Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Computer Support > MP3 Quality

Reply
Thread Tools

MP3 Quality

 
 
Luke O'Malley
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-03-2004
Ignorance is pervasive! I noted some other posters mentioning the
bit rate for MP3's. I thought that 128 was the highest available.
I had made a number of MP3's from MIDI files through a good sound
module. In every case the bass was very, very attenuated (maybe the
treble too, but it is not as obvious to my ear). I would assume the
higher bit rates would solve my bass problem.

Where do I get an encoder, or whatever to do this?

Goodwill,
Luke


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
foolinyu
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-03-2004

"Luke O'Malley" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:knL7d.25860$(E-Mail Removed). net...
> Ignorance is pervasive! I noted some other posters mentioning the
> bit rate for MP3's. I thought that 128 was the highest available.
> I had made a number of MP3's from MIDI files through a good sound
> module. In every case the bass was very, very attenuated (maybe the
> treble too, but it is not as obvious to my ear). I would assume the
> higher bit rates would solve my bass problem.
>
> Where do I get an encoder, or whatever to do this?
>
> Goodwill,
> Luke
>
>


128 is CD quality but not anywhere near the highest rate. I know nothing
about MIDI files but converting to MP3 files do not by itself alter the bass
or treble. Higher bit rates would not solve your problem. The problem looks
like in your set up and not with the MP3 conversion itself.

I use a retail version of Musicmatch but there is a free download version -
pretty cool software and simple to use. I also use Magix Audio Cleaning Lab,
more complicated to use but does a good job correcting bad recordings.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Morgan Pugh
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-04-2004
On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 04:38:40 GMT, Luke O'Malley
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Ignorance is pervasive! I noted some other posters mentioning the
>bit rate for MP3's. I thought that 128 was the highest available.
>I had made a number of MP3's from MIDI files through a good sound
>module. In every case the bass was very, very attenuated (maybe the
>treble too, but it is not as obvious to my ear). I would assume the
>higher bit rates would solve my bass problem.
>
>Where do I get an encoder, or whatever to do this?
>
>Goodwill,
>Luke
>


No version of MP3 is CD quality as MP3 us a lossy codec however it is
possible to get almost transparent sound quality (i.e. it _sounds_ as
good as CD but technically it isn't).

LAME is probably the best MP3 codec, you can get compiled binaries
from www.rarewares.org. The latest (stable) version is 3.96.1 however
the most used is 3.90.3 as it has been widely tested so it is known to
give good results. I suggest you check out www.hydrogenaudio.org for
more information.

The higest bitrate for MP3 (using LAME) is 320kbps however using a
constant bitrate is normally a waste of time as you don't always need
the number of bits per frame so variable bitrate is favoured.

The bass and treble should get better the higher the bitate goes
however I have found you will never achieve as good a bass/treble as
you would with the original audio because of how MP3 works and what
data is doesn't use.
--
Morgan Pugh

Email (ROT13): http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)
Web: http://mpugh.co.uk

PGP Key at http://mpugh.co.uk/pgp.asc
 
Reply With Quote
 
David Matthew Wood
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-04-2004
> 128 is CD quality but not anywhere near the highest rate. I know nothing
> about MIDI files but converting to MP3 files do not by itself alter the bass
> or treble. Higher bit rates would not solve your problem. The problem looks
> like in your set up and not with the MP3 conversion itself.
>
> I use a retail version of Musicmatch but there is a free download version -
> pretty cool software and simple to use. I also use Magix Audio Cleaning Lab,
> more complicated to use but does a good job correcting bad recordings.


By definition, no MP3 is CD quality, and the typical 128kbps MP3 sounds
like s* in my opinion. MP3s use a lossy compression scheme, which means
any information that the encoder "thinks" you won't be able to hear
anyway is thrown out. Of course what is noticeable to some is not
noticeable to others, and many other factors go in the mix as well like
how good your sound system is and what your surroundings are. For
example, if you have crappy 2 inch speakers in a room with everyone
talking, you probably won't notice the compression artifacts that are
inherent with MP3s. But with good ears and a decent sound setup, the
defects can be quite obvious.

As far as the original poster's question goes, encoding to MP3 by
definition certainly does affect bass and treble, as well as everything
in between. And yes, increasing the bitrate (in other words lowering
the amount of compression) will certainly make a difference.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Luke O'Malley
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-04-2004
In article (E-Mail Removed),
Morgan Pugh <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>
>On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 04:38:40 GMT, Luke O'Malley
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>Ignorance is pervasive! I noted some other posters mentioning the
>>bit rate for MP3's. I thought that 128 was the highest available.
>>I had made a number of MP3's from MIDI files through a good sound
>>module. In every case the bass was very, very attenuated (maybe

>the
>>treble too, but it is not as obvious to my ear). I would assume

>the
>>higher bit rates would solve my bass problem.
>>
>>Where do I get an encoder, or whatever to do this?
>>
>>Goodwill,
>>Luke
>>

>
>No version of MP3 is CD quality as MP3 us a lossy codec however it
>is
>possible to get almost transparent sound quality (i.e. it _sounds_
>as
>good as CD but technically it isn't).
>
>LAME is probably the best MP3 codec, you can get compiled binaries
>from www.rarewares.org. The latest (stable) version is 3.96.1
>however
>the most used is 3.90.3 as it has been widely tested so it is known
>to
>give good results. I suggest you check out www.hydrogenaudio.org for
>more information.
>
>The higest bitrate for MP3 (using LAME) is 320kbps however using a
>constant bitrate is normally a waste of time as you don't always
>need
>the number of bits per frame so variable bitrate is favoured.
>
>The bass and treble should get better the higher the bitate goes
>however I have found you will never achieve as good a bass/treble as
>you would with the original audio because of how MP3 works and what
>data is doesn't use.
>--
>Morgan Pugh
>
>Email (ROT13): (E-Mail Removed)
>Web: http://mpugh.co.uk
>
>PGP Key at http://mpugh.co.uk/pgp.asc
>
>


Many thanks Morgan!

You have confirmed my suspicion. I realize MP3 is a reduced
quality. The codec clue came to me from using MS Player; it was
extremely poor. Then I read they had done it on purpose to promote
wma format.


 
Reply With Quote
 
ProfGene
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-05-2004
All good reasons why the Supreme Court decision against Napster was based on
faulty science. It is not much different than taping from records which is
not against the law. All the Supreme court did was ruin legitimate mp3 uses
because they scaredall the websites who made it an "illegal" format to put
on your free sites.
"David Matthew Wood" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > 128 is CD quality but not anywhere near the highest rate. I know nothing
> > about MIDI files but converting to MP3 files do not by itself alter the

bass
> > or treble. Higher bit rates would not solve your problem. The problem

looks
> > like in your set up and not with the MP3 conversion itself.
> >
> > I use a retail version of Musicmatch but there is a free download

version -
> > pretty cool software and simple to use. I also use Magix Audio Cleaning

Lab,
> > more complicated to use but does a good job correcting bad recordings.

>
> By definition, no MP3 is CD quality, and the typical 128kbps MP3 sounds
> like s* in my opinion. MP3s use a lossy compression scheme, which means
> any information that the encoder "thinks" you won't be able to hear
> anyway is thrown out. Of course what is noticeable to some is not
> noticeable to others, and many other factors go in the mix as well like
> how good your sound system is and what your surroundings are. For
> example, if you have crappy 2 inch speakers in a room with everyone
> talking, you probably won't notice the compression artifacts that are
> inherent with MP3s. But with good ears and a decent sound setup, the
> defects can be quite obvious.
>
> As far as the original poster's question goes, encoding to MP3 by
> definition certainly does affect bass and treble, as well as everything
> in between. And yes, increasing the bitrate (in other words lowering
> the amount of compression) will certainly make a difference.



 
Reply With Quote
 
anthonyberet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-10-2004

"Luke O'Malley" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:L7j8d.8106$g%

> Many thanks Morgan!
>
> You have confirmed my suspicion. I realize MP3 is a reduced
> quality. The codec clue came to me from using MS Player; it was
> extremely poor. Then I read they had done it on purpose to promote
> wma format.
>

The received wisdom is that an mp3 bitrate of 320 is indistinguishable from
CD.
- I don't have such great speakers and don't play load so 128 is generally
good enough for me.
It depends on the music too, some encodes better at low rates than others.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
3GP to MP3 Convert 3GP to MP3 using 3GP MP3 Converter music-fan DVD Video 0 12-24-2009 04:58 AM
MP3 Players & Sound Quality What's In A Name? Computer Support 7 09-28-2004 04:18 PM
Digicam Video Quality vs. Camcorders, Camcorder Image Quality vs Digicams Richard Lee Digital Photography 16 08-23-2004 06:04 PM
Bigger image size and lower quality vs. Smaller image size and higher quality Desmond Digital Photography 5 09-27-2003 04:08 AM
THE Difference Between Good Quality and Poor Quality Pictures! N.E.1. Digital Photography 4 09-23-2003 02:43 AM



Advertisments