[Fleet]

Hello everyone,

I've been trying to upgrade my mp3 collection over the weekend. I've been using EAC with Lame at 192 alt preset standard.

I ripped about 15 cds. Of these, 10 came out good. The other 5 however, I can't get "perfect". There is some distortion along the bass line. (Hard Rock / Heavy Metal CDs). I can't get rid of this. It is driving me nutty.

So, I hooked up my Total Airhead to my portable CD player's line out, and played the CDs in question. All of them have the same distortion. When I listen without the amp, and turn it up a little, I can barely hear the distortion. So, the amp is not causing it. It is on the recording!

For some reason, I had no problem with Anthrax, but the whimpier stuff just isn't working. Bush, Oasis, Pearl Jam seem to have inferior recordings.

Maybe it's my headphones. I'm using PX-100s. Or maybe I'm hearing more detail than I should be.

Thanks for listening. My time is up.

 

[IstariAsuka]

If it's there on the original CD, then the more you upgrade your equipment the more evident and annoying it'll become. If you don't want to hear it, then use lesser phones than what you're using, or somesuch. It's a problem, I agree.

 

[Kirosia]

A lot of the recent CDs (including those from last century) are cruddy. Some of the tracks on my albums just suck in sound quality. And it's always the good songs.

Also, have you tried a different cd ripper/encoder? Are you using the latest lame? You sure the settings are correct?

 

[Thisp]

The newer LAMEs aren't recommended by hydrogenaudio.org yet.

Stick with LAME 3.90.3.

 

[breez]

If the distortion is there with the original CDs then I'm missing what MP3 encoding has to do with this (at all).

 

[aeriyn]

Older CDs (and I find that many Asian made CDs) tend to be mastered better and are not as compressed to punch the volume up. This results in a better sounding recording with a wider dynamic range.

Because of the nature of lossy compression, such well-mastered CDs do not encode as well as newer more compressed CDs. The quality of the newer CDs is inherently lower, but the method that was used in mastering the CD makes it easier to encode.

I have a hell of a time encoding Aikawa Nanase's albums. Even in 224kbps AAC, that hard, manic edge of her guitar is lost. This is fine for portable use, IMO, but I can definitely tell the difference. Her music is well mastered and thus it seems to be hard to encode.

 

[Kirosia]

Quote:

Originally Posted by breez If the distortion is there with the original CDs then I'm missing what MP3 encoding has to do with this (at all).

I only mentioned it as a possibility. Better to check all your bases.

 

[bigshot]

Here is an article that discusses the probable source of your problem...

Over The Limit

Bass notes are the first things to get chopped off by this sort of cheapjack mastering.

See ya
Steve

 

[crazychimp132]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thisp The newer LAMEs aren't recommended by hydrogenaudio.org yet. Stick with LAME 3.90.3.

The only reason for this is that the newer versions have not been tested as thoroughly. I use 3.96.1 because it is a lot faster, and I can't tell the difference between it and 3.90.3. Try out the newer version yourself, and if you can't tell the difference, go for it. If you really think there is a difference, use 3.90.3. But don't let other people to tell you what sounds good or bad.

 

[Fleet]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot Here is an article that discusses the probable source of your problem... Over The Limit Bass notes are the first things to get chopped off by this sort of cheapjack mastering. See ya Steve

Thank you for that great link. This may very well be the problem. These CDs are mastered pretty loud. I am going to continue my re-rip. The MP3s do sound better with Lame than when I originally ripped them with MusicMatch in 2001.

I'm using the current version of Lame. After some more testing, I'm pretty sure the problem is on the masters, not the software.

BTW, I guess the point of this thread is to point out that it may not be possible to get perfect mp3 files from imperfect cds.

 

[NeoPoe]

MP3 is more of a mimicing format than corrective so it makes sense that an imperfect source will lead to an imperfect copy.

Sorry... I just trolled and feel so dirty.

 

[bigshot]

There are some types of music that wreak havok on compression codecs. The worst I've found for this are 50s pop vocals. Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin and Sammy Davis Jr songs require a quality setting two notches higher than any other type of music. The combination of the forward vocals and the complex orchestral texture is very difficult to compress without artifacting.

See ya
Steve

 

[pedxing]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot Here is an article that discusses the probable source of your problem... Over The Limit Bass notes are the first things to get chopped off by this sort of cheapjack mastering.

That was a funny article to read.

I cannot listen to any rock and popular music recorded in the past few years. The volume problem annoys me and the occurrences of clipping is so common. What I really hate is when an artist releases remastered tracks. I find that most "remastering" is synonymous with bloating the bass.

 

[Faelix]

Quote:

Originally Posted by crazychimp132 The only reason for this is that the newer versions have not been tested as thoroughly. I use 3.96.1 because it is a lot faster, and I can't tell the difference between it and 3.90.3. Try out the newer version yourself, and if you can't tell the difference, go for it. If you really think there is a difference, use 3.90.3. But don't let other people to tell you what sounds good or bad.

I totally agree. If you look at related discussions at HydrogenAudio carefully, you'll see that a lot of people think 3.96.1 is as good as or better than 3.90.3, and they use the former, not only because of its speed, but because they trust the quality.

It is the forum's administration that hasn't still approved 3.96.1 as the recommended version, a decision quite bureaucratic and conservative.

In my opinion, Roberto Amorim has summed good reasons for not waiting HA's blessed version. (Or if you have sense of humour...)

 

[wanderman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by aeriyn Older CDs (and I find that many Asian made CDs) tend to be mastered better and are not as compressed to punch the volume up. This results in a better sounding recording with a wider dynamic range. Because of the nature of lossy compression, such well-mastered CDs do not encode as well as newer more compressed CDs. The quality of the newer CDs is inherently lower, but the method that was used in mastering the CD makes it easier to encode. I have a hell of a time encoding Aikawa Nanase's albums. Even in 224kbps AAC, that hard, manic edge of her guitar is lost. This is fine for portable use, IMO, but I can definitely tell the difference. Her music is well mastered and thus it seems to be hard to encode.

When you encode to lossy format do they sound bad on your comp or on your player? And it may also be the program that you are using for ripping. I use eac and cdex exclusively. Use the lame extreme preset or straight 320 cbr and my music sounds amazing. Most of the differences in sound from cd are inaudible. One of my friends was convinced that is was cd quality. Or even better rip to ogg q9...your music will sound insane.