: December 03 2006 at 12:55
i'm the MASTER...  i rip audio cds to .wav files with EAC (Exact Audio Copy), which, because of it's corrector, makes perfect copies of the audio information (beating the hell out of any other audio ripper). then i encode the tracks to loseless formats (my favourite is .flac) and backup them on dvds which are kept safe, and for my portable mp3player i make an .mp3 version of the album; usually at variable bitrate or at 190kbps. these proceedings keep my original audio cd out of danger because of little usage but i am also covered with the loseless backup for "just in case". ------------- "PA's own GI Joe!" 
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: December 03 2006 at 13:36
Yes, but which params ... VBR, constant bitrate, 128kbps, 192kbps? ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Tuzvihar wrote:Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: December 03 2006 at 13:38
In fact most rippers make exact copies ... Windows Media Player, CDex, and many others. You just have to adjust the settings. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: December 03 2006 at 13:43
Thanks for that Mike, any other audio/copying/ripping-related tips?
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: December 03 2006 at 13:59
|
Can't think of any right now ... the best tip is to use a sane ripper program, either EAC or CDex. At least if you want to rip to mp3 it's really good to have access to the mp3 encoding parameters - they have a really big influence on the sound of the mp3s. The two most important things to check are: 1. Does the ripper software really make exact digital copies of the CD? Ripping CDs to mp3 is always done in two steps: First extract the audio information from the CD "as is", then convert it into mp3. Some old computers still use analog extraction, which severely damages the quality of the audio files. Others use digital extraction, but no error detection/correction, and you might end up with clicks/pops in the files without being informed by the software, or it tries to interpolate the missing information which also degrades the quality. 2. Use proper settings for the mp3 encoder. Most of you (including me) prefer audio quality over file size reduction, and if you use rippers which don't give you access to all the settings you might want to choose 192kbps, it's a good compromise. But variable bitrate really sounds much, much better for certain files. Variable bitrate means that the encoder analyzes the signal and determines the complexity, and then chooses the appropriate bitrate for the different parts of the track (it may in fact choose different bandwidths for each mp3 frame - that's a fraction of a second). I use bitrates from 64kpbs to 320kpbs, and this is really the best of both worlds ... tracks which don't contain much info (e.g. only limited frequency range, a lot of silence) result in small files, tracks with very complex info (many instruments at once, much drums/percussion/cymbals/distorted guitars (square waveforms) result in quite big files but in turn sound much better than 192kbps fixed bitrate files. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: N Ellingworth
Date Posted: December 04 2006 at 03:36
|
Well I've now had an opportunity to try out the method posted and the resulting mp3s definitely sound better than the ones I had ripped from CDs previously. Thanks again Mike 
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: December 04 2006 at 05:16
|
^ I'm glad you like it. Of course the files are also much bigger ... but the storage capacity of the mp3 players is always increasing, so it shouldn't be much of a problem.
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: N Ellingworth
Date Posted: December 04 2006 at 05:25
| Actually the files were slightly smaller than I was expecting, my mp3 player can only hold 1Gb but that is more than enough space for 10 albums ripped in that way. |
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: December 04 2006 at 10:09
| I will try it after...how do the file sizes compare to say ripping to Windows Lossless? I got two files 450mb each when I ripped the 2 CD "Stars Die" (PT) the other day... |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: December 04 2006 at 10:14
|
The file size using my method varies ... it's between 200kbps and 280kbps usually. Lossless formats consume much more space ... typically around 800kbps. So while sounding really nice the mp3s are still about 3 times smaller than the lossless files. Of course if your ultimate goal is to archive your collection once and for all, then you need the lossless format. But if you just want to get really good quality on a portable player (which doesn't support lossless and/or hasn't got enough storage capacity) then the mp3s are preferable. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: SolariS
Date Posted: December 04 2006 at 23:03
|
I won't listen to files that are less than 160kbps. You can really hear the difference all the way up to 192. After that, you have to have pretty high quality stereo equipment to hear differences. -------------  
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: December 05 2006 at 03:03
|
^ that's true for most tracks, but there are exceptions. Some files are more difficult to compress than others ... I just checked my winamp (you can sort the media library by bitrate) and I found these albums at the top: - Into Eternity - The Scattering of Ashes - Anata - Under a Stone with no Inscription - Strapping Young Lad - The New Black They average around 280kbps, and there is a striking difference compared to 192kbps even if you listen on lo-fi equipment (computer speakers). ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Neil
Date Posted: December 05 2006 at 06:16
|
I just standardise on 256KBps for MP3. There's plenty of room on my Walkman (20GB) ------------- When people get lost in thought it's often because it's unfamiliar territory. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: December 05 2006 at 07:00
|
^ of course that's pretty good too ... I'd still say that VBR 288kbps can make an audible difference. an average of 288kbps means that most of the "active parts" of the tracks were encoded with 320kbps. But I admit that you'll only hear the difference on good equipment, and definitely not on a standard portable player with out-of-the-box headphones. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: andu
Date Posted: December 05 2006 at 07:17
yeah, they all say that...  anyway, i only use mp3 because of the mp3players... i wish there were OGGplayers or MusepackPlayers, but popularity brings the real bussiness so... ------------- "PA's own GI Joe!"
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: December 05 2006 at 07:55
What I meant was that these rippers are all able to extract bit-exact copies of the audio on the disk. Of course in the next step they convert it - and depending on the codec you choose, it's either lossless or lossy. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: andu
Date Posted: December 05 2006 at 07:58
i know this, but without an error correction many cds (sometimes even new ones) can not provide exact copies. you only get exact copies, reading errors included. ------------- "PA's own GI Joe!"
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: December 05 2006 at 08:07
|
^ even the most basic computer CD-ROM drive has error correction/detection. You just need software which utilizes it for audio extraction (see the first post for an example).
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: andu
Date Posted: December 05 2006 at 08:12
then why is there such a difference in practice between EAC and any other cdripper mentioned here, like CdEx or Easy...? (of course, i make the comparison having them properly set). ------------- "PA's own GI Joe!"
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: December 05 2006 at 08:25
|
^ there is none (for CDs that aren't really badly scratched). I assume you're comparing the WAV files?
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: andu
Date Posted: December 05 2006 at 08:27
|
i was talking about the read errors that rippers other than EAC can't handle... and believe me i've seen many.
------------- "PA's own GI Joe!"
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: December 05 2006 at 08:58
|
^ I know what you mean. Those issues are only important for badly scratched CDs - and I agree that EAC has a reputation for being able to correct them much better than CDex, although it also heavily depends on the CD drive. But we're talking about a level of physical damage which normally doesn't occur on your CDs ... have a look at this example: http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=EAC_Vs_CDex_SecureMode - http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=EAC_Vs_CDex_SecureMode I must say that I don't follow the conclusion that he makes - I can't see much difference between the CDex results and the EAC results. It is possible however that for these badly scratched CDs the error correction mechanisms fail, which means that CDex says "no errors" but in fact there were some. The test was conducted more than a year ago though, and it's quite possible that the bug has been fixed already. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: andu
Date Posted: December 05 2006 at 09:35
|
well, i must admit that at times the fact that usual cdrippers are less accurate can be useful. it's like this: there's a scratched cd that i want to rip; EAC will stubbornly try to correct the error and will arrive to no conclusion and in an end i will stop the process. with another cdripper, it will end successfully with 1-2 seconds gaps at the error spots. so, if i really want to have that cd ripped to my computer, the ripper choice is obvious... later edit - i think the test from the link you provided says quite the same thing. ------------- "PA's own GI Joe!"
|
Posted By: SolariS
Date Posted: January 08 2007 at 00:31
I agree, EAC is the way to go. I started using this setup: EAC v0.9 beta4 Plextor PX-760A LAME 3.97 FINAL V0 VBR new encoding I like EAC because it gives outputs like this for each track: Track 3 Filename F:\EAC Music\Amon Düül II - 03 Jail-House-Frog.wav Peak level 98.8 % Track quality 100.0 % Copy CRC 5F33C1C4 Copy OK If the program finds errors, it outputs something like this: Track 4 Filename F:\EAC Music\In Flames - 04 Graveland.wav Suspicious position 0:01:52 Suspicious position 0:01:54 Suspicious position 0:02:00 Suspicious position 0:02:21 - 0:02:22 Peak level 97.9 % Track quality 94.9 % Copy CRC 7232B399 Copy finished I've gone back and listened specifically at those spots and I can't hear any pops or crackles. Also it has error correction, so if it finds a scratch, it re-scans an area multiple times and takes some kind of statisitcs to determine what the bit is. The downside of EAC is that it takes it's sweet time sometimes to get everything just perfect; however I will say that I have never had a bad rip. Everything is completely transparent and I cannot notice a difference between the cd and a V0 mp3. I also think that it's the only ripper that uses the secure mode so that you can be confident that the data being ripped is exactly what's on your cd. All said, it might be a little overkill, but it does a hell of a job. For anyone reading this, it's also a free program. :D -------------
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: January 08 2007 at 02:44
|
^ there is no such thing as a mysterious "secure mode" ... EAC is only using very sophisticated algorithms to detect problems during extraction. As I was saying above - if your CDs are in good condition then none of the other extraction programs will introduce errors. If there are some scratches errors might occur when using some programs ... but not with CDex or Windows Media Player with error correction. EAC comes into play when the CD is in really bad shape ... it might take several hours to rip the CD, but it might work when other rippers fail. Conclusion (for me): I use CDex, which works for all my CDs without any pops or "crackles". It's also faster than EAC and easier to use, which can also be an important criteria. BTW: Which encoding options do you use (mp3)? ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: SolariS
Date Posted: January 08 2007 at 09:11
|
Well, they claim there's a secure mode. Whether or not there acutally is, I don't know. I do know that EAC is not a single pass extracter. EAC has clear advantages over audio extraction programs that only make a single pass on scratched surfaces. I agree, it's probably overkill, but at some point making mp3's ceases to be about getting noticeably better sound. I still use v0 vbr when I record even after numerous audiophiles have independently concluded that a difference cannot be heard with the human ear between v2 and v0....and I honestly don't know why I do it. I think it's just important to record with a program and compress to a quality that you feel confident with. That's just my 2 cents. But I will agree. VBR is the best quality for the bitrate and anything below 160kbps is kinda iffy. -------------
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: January 08 2007 at 09:15
|
^ so what do you mean by "v0 VBR"? I suppose that "v0" stands for the VBR quality ... it is displayed as "q=2, q=0 etc." in CDex. But for VBR you also need to specify: Min/Max bitrate (I use 64kbps up to 320kbps) Joint stereo (great feature - saves disk space and provides a little more bandwidth in extreme situations) ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: SolariS
Date Posted: January 08 2007 at 23:29
yeah. v0 is essentially the same thing as q=0. i think that corresponds to a min of 128 and a max of 320, but i'm not entirely sure. i've never seen it go below 128 on q=0. i'm kind of being overkill in my encoding since i plan to buy a 320GB hard drive just for backing up my cds. i've never used cdex. is it a multipass extracter? -------------
|
Posted By: SolariS
Date Posted: January 08 2007 at 23:58
|
Here's an interesting article on the "secure mode" for ripping. From what I gather, they conclude that EAC and CDex do a comparable job on ripping a badly scratched cd. The only difference is that when you rip in secure mode, the program will tell you about it. http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=EAC_Vs_CDex_SecureMode - http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=EAC_Vs_CDex_SecureMode like when I posted this result above: Track 4 Filename F:\EAC Music\In Flames - 04 Graveland.wav Suspicious position 0:01:52 Suspicious position 0:01:54 Suspicious position 0:02:00 Suspicious position 0:02:21 - 0:02:22 Peak level 97.9 % Track quality 94.9 % Copy CRC 7232B399 Copy finished I'd still like to see results for cds that are scratched, but not quite so badly. Either way, I don't think it matters that much. I think it's just important to use an extracter that you're confident in. Unless you take poor care of your cds, your mp3's are going to sound great as long as you use an acceptable bitrate. -------------
|
Posted By: Neil
Date Posted: January 09 2007 at 03:35
|
Another good tip is using software like Adobe Audition to stitch back together two part tracks that get split by the ripping process because they have different track numbers on the CD. Then convert to mp3. ------------- When people get lost in thought it's often because it's unfamiliar territory. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: January 09 2007 at 05:42
I chose 64kbps because quite a few tracks contain silence ... and silence sounds the same in 64kbps or 128kbps, no matter which quality you set. But with a 320GB hard drive you hardly need to worry about that ... 
Yes, I think so. It has jitter detection and tries to re-read parts that don't match with the previous data (they call it "paranoia mode") - however, there are reports that EAC works better with badly scratched CDs. But I doubt that for the CDs of my collection the ripped files differ from those that EAC would create. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: January 09 2007 at 05:53
I don't agree with the conclusion he makes. This CD is so badly damaged that neither program could extract the exact data ... and if you look at the charts you don't see a big difference.
Agreed. I don't think that for CDs in good condition the results of EAC and CDex would differ ... maybe I'll conduct my own "experiment" to prove it. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: January 09 2007 at 07:06
|
Mike, thinking about the min bitrate of 64kbs, if one was to recode the file back to audio CD, how would this affect quality compared to say having the min bitrate set to 192 kbs?
I know that recoding back to CD is not the issue here,but I am just curious as to how applying the 64kbs minimum works. Also this stereo/joint stereo thing, can you explain the description from the CDeX help file, please? Stereo: In this mode, the encoder makes no use of potential similarity between the two input channels. It can, however, negotiate the bit demand between both channels, i.e. give one channel more bits if the other contains silence. Joint stereo: In this mode, the encoder will make use of a correlation between both channels. The signal will be matrixed into a sum ("mid") and difference ("side") signal. For quasi-mono signals, this will give a significant gain in encoding quality. This mode does not destroy phase information like IS stereo that may be used by other encoders. This setting can be used to encode DOLBY ProLogic surround signals. Thanks. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: January 09 2007 at 07:37
|
VBR in a range from 64kbps to 320kbps means that during encoding for each frame (small part, like a fraction of a second) of the signal the encoder analyzes the audio and chooses an appropriate bitrate. If the frame only contains silence the encoder can choose the minimum bitrate and thus save a lot of space, if the frame contains a very complex signal the encoder can choose the maximum bitrate. When encoding with VBR you can usually specify a "quality factor" - high quality means that the encoder will tend to choose high bitrates, low quality means it will tend to choose lower bitrates. Joint Stereo: For stereo signals the encoder usually processes both channels (left/right) separately. If they both contain the same audio (called "quasi-mono") or at least parts of the signals are identical, a lot of space can be saved when the encoder encodes the identical parts in a separate stream and the differences (3 streams). To each stream (L/R or (Joint/L-Diff/R-Diff) the VBR algorithm is applied separately (so they may all be in different bitrates), and in some cases files encoded with VBR(64-320)+Joint Stereo can even sound better than files encoded in 320kbps+No-Joint-Stereo. That's because with VBR+Joint Stereo the encoder has more flexibility. in 320kbps CBR each channel is encoded in 160kbps, and if for example the left channel contains a more complex signal than the right, with VBR some bandwidth of the right channel can be used for the left channel. You asked if choosing a low minimum bitrate affects the quality ... I would say not, at least not with the high quality setting. The encoder will only choose these low bitrates for audio that doesn't contain much data. The files that I create with 64-320,q=0,Joint-Stereo usually have an average bitrate of ~200kbps, which is not only a bit higher than 192kbps, but it also means that since usually the tracks contain many short phases of silence which are encoded with low bitrates, there are some complex parts in the file which must have been encoded with bitrates much higher than than the average ... and thus the files might even sound much better (and to my ears they do sound great). ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: January 09 2007 at 07:40
|
Yes, they do sound great, I have to admit that.
Thanks for the reply Mike. |
Posted By: toolis
Date Posted: January 11 2007 at 03:16
|
i followed your instructions as you recommended but kept bitrate at 128KBPS due to limited space and now it takes more time to rip a CD and to be honest i don't quite "hear" any difference... maybe it's my PC, i don't know.... ------------- -music is like pornography... sometimes amateurs turn us on, even more... -sometimes you are the pigeon and sometimes you are the statue... |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: January 11 2007 at 03:21
^ how can you expect a better sound when you limit the bitrate to 128kbps? You're not using VBR at all, are you? If you set a range between 64kbps and 128kbps the sound will of course be inferior to 128kbps CBR. Try setting a range between 64kbps and 160kbps with medium quality settings ... the resulting files should average at 128kbps and sound a bit better than standard 128kbps. The better alternative would of course be to invest a few euros and get a bigger hard drive! ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: toolis
Date Posted: January 12 2007 at 02:58
|
^ok, now, i set the bit rate range as you suggested along with the first settings of yours and turns out that it's not that big a space difference only that it takes three times more to rip 'em...
anyway, what sound differences am i supposed to listen to? ------------- -music is like pornography... sometimes amateurs turn us on, even more... -sometimes you are the pigeon and sometimes you are the statue... |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: January 12 2007 at 03:01
|
^ what bitrate are you comparing? You should hear a difference for 128kbps CBR vs. 64kbps-320kbps VBR q=0, and the files should be approx. 50% larger.
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: toolis
Date Posted: January 12 2007 at 03:13
|
^min:64 max:160.. tracks appear to have a bit rate of 160 kbps after ripping and there are only a few Kb bigger... all the other settings are just like you mentioned in your very first post of this thread...
i compared the same track with the default and the new settings and... sorry, i don't hear it... maybe it's my PC.. dunno.. ------------- -music is like pornography... sometimes amateurs turn us on, even more... -sometimes you are the pigeon and sometimes you are the statue... |
Posted By: rileydog22
Date Posted: January 25 2007 at 22:31
|
Despite having very nice headphones (Etymotic Isolater 6i), 128 kb/s fixed rate sounds fine to me, and I hear no improvement when I use a higher bitrate. It's actually a blessing; audiophiles are constantly eating harddrive space and blowing money on upgrades, while I'm happy with 128 kb/s mp3's and pretty shoddy audio equipment. -------------   |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: January 26 2007 at 03:23
Of course 160kbps is only 32kbps more than 128kbps, the difference will be very small. And you need the right kind of track - use something which is difficult to encode, like Post Rock, Extreme Metal, Stoner Rock - with either lots of distorted guitars, loud noise or much cymbals/high pitch sounds. BTW: Windows does *not* show the average bitrate for VBR files ... you need a sane player (like winamp, for example) to see it. The average bitrate gives a good indication of the complexity of the music. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: ebag7125
Date Posted: January 26 2007 at 20:26
| i use iTunes at 160kbps Do you guys think thats ok? |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: January 27 2007 at 04:33
|
^ Sure. Anything that works for you is ok ... I'm just saying that it might sound better with VBR, I'm not saying that it's required in order to enjoy the music. 128kbps is too low though - I could name tons of tracks which cannot be encoded in 128kbps without obvious degradation of audio quality. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Angelo
Date Posted: January 27 2007 at 05:37
|
Mike, have you also tried Ogg, at say level Q6?
------------- http://www.iskcrocks.com" rel="nofollow - ISKC Rock Radio I stopped blogging and reviewing - so won't be handling requests. Promo's for ariplay can be sent to [email protected] |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: January 27 2007 at 06:56
|
I know OGG, and it's quite good ... it's certainly more advanced than mp3. But my portable player does not support it, so I stick to mp3.
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Angelo
Date Posted: January 27 2007 at 06:59
|
I see. I switched a couple of weeks ago, when I found out that my Samsung YP-1 does support the format. Q6 is just great!
------------- http://www.iskcrocks.com" rel="nofollow - ISKC Rock Radio I stopped blogging and reviewing - so won't be handling requests. Promo's for ariplay can be sent to [email protected] |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: January 27 2007 at 07:01
|
How big are the files at Q6?
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Angelo
Date Posted: January 27 2007 at 07:22
|
Depending on the complexity of the song, my files are almost always slightly smaller than MP3 128-192VBR.
------------- http://www.iskcrocks.com" rel="nofollow - ISKC Rock Radio I stopped blogging and reviewing - so won't be handling requests. Promo's for ariplay can be sent to [email protected] |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: January 27 2007 at 07:24
|
Just tell me some file sizes of popular tracks (some Ayreon or Porcupine Tree for example, I see them in your sig) ... then we can compare.
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Angelo
Date Posted: January 27 2007 at 07:33
|
I have to re-rip, my Ayreon files predate the move to Ogg. Will get back to you in about half an hour. ------------- http://www.iskcrocks.com" rel="nofollow - ISKC Rock Radio I stopped blogging and reviewing - so won't be handling requests. Promo's for ariplay can be sent to [email protected] |
Posted By: Angelo
Date Posted: January 27 2007 at 08:23
|
MP3-1 WinAmp MP3 Encoder (v1.32, licensed from Fraunhofer) VBR J-Stereo VBR min 128 VBR max 192 VBR Q 0 (high) Ogg-1 Winamp Ogg Vorbis Encoder (Archer B10) Quality 6.01 (approx 192 kbps) MP3-1 WinAmp MP3 Encoder (v1.32, licensed from Fraunhofer) VBR J-Stereo VBR min 160 VBR max 192 VBR Q 0 (high) Ogg-1 Winamp Ogg Vorbis Encoder (Archer B10) Quality 5.60 (approx 192 kbps) Subject: Ayreon - Into the Electric Castle CD1 Title | MP3-1 size | Ogg-1 size | MP3-2 size | Ogg-2 size --------------------------------------+---------------+-------------+------------+------------- Welcome to the New Dimension | 4,202,496 | 4,535,356 | 4,202,496 | 4,117,478 Isis and Osiris | 15,204,352 | 18,220,643 | 15,222,784 | 16,662,587 Amazing Flight | 14,196,736 | 16,284,541 | 14,200,832 | 14,876,558 Time Beyond Time | 8,359,936 | 9,974,550 | 9,974,550 | 9,120,317 The Decision Tree (We're Alive) | 8,896,512 | 9,947,402 | 9,947,402 | 9,040,160 Tunnel of Light | 5,451,776 | 7,032,398 | 7,032,495 | 6,464,889 Across the Rainbow Bridge | 8,728,576 | 9,317,635 | 9,317,706 | 8,485,498 Explanation: I created two sets of files for both formats, with slightly different settings. Reason is that after creating the first two sets, I was surprised to see that the Ogg files were bigger. First I thought the reason was the minimum bit-rate setting (128 vs. 160), but that didn't fix the issue. Then I recalled having created Oggs with oggdropXP in the past (don't recall this version). A quick check learned that my presumed Q6 files were encoded at 180kbps avg, while the Ogg-1 series above is encoded at 192kpbs avg. Apparently the definitions of what Q6 means vary between apps. So my size remark relates to MP3-1 compared to Ogg-2, and as you can see the two larger and more varying pieces seem to be significantly larger in Ogg. What's interesting to note is that the bitrate display in WinAmp shows values ranging from approx 140 up to 250 in the first 2 minutes of Isis and Osiris. Interesting topic, any interest in performing more experiments? ------------- http://www.iskcrocks.com" rel="nofollow - ISKC Rock Radio I stopped blogging and reviewing - so won't be handling requests. Promo's for ariplay can be sent to [email protected] |
Posted By: Angelo
Date Posted: January 27 2007 at 08:27
|
Hmmm. This gets more interesting by the minute - almost all Oggs are bigger than I thought???? Oh well, size doesn't matter that much, the sound is great and that's what I was after. ------------- http://www.iskcrocks.com" rel="nofollow - ISKC Rock Radio I stopped blogging and reviewing - so won't be handling requests. Promo's for ariplay can be sent to [email protected] |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: January 27 2007 at 15:28
|
I'm curious ... why are you limiting the VBR range that much? I use 64-320 (Q 0) ... and since I had to re-rip the album, I expanded it to 32-320: Title | Lame VBR-MTRH 32-320 j-stereo Q 0 --------------------------------------+---------------+-------------+------------+------------- Welcome to the New Dimension | 5,654 KB Isis and Osiris | 22,108 KB Amazing Flight | 19,482 KB Time Beyond Time | 11,866 KB The Decision Tree (We're Alive) | 11,462 KB Tunnel of Light | 7,834 KB Across the Rainbow Bridge | 12,180 KB ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Angelo
Date Posted: January 27 2007 at 15:51
|
Good point. I might as well do that. Once I started with MP3, and wanted to optimize on speed and quality - so I ended up with 128-192 VBR. I simply stuck with that when I moved to Ogg. The sound was ok for me so I didn't bother. Thanks for waking me up... BTW: looks like we run into this definition of Q levels again, in WinAmp the best quality for Ogg is Q 10, not Q 0. ------------- http://www.iskcrocks.com" rel="nofollow - ISKC Rock Radio I stopped blogging and reviewing - so won't be handling requests. Promo's for ariplay can be sent to [email protected] |
Posted By: ebag7125
Date Posted: February 02 2007 at 20:43
|
how's AAC compared to mp3?\
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: February 03 2007 at 05:32
|
^ a little bit better. But there is no such thing as one single format of "mp3", it highly depends on the parameters. I'd say that with the best configuration mp3 is almost as good as AAC (comparing files with equal size).
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: SolariS
Date Posted: February 03 2007 at 18:18
When hard drives go for 30 cents a gig these days, I dont see the reason not to bump up the bitrate a little...especially when there is clearly audible differences between 128 kbps and 160 kbps. Furthermore, if you use vbr instead of cbr, then at vbr with max bitrate at 192 kbps, you can have a compression that sounds a lot better and doesn't even take up much more room. I use "shoddy equipment" as well (75$ computer speakers), but I can still notice a significant difference between a 128 kbps file and a vbr max bitrate 192 file. I dunno, maybe I'm just stingy about these things. -------------
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: February 04 2007 at 04:09
|
^ Simply use the full bandwidth that mp3 VBR allows: 32kbps - 320kbps. Then you can use the quality setting to adjust the size of the files ... and with the cheap harddrives at least for me it makes no sense to use any other setting than "maximum".
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|