[jodokast]

etc. Could anybody explain these to me? Like in terms of MP3 a 160kbps sounds better than a 128 no? Same goes for 320? Is it just higher quality material?

Also in terms of MP3s vs. Wav. Isn't that kind of comparing apples to oranges? Also, what about stuff like SACD, DVD-Audio.

In terms of listening to audio on a PC, what would be the best format? Just 320 MP3s and whatever digital I get?

What are your experiences /w this sort of thing?

 

[Gluegun]

Basically, you can't play DVD-A or SACD on your computer. Those are out.

And, after that, you get to choose how much data you want to throw away from the songs! woohoo! I assume you will be getting the songs on your hard drive? You will rip them from your own CD's, correct?

Well, than use the ways that throw out the least amount of information....if possible. The one that throws out none is a *.wav, but those are HUGE in size. Other formats throw out less. The bitrate of an MP3 is but one of the measures of how much information it throws out. The higher the bitrate, theoretically, the less information is thrown out. Why theoretically? There's more than one way to make an MP3, my friend! There is more than one encoder out there! However, if you read a bit at www.r3mix.net (dont read the myths section; that was written by someone *other* than the person who wrote the other stuff, and so we all just ignore that), you can get your CD's onto your computer without losing a lot of the information from CD! Yay! Next stop--is to get a good sound card! Hint: Don't get anything from Creative Labs, if possible, and ask about sound cards for your needs (games, DVD's, mp3's, etc.) at the forums on www.3dss.com

Of course... if you are *downloading* mp3's, well, even 320 might sound bad if they aren't ripped well. So, lower your chances of mp3's sounding bad by either not downloading them (that's a real good choice), or never getting anything below 192.

 

[Xevion]

Quote:

etc. Could anybody explain these to me? Like in terms of MP3 a 160kbps sounds better than a 128 no? Same goes for 320? Is it just higher quality material?

For the differences between lower and higher quality mp3s.

Lets say we have this string of values in a .wav file:

111111111111

Now, going to a 320k mp3, you are compressing about 4:1, so before it is decompressed the same amount of data will take up a lot less space, as such:

111

128k mp3s are 12:1 compression, so the above .wav takes up this much space in a 128k mp3:

1

So, using the same encoder, the higher the bitrate, the more information, the better the sound.

Best format? MP3 is crap. Monkey's Audio or straight .wavs is best, MA is losless compression. Just search on Google for it.

Computers can't take advantage of SACD or DVD-Audio, so don't worry about that.

 

[sideswiped]

one up and comer in the music compression area seems to be Ogg Vorbis which from what I've heard attains better sound then equally or lesser mp3's and it is also open source for any of you open source freaks

http://www.ogg-vorbis.com/

its been awhile since i last heard anything on the format(i've been rather lazy and also at the time they hadn't fully implimented stereo sound, this back in 2000 i think) but it is/looks promising

 

[andrzejpw]

I heard r3 of ogg just got released.

 

[sideswiped]

yep and here is good site to dl it from

http://www.vorbis.com/index.psp

 

[moose]

This may be a little off topic, but could someone please compare an aiff file and a wav file. I think that i'm a bit confused right now.

Thanks!
M.

 

[Nezer]

the difference between a wav file and an aif file is a header difference and endian order. Endian refers to how the binary bytes are read either left to roght or right to left (laymans terms).

 

[MacDEF]

Quote:

Originally posted by moose This may be a little off topic, but could someone please compare an aiff file and a wav file. I think that i'm a bit confused right now. Thanks! M.

Both are uncompressed, "full" audio files. WAV files are in the format Windows uses, while AIFF files are in the format Macs use.

 

[moose]

Thank you MacDef!!

Now those are terms I understand!

-M.

 

[Duncan]

With Media Player 8 Plus Pack (for Windows XP) you get the option to convert MP3 files to WMA8 files... from 128k to 64k, these sound the same to me once converted...

Does anyone here know how detrimental WMA is to the original MP3s??

 

[Razlak]

I assure you that WMA8 at 64kbps is NOT as good as 128kbps MP3s when encoding straight from CDs, at least to my ears. Some of ff123's tests on http://www.ff123.net/ have proven this with a fairly large sampling. Perhaps the MP3s you're sourcing from arn't the greatest. WMA8 is better at those lower bitrates than anything else, though the new RC3 of Ogg Vorbis sounds pretty darn good down to 96kbps and getting better with each release. Plus you get stuck with Microsofts closed format, which they could, in theory, lock down with any little update to WMP. I guess the only advantage WMA has is portable compatability on some devices, giving you a bit more music since you can do the lower ~96kbps without too much loss. This will hopefully change with the release of 1.0 of Ogg Vorbis, which most companies are waiting for before supporting the format in portables.

For now, I'm still sticking to MP3 with the new --alt-presets in the latest LAME 3.91 release(grab it at http://mitiok.cjb.net). Great sound, though I am using the relatively greedy --alt-preset extreme setting, resulting in about 256kbps vbr files. They sound great on the cans and in my car(JVC SH99 MP3 Head unit), and only under VERY careful scrutiny are they distinguishable from the original CDs, and even then only on very difficult to encode songs.

 

[ff123]

Monty's working on improving low bitrates for RC4 of Ogg Vorbis. To hear a work in progress, check out the downloads from the links contained in this thread:

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...=5325#post5325

With this medley of samples, Vorbis is clearly outperforming WMA at 64 kbit/s. I encoded the original with mp3pro, and the work-in-progress Vorbis is outperforming this codec as well. I'd say that even now, Vorbis is king at 64 kbit/s.

Current RC3 using -q4 (usually yields bitrates around 128 kbit/s) is very good, and is now a contender for best codec at this bitrate too (the other contenders are Liquid Audio AAC and MPC).

ff123

 

[gavinbirss]

Hello,

Personally I think MP3 is rubbish. Ogg Vorbis V 0.4 with -m 6 (350 K ABR) is what I believe is the ultimate in lossy audio compression.

This gives you approx 1 : 4 compression.

If space is not an issue and you want lossless compression and not lossy compression rather go for FLAC (Free Losless Audio Compression).

FLAC returns on average a compression ratio of 58 % of the original file.

There are plugins for winamp and the file can be seeked.
If you are interested do a search with Google for FLAC.

Gavin

 

[edog]

The problem is that Ogg Vorbis is not supported by any portable device. It's unlikely to be, considering the difficulties in supporting many formats in a portable device and the general lack of demand for the format. For most people (even technophiles), MP3 is "good enough."

Personally, if I want quality compressed music on the go, I'd stick with Minidisc. I record them using my Sony MDS-JB930 deck, which records using ATRAC Type-R. That's extremely high quality encoding that blows MP3 out of the water. For stationary listening, a CD (or vinyl) is surely the best.