above 192 kbps noticable?
Mar 29, 2003 at 6:51 AM Post #17 of 33
Quote:

Originally posted by Lisa
You can do your own test by ripping some pieces of music into different bitrates. Make a .wav file of every piece aswell.
Then convert the mp3's back to .wav. Let someone else rename them so you don't know which is which and see if you hear the difference between the diffent bitrates and the original .wav file.
If you don't trust your soundcard, burn the .wav files onto a CDR. and listen on good equiptment.

(-edit-
This is not my own idea, I read it somewhere.)


There is a program which lets you do blind tests on your own:


PCABX

To my ears 128 kbit/s is easily distinguished from the original. To this day I have not been able to tell the difference between 320 kbit/s and the original wav.



Regards,

L.
 
Mar 29, 2003 at 7:14 PM Post #20 of 33
I've been ripping all my music onto my iPod with iTunes, don't know what you guys are talking about with LAME and everything. I am not a HUGE audiophile like many of you, I just want to be able to take advantage of my ER-4Ps when they arrive.
 
Mar 29, 2003 at 10:59 PM Post #21 of 33
why don't you guys just start using WMA instead?

for the same bitrate, it is of much higher quality...

And now that WM9 supports VBR... it's as good as it can get!
biggrin.gif


Of course, any iPod user can forget that, since stubborn Apple won't implement WMA support...

(which is the reason why I didn't get an iPod... sad...)
 
Mar 29, 2003 at 11:17 PM Post #22 of 33
I've only heard that WMA is a bit better at lower bitrates (<128kbps) as the same size mp3:s, but when it moves up towards 192kbps VBR there really isn't any advantage using WMA?
 
Mar 29, 2003 at 11:41 PM Post #23 of 33
Quote:

Originally posted by doobooloo
why don't you guys just start using wma instead?

for the same bitrate, it is of much higher quality...

And now that WM9 supports VBR... it's as good as it can get!
biggrin.gif


Of course, any iPod user can forget that, since stubborn Apple won't implement WMA support...

(which is the reason why I didn't get an iPod... sad...)


Well, I'd go with mp3pro and mp4 over WMA at lower bit rates. I think most would agree.

As for Apple, see what will happen with mp4 over the next month (reportedly). Interesting to see what Microsoft will do with that (after already eliminating mp3 encoding from Media Player 9- talk about stubborn).

All these though show no (and in the case of at least mp3pro can't) advantage over traditional mp3's at higher bitrates.

I use mp3pro for audio books. LAME extreme for everything else.

As always, see Hydrogen Audio for encoding info.
 
Mar 30, 2003 at 3:09 AM Post #24 of 33
well, that's true, but wma has the advantage that most other players actually support that format... or am i really behind the times about mp4 or mp3pro support?

hmm...
tongue.gif
if apple gets mp4 / mp3pro support, then i might buy the ipod and re-rip my 3000+ songs...
biggrin.gif
 
Mar 30, 2003 at 3:23 AM Post #25 of 33
Quote:

Originally posted by doobooloo
well, that's true, but wma has the advantage that most other players actually support that format... or am i really behind the times about mp4 or mp3pro support?

hmm...
tongue.gif
if apple gets mp4 / mp3pro support, then i might buy the ipod and re-rip my 3000+ songs...
biggrin.gif


Wma has more support, but it's still miniscule compared to mp3. Mp3pro is compatible with mp3 (and all mp3 players- at mp3 sound qualities not mp3pro), but I'm guessing will disappear in licensing agreements. Mp4 is out (example see Wilco's site at http://www.wilcoworld.net/roadcase/index.html ) and showing up in some online radio broadcasts (where wma was suppose to prosper, but hasn?t), but hard to find much support in the hardware department. On the software side, anyone who has Quicktime 6 on their system can play it, so that support is pretty large on both Macs and PC's. Plus Quicktime 6 movies will be using mp4 audio to further the cause. We'll have to see how it all plays out, but you?re right wma has the edge at the moment. And don't forget those noisy open source fellows with the Vorbis Ogg format. Getting complicated.
 
Mar 30, 2003 at 4:44 AM Post #26 of 33
I personally use EAC's 192 kbps VBR for all of my mp3s, and they sound pretty good with my portable rig (see sig). I usually only use 256 and 320 when I need to do sample CDs for people or when I have a CD that has alot of studio ambience in it (like Kind of Blue). I never liked WMA, it seemed to be the higher the bitrate, the lossyer the recording (at least on the encoder I was using). I would use EAC's presets, they seem to be the most tested and approved around here. Hope that helps.
smily_headphones1.gif
 
Mar 30, 2003 at 5:08 AM Post #27 of 33
Quote:

Originally posted by doobooloo
why don't you guys just start using WMA instead?


Because of Microsoft. I'd much rather it take up more space and be free from corporate control than give that foul company more power to limit and impede its use. Switching to WMA might be of benefit today but would only lead to difficultly in the future.
 
Mar 30, 2003 at 5:13 AM Post #28 of 33
Quote:

Originally posted by Achilles
Because of Microsoft. I'd much rather it take up more space and be free from corporate control than give that foul company more power to limit and impede its use. Switching to WMA might be of benefit today but would only lead to difficultly in the future.


That's very heroic of you, but could you please elaborate on what the "difficulty in the future" could be? I'm just curious.
tongue.gif
 
Mar 30, 2003 at 5:26 AM Post #29 of 33
Not heroic. When you get shafted so many times by the policies and products of a company such as Microsoft, avoiding and distrusting their advances becomes common sense.

On the future, Microsoft has made it abundantly clear, in every one of its past and present actions, that it considers corporate entities before human ones. If safeguarding copy-protection, even only a little bit, means dissatisfying consumer needs - so be it.

There isn't much that can be said, its either apparent or it isn't. Needless to say, if WMA ever eclipses MP3, you will find it more difficult and more expensive to copy, share, download, upload, rip or compile any of your music with any of your new digital toys.
 
Mar 30, 2003 at 6:30 AM Post #30 of 33
I use LAME and the --r3mix tag for VBR. (Remember to rip to .wav first, then convert!) It claims CD transparency with average rates as low as ~160kbps. I listen to some fairly heavy rock and metal, lots of very full sound, so the average rate ends up around 200-220 kbps, but varying between 96 and 320. My improvements since then have been in other parts of the signal path, like the MAD plugin for Winamp and an external DAC. They sound wonderful to me - and I can tell the difference between the mp3s I've downloaded (most at 128k from a poor encoder) and the mp3s I've ripped. Haven't done a blind test between --r3mix and CD, but based on my current computer setup, I think the mp3s might even sound better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top