Newbie question, mp3 quality
 

"David Jones" schreef in bericht
...
The mp3 I used was Pink Floyd, Speak to me. Stats according to AVICodec =
Audio : 1.68 MB, 192 Kbps, 44100 Hz, 2 channels, 0x55 = Mpeg-1 audio
Layer 3 (MP3), Supported

It is normal that a 192 kbps MP3 does not sound as good as a CD on
reasonable equipment.

gr, hwh

Newbie question, mp3 quality
 

On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 16:27:22 +0200, hwh wrote:

"David Jones" schreef in bericht
...
The mp3 I used was Pink Floyd, Speak to me. Stats according to AVICodec =
Audio : 1.68 MB, 192 Kbps, 44100 Hz, 2 channels, 0x55 = Mpeg-1 audio
Layer 3 (MP3), Supported

It is normal that a 192 kbps MP3 does not sound as good as a CD on
reasonable equipment.

gr, hwh

It should be very hard to tell the difference between a 192kbps MP3 and a
CD. There will probably only be a very points during a complete CD when the
differences will become audible, and they will be very brief, during
complex noise-like bits - particularly protracted sibilants - where the
perceptual coding fails. For most music you should hear no differnce.

d

Newbie question, mp3 quality
 

"Don Pearce" schreef in bericht
...
It should be very hard to tell the difference between a 192kbps MP3 and a
CD. There will probably only be a very points during a complete CD when
the
differences will become audible, and they will be very brief, during
complex noise-like bits - particularly protracted sibilants - where the
perceptual coding fails. For most music you should hear no differnce.

If that is true, why does Lame code at much higher bitrates when the best
quality setting is chosen? For typical 1980's music it uses about 260 kbps
VBR.

gr, hwh

Newbie question, mp3 quality
 

On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 17:05:19 +0200, hwh wrote:

"Don Pearce" schreef in bericht
...
It should be very hard to tell the difference between a 192kbps MP3 and a
CD. There will probably only be a very points during a complete CD when
the
differences will become audible, and they will be very brief, during
complex noise-like bits - particularly protracted sibilants - where the
perceptual coding fails. For most music you should hear no differnce.

If that is true, why does Lame code at much higher bitrates when the best
quality setting is chosen? For typical 1980's music it uses about 260 kbps
VBR.

gr, hwh

The higher the rate, the fewer occasions when something *might* be audible.
You can make your own choice based on your own hearing acuity. Be aware
that you can easily fool yourself into hearing things that aren't there,
though.

d

Newbie question, mp3 quality
 

"Don Pearce" schreef in bericht
...
The higher the rate, the fewer occasions when something *might* be
audible.
You can make your own choice based on your own hearing acuity. Be aware
that you can easily fool yourself into hearing things that aren't there,
though.

Yes. Using the "extreme" setting will however get me the best possible
quality at bitrates that Lame judges to be sufficient (in most cases).

gr, hwh

Newbie question, mp3 quality
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 17:05:19 +0200, hwh wrote:

"Don Pearce" schreef in bericht
...
It should be very hard to tell the difference between a 192kbps MP3 and
a
CD. There will probably only be a very points during a complete CD when
the
differences will become audible, and they will be very brief, during
complex noise-like bits - particularly protracted sibilants - where the
perceptual coding fails. For most music you should hear no differnce.

If that is true, why does Lame code at much higher bitrates when the best
quality setting is chosen? For typical 1980's music it uses about 260
kbps
VBR.

gr, hwh

The higher the rate, the fewer occasions when something *might* be
audible.
You can make your own choice based on your own hearing acuity. Be aware
that you can easily fool yourself into hearing things that aren't there,
though.



My *experience* is that people do not dislike MP3s as MP3s until they *know*
they are MP3s....

I don't say they will sound necessarily as good (strange word in this
context...) as CDs on a direct comparison, but I've lost count of the number
of times various people here didn't know I was playing MP3s at times.

The playback equipment that's used helps of course, I still say that a
valve amp will bring out the 'musicality' in them (or plaster over the
cracks - you choose :-) and make MP3s (128 and up - the 'upper' the better)
sound very acceptable. Interestingly, playing them from a laptop via an
external USB soundcard is much better IMO than from a disk in a DVDP - less
*squinks* and zero stutter, as well as being a good, bone idle way of
throwing a nice, long 'playlist' together!

Replaying them on a tiny portable gadget might be useful for music on the
move, but it ain't gonna bring the best out of them....

Newbie question, mp3 quality
 

In message , hwh
writes

"David Jones" schreef in bericht
. ..
The mp3 I used was Pink Floyd, Speak to me. Stats according to AVICodec =
Audio : 1.68 MB, 192 Kbps, 44100 Hz, 2 channels, 0x55 = Mpeg-1 audio
Layer 3 (MP3), Supported

It is normal that a 192 kbps MP3 does not sound as good as a CD on
reasonable equipment.

gr, hwh



Being a Minidisc enthusiast, it's only in the past month that I've
bought a little 1Gb MP3 player. I am using 192kbps for the MP3s but
they are not as good as standard-play Minidisc recordings and noticeably
worse than the original CD. Perhaps I ought to try using 256k for the
MP3s.

What bitrates do others use for MP3?
--
Chris Morriss

Newbie question, mp3 quality
 

In message , Don Pearce
writes
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 16:27:22 +0200, hwh wrote:

"David Jones" schreef in bericht
...
The mp3 I used was Pink Floyd, Speak to me. Stats according to AVICodec =
Audio : 1.68 MB, 192 Kbps, 44100 Hz, 2 channels, 0x55 = Mpeg-1 audio
Layer 3 (MP3), Supported

It is normal that a 192 kbps MP3 does not sound as good as a CD on
reasonable equipment.

gr, hwh

It should be very hard to tell the difference between a 192kbps MP3 and a
CD. There will probably only be a very points during a complete CD when the
differences will become audible, and they will be very brief, during
complex noise-like bits - particularly protracted sibilants - where the
perceptual coding fails. For most music you should hear no differnce.

d

If only! If Stewart were to offer £1000 to blind detect 192k MP3 and
original CDs I'd take him up on this one like a shot!
(If I could use my HD580s to listen to the recordings though, not
speakers).
--
Chris Morriss

Newbie question, mp3 quality
 

On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 17:17:41 +0100, Chris Morriss wrote:

In message , Don Pearce
writes
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 16:27:22 +0200, hwh wrote:

"David Jones" schreef in bericht
...
The mp3 I used was Pink Floyd, Speak to me. Stats according to AVICodec =
Audio : 1.68 MB, 192 Kbps, 44100 Hz, 2 channels, 0x55 = Mpeg-1 audio
Layer 3 (MP3), Supported

It is normal that a 192 kbps MP3 does not sound as good as a CD on
reasonable equipment.

gr, hwh

It should be very hard to tell the difference between a 192kbps MP3 and a
CD. There will probably only be a very points during a complete CD when the
differences will become audible, and they will be very brief, during
complex noise-like bits - particularly protracted sibilants - where the
perceptual coding fails. For most music you should hear no differnce.

d

If only! If Stewart were to offer £1000 to blind detect 192k MP3 and
original CDs I'd take him up on this one like a shot!
(If I could use my HD580s to listen to the recordings though, not
speakers).

Interesting. What is your blind discernment rate? And what do you find to
be the audible shortcomings?

d

Newbie question, mp3 quality
 

On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 17:15:56 +0100, Chris Morriss wrote:

In message , hwh
writes

"David Jones" schreef in bericht
.. .
The mp3 I used was Pink Floyd, Speak to me. Stats according to AVICodec =
Audio : 1.68 MB, 192 Kbps, 44100 Hz, 2 channels, 0x55 = Mpeg-1 audio
Layer 3 (MP3), Supported

It is normal that a 192 kbps MP3 does not sound as good as a CD on
reasonable equipment.

gr, hwh



Being a Minidisc enthusiast, it's only in the past month that I've
bought a little 1Gb MP3 player. I am using 192kbps for the MP3s but
they are not as good as standard-play Minidisc recordings and noticeably
worse than the original CD. Perhaps I ought to try using 256k for the
MP3s.

What bitrates do others use for MP3?

I use 256, but not for any other good reason than because I can. I have a
huge hard drive, and I'm never going to run it out of space with my current
usage.

d