|
||||||||
Shocking mp3 quality - but.... |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: S.West England.
Posts: 18,037
|
Shocking mp3 quality - but....
2 things I have found with mp3 music. The first is that the quality is a joke. I am building a music database on my computer of all my CD's in mp3 on the computer. The quality of the mp3 audio is much lower than putting the original cd in the hifi. I played some cd's on the hifi yesteraday (headphones), and today put them on the computer as mp3's and played them back using headphones. The music easily distorts in mp3, but I could turn the hifi right up loud without distortion. No only that, I find that some of the detailing is lost in mp3. On the same track, I can hear things on the hifi that are simply missing or simply too faint to hear in mp3. I think 128kbps mp3 could be lower quality than 128kbps on DAB radio.
But on the other hand, its very convenient having the cd collection on a computer's hard disc. I will soon be able to transfer the best bits to an mp3 portable device, which will be much more convenient than carrying around a portable cd player and a load of original discs. If you buy the music "online", then the original track will also be limited to mp3 format, whereas duplicating a cd allows you to choose the higher quality original or the lower quality duplication. Dave |
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Banned User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Near Birmingham
Posts: 3,470
|
Use a standard like MP4/AAC then at 192kbps
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Scotland
Posts: 10,720
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by David (2)
I think 128kbps mp3 could be lower quality than 128kbps on DAB radio.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Durham
Posts: 1,636
|
Well, thats just the way that it is with compressed music files. What did you expect from them?
Making them smaller means that you have to lose part of it somewhere. If you find quality an issue (ie 'a joke') then raise the bitrate that you rip at. Bigger in size but better in quality. Its a trade-off you have to make. Decide what you think is good enough quality wise and stick with it. |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: South London
Posts: 21
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by David (2)
today put them on the computer as mp3's and played them back using headphones. The music easily distorts in mp3, but I could turn the hifi right up loud without distortion. No only that, I find that some of the detailing is lost in mp3. On the same track, I can hear things on the hifi that are simply missing or simply too faint to hear in mp3. I think 128kbps mp3 could be lower quality than 128kbps on DAB radio.
Dave I tend to encode at fairly high-quality VBR (average rates around 175k) and have never noticed distortion with volume. If I play back MP3s through my Darla soundcard or off CD-R on my Sony DVD player, the quality is perfectly acceptable. It's very unlikely that 128k MP3 is worse than 128k MP2 (DAB). |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Between the gutter and stars
Posts: 6,825
|
I always encode at 256 - 320kbps VBR. The quality is good, but not indistinguishable from the CD. I've always found that 192kbps sounds a bit iffy - so only use that if you've got not much space and are willing to compromise a bit on sound quality.
Also, tweak the settings of the encoder. And make sure you choose a good one as well, like LAME or the FHG one. Also, you say you are listening through headphones. Are these good quality headphones, or are they the jobbies that came with your personal music device? |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: S.West England.
Posts: 18,037
|
I used the "headphone" socket on the front of the computer - no mini speakers attached.
I know you can use other formats such as mp4 or AAC, but not all "mp3 players" support them. And as I have not yet bought the portable player, I want to keep my options open. The software will go up in quality from 128kbps, but the file size gets larger. I think I have so far only duplicated 40% of my cd's, and have already got 3.1Gb of mp3's. Dave |
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acne Information, Acne Vulgari
Posts: 2,809
|
That's your trade off. If you choose poor quality for low file size, then that's your choice.
If 40% of your tracks take 3.1Gb then 100% would only be 8Gb or so, so you could double the bitrate and still comfortably fit in a 20Gb player. Also, smart playlists can enable you to take a dynamic subset of your collection with you if you have a smaller player, which I find works fine. My iPod contains all my top rated songs, all songs I've added in the last 6 months and then fills up with un recently played songs from the rest. |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: London
Posts: 459
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peej Kerton
Use a standard like MP4/AAC then at 192kbps
Currently have 18gb of music, 3687 songs, over 10days worth, all from original CDs! |
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Greater London, UK
Posts: 1,362
|
My Dad's fussy about MP3 quality so when burning or copying he always turns the bitrate up to 320kbps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: London
Posts: 12,332
|
128kbps=Good Quality
and anything higher is very good quality. I'd suggest you'd use switch to convert audio files: http://www.nch.com.au/switch/ |
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,473
|
I use dBpowerAMP - pretty good results with 128kbps CBR mp3, but stunning sound from 192kbps Mp3 CBR!
Its also pretty good with Windows Media Audio at 128kbps CBR... |
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 8,249
|
if you wanna keep it at 128kbps, then the best choices are either MP4/AAC via Quictime (since that has the best MP4 Encoder), or WMA9 2-pass VBR.
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Right Here...or maybe over there
Posts: 815
|
Large hard drives are so cheap now I would encode my music using a lossless compression nowadays. Have a look at either Apple's AAC Lossless or MS's WMA Lossless - both of which are far better than these rates everyone is talking about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 8,249
|
obviously, but they have a bitrate aound 900kbps, heck for a few MB's more u may aswell just copy the full WAV!
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: S.West England.
Posts: 18,037
|
Most likely will get a 512Mb or 1Gb flash based player, so the file size would be an issue.
Dave |
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: London
Posts: 717
|
I find encoding at 256 VBR gives a great sound!
I play the files on my Iaudio M3 player, which has a feature called BBE, which apparently enhances the quality even more by oversampling or something like that... I use iTunes to rip (make sure you set it to MP3 not the standard Apple format (ATRAC or AAC, not sure)). I also use Audiograbber, which seems quicker to encode at the same quality than iTunes. If you rip at 256, the sound quality should be good enough! |
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 236
|
Mp3 quality
Quote:
Originally Posted by christocar
I find encoding at 256 VBR gives a great sound!
I play the files on my Iaudio M3 player, which has a feature called BBE, which apparently enhances the quality even more by oversampling or something like that... I use iTunes to rip (make sure you set it to MP3 not the standard Apple format (ATRAC or AAC, not sure)). I also use Audiograbber, which seems quicker to encode at the same quality than iTunes. If you rip at 256, the sound quality should be good enough! I never use anything below 192kps but i found my minidisc in standard play often sounds more detailed. Have you ever considered one? |
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Tonbridge, Kent
Posts: 2,582
|
I work in broadcast audio and you know what? Most of us are happy (domestically) with 192k or some even 160k mp3 (never touch 128 though!). You don't want to edit or manipulate a file like that professionally since the quality then may start to break down, but for playing at home etc it's great. Haven't played enough with WMA but (Evil DRM aside) it sounds bit for bit a better system.
One other proviso - complex music like solo piano and much classical may well suffer even at 192k. Perfect for rock and pop though.... |
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: London
Posts: 459
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noiseboy
I work in broadcast audio and you know what? Most of us are happy (domestically) with 192k or some even 160k mp3 (never touch 128 though!). You don't want to edit or manipulate a file like that professionally since the quality then may start to break down, but for playing at home etc it's great. Haven't played enough with WMA but (Evil DRM aside) it sounds bit for bit a better system.
One other proviso - complex music like solo piano and much classical may well suffer even at 192k. Perfect for rock and pop though.... |
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: S.West England.
Posts: 18,037
|
Some music tracks sounds better than others. I guess the more complex the music is, the less well it is handled by the file.
I am about 75% way into converting my cd collection now, and its 5.7Gb so far. One thing I have noticed, why do some tracks take longer to import than others. The speed reading can be as high as 20X at times, while most import at about 12-15X, but a few drop to around 8X. Why is this? And, what if in the future I wanted to improve the sound quality - would I need to re-import the original CD? And what about converting file formats - do I need to re-import the CD again? Dave |
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: London
Posts: 717
|
When converting to other formats, or re-ripping, you need to use the original source definetly. You cant take an MP3 you have ripped at a certain quality, and rip it to a higher quality, the sound would suffer.
Always go back to the original source to re-rip, or rip at a high quality (256), then you can always downgrade later. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 16:41.


