apopsisdj
@Maleko, if you want to see.. (i can hear it...) the quality of 128, try a frequency analyser you wiil suprised how the frequencies above 14-15 k are cuted...
If you want to hear a "bad" joint stereo file, put your stereo/mono switch of your mixer on mono...
Now about vbr,... anyone remember the dolby switch on the cassete decks?
It supposed to boost/filter only the "hiss" in an automatic way ...in a perfect world...
Ok vbr is not that bad, but nobody is perfect... yet..
And if anyone remember how wrong the sound was sometimes with the dolby on... it is simillar to the sound of joint stereo on mono..
(phase antifacts etc.)
If you want to hear a "bad" joint stereo file, put your stereo/mono switch of your mixer on mono...
Now about vbr,... anyone remember the dolby switch on the cassete decks?
It supposed to boost/filter only the "hiss" in an automatic way ...in a perfect world...
Ok vbr is not that bad, but nobody is perfect... yet..
And if anyone remember how wrong the sound was sometimes with the dolby on... it is simillar to the sound of joint stereo on mono..
(phase antifacts etc.)
Posted Mon 11 Jul 05 @ 3:47 am
bagpuss
I have to disagree on joint Stereo, with my encoder/program the outcome is not distinguishable from stereo, the lost information and cut off is what is concerning as you said..
And VBR works excellentely when the correct values are entered, but like I said, CBR at 300kbps is best.
And VBR works excellentely when the correct values are entered, but like I said, CBR at 300kbps is best.
Posted Mon 11 Jul 05 @ 3:52 am
apopsisdj
Its not easy always to hear the joint stereo bad effects.
I found some of the "bad" joint stereo mp3's and use them for tests..
Just remember, music is recorded in stereo.
Joint stereo does what a single subwoofer does in a stereo environment.
It "assume" that some low frequencies are always recorded/played with pan in the middle...
and so it joins them to mono. That is loss of stereo image and separation (forever) and it is something that nobody wants (ask a sound engineer...)
Vbr is not that bad i agree, but it still can produce some effects as it "assume" too..
And even if it works there are some compatibility problems left on some players, including vdj. Like wrong report of track's duration etc.
All i'm trying to say is that with hard space so cheap novadays, joint stereo and vbr are not worth the risk... you just loose more than you get..
Just compress at 192 or more, check "high quality encoding" if available (lame) you''ll be fine.
for the record...
I just made some tests to find the frequency response of a file when it converted to mp3.
Using the very accurate Wavelab FFT meter.
You can see how bad is 128...
Bitrate/Higher frequencies (after that all frequencies are lost...)
128 13900
192 18600
256 20000
320 21300
WAV 22050
You can see that a normal 44.1 k/16 bit wav file gives up to 44.100/2=22050, as expected.
I found some of the "bad" joint stereo mp3's and use them for tests..
Just remember, music is recorded in stereo.
Joint stereo does what a single subwoofer does in a stereo environment.
It "assume" that some low frequencies are always recorded/played with pan in the middle...
and so it joins them to mono. That is loss of stereo image and separation (forever) and it is something that nobody wants (ask a sound engineer...)
Vbr is not that bad i agree, but it still can produce some effects as it "assume" too..
And even if it works there are some compatibility problems left on some players, including vdj. Like wrong report of track's duration etc.
All i'm trying to say is that with hard space so cheap novadays, joint stereo and vbr are not worth the risk... you just loose more than you get..
Just compress at 192 or more, check "high quality encoding" if available (lame) you''ll be fine.
for the record...
I just made some tests to find the frequency response of a file when it converted to mp3.
Using the very accurate Wavelab FFT meter.
You can see how bad is 128...
Bitrate/Higher frequencies (after that all frequencies are lost...)
128 13900
192 18600
256 20000
320 21300
WAV 22050
You can see that a normal 44.1 k/16 bit wav file gives up to 44.100/2=22050, as expected.
Posted Mon 11 Jul 05 @ 6:22 pm
Maleko
Not to be funny, but I have been trying to analyse the actual difference with the bitrates.
I totally agree with the 96kbps rate, really bad quality.
But with 128, all my encodes sound just as perfect as ones at 256....I cannot find any difference.
I have listened to it loud, quiet, with/without headphones. Any MP3's I make at 128 sound perfect in comparison to 256.
I have a good quality computer sound system, my hearing is fine :P so it's not me or my hardware....
All I can say is....strange...
Any ideas?
I totally agree with the 96kbps rate, really bad quality.
But with 128, all my encodes sound just as perfect as ones at 256....I cannot find any difference.
I have listened to it loud, quiet, with/without headphones. Any MP3's I make at 128 sound perfect in comparison to 256.
I have a good quality computer sound system, my hearing is fine :P so it's not me or my hardware....
All I can say is....strange...
Any ideas?
Posted Mon 11 Jul 05 @ 8:02 pm
digijoc-Mele
hahaha... Maleko, you are a funny guy ! I am still laughing... you are joking about 128kbps sounding just as good as 256kbps, right ? Of course you are !
Don't know how many times it will have to be said, but it is simple:
192kbps | Stereo | Hi Quality | Using LAME encoder
is most practical !
Anything below 160 is bad, anything above 192 is sort of overkill. If you have space and want to encode greater than 192, thats on you.
Don't know how many times it will have to be said, but it is simple:
192kbps | Stereo | Hi Quality | Using LAME encoder
is most practical !
Anything below 160 is bad, anything above 192 is sort of overkill. If you have space and want to encode greater than 192, thats on you.
Posted Mon 11 Jul 05 @ 9:15 pm
bagpuss
Bear in mind that alot of clubs don't even playback in stereo, and also bear in mind that a mono sound isn't a bad one, this is why this factor doesn't bother me, the overall quality of the mp3 format is more of a worry, I can tell the difference as I said, that is in clubs that probably use 192 or less, and some of my files.
VBR can be problematic on some CD players, but i've used thousands of VBR's in VDJ and it has worked great and free of problems for me, VBR needs a high minimum, if the minimum was set at 192 and max 320, then the quality is for sure higher than a 192kbps CBR mp3, so it is these figures that are more important, 320 CBR is best for mp3, but WAV's extracted from their CD originals is ultimate.
I personally don't think that a 192kbps is close to it's pure WAV original, it's good, but not great.
From those tests apopsis, 300kbps looks quite good next to WAV, i'll do some tests myself and hear for any differences.
128kbps is bad Maleko, remember my advice before m8, what you hear is good for sure, but listen to the original CD, and then you'll realise what the mp3 took away.
VBR can be problematic on some CD players, but i've used thousands of VBR's in VDJ and it has worked great and free of problems for me, VBR needs a high minimum, if the minimum was set at 192 and max 320, then the quality is for sure higher than a 192kbps CBR mp3, so it is these figures that are more important, 320 CBR is best for mp3, but WAV's extracted from their CD originals is ultimate.
I personally don't think that a 192kbps is close to it's pure WAV original, it's good, but not great.
From those tests apopsis, 300kbps looks quite good next to WAV, i'll do some tests myself and hear for any differences.
128kbps is bad Maleko, remember my advice before m8, what you hear is good for sure, but listen to the original CD, and then you'll realise what the mp3 took away.
Posted Mon 11 Jul 05 @ 9:35 pm
mp3jrick
128 is good if you don't have a flanger and want one....
Posted Mon 11 Jul 05 @ 9:41 pm
apopsisdj
Yeah, free... flanger.
Maleko, you have to train your ears...
The truth is,: a good song "sounds" good even on ...64..
A famous radio dj in Greece (Giannis Petridis) said sometime (20 years ago):
"Music is not perfect sound",
I never forgot that, and i remember i listened to his show
from an AM radio ...
Maleko, you have to train your ears...
The truth is,: a good song "sounds" good even on ...64..
A famous radio dj in Greece (Giannis Petridis) said sometime (20 years ago):
"Music is not perfect sound",
I never forgot that, and i remember i listened to his show
from an AM radio ...
Posted Tue 12 Jul 05 @ 3:10 am
Rune (DJ-In-Norway)
this debate is as old as the mp3 format itself...
And I'm saying this : SPEAKERS AND AMP has as much to say about what you are hearing, as the MP3 format itself! For the user that said 128kbits sounded as good as CD or 192kbits mp3, he's probably 100% correct, on HIS SPEAKERS and on HIS SYSTEM!
I have done so many "blind test" with audience for mp3 quality its almost funny by now.. people can not tell difference on "bad" audio systems, like ALL NIGTHCLUBS have :) Some even have rotten PA systems, and even play in mono, as said before.. So being a laptop dj, with small hardrive, compressed mp3 is no issue, as long as encoded with a GOOD encoder (such as lame)
For practical purposes, it often really doesn't matter if lower bitrate MP3's sound inferior to CD's. For casual listening (e.g. on PA systems at clubs, trashy built-in laptop speakers, or in noisy environments etc) 128Kbps is probably more than adequate. I have done some further informal tests with non-critical listeners, and they really don't notice (nor do they care about) the difference in audio quality between CD's and 128Kbps MP3's when played at "bad" audio systems.
Sometimes, it is beneficial to put aside scientific/engineering mumbo jumbo, and instead analyze the cost/benefit ratio. Given a fixed amount of storage, one can store considerably twice as much music at 128Kbps than at 256Kbps. Before deciding what bitrate to use, analyze the target audience and listening environment, and then make a educated decision as to what bitrate is appropriate. 128Kbps has been chosen by many people because it's of sufficient quality for the vast majority of listeners. If you like to listen on a portable device with small storage, such as a 256MB flash-based MP3 player, you can fit more songs on the device if you use a lower bitrate. Anything lower than 128Kbps is unacceptable, IMHO. Personally, I will stick with 192Kbps with VBR for most my music, because I do play them at my home HI-FI system also... but each to her/his own.. :)
From MY use, using my mp3s both at home stereo (good system) and for djing at club ("bad" system) - I have found that anything less than 160kbit is not good, because some dynamic is lost when compressed to much. When I code my own music, I always choose 192kbits with LAME VBR, to be safe, although coded the same with 160kbits sounds as fine in my ears. When using VBR (with LAME), do a test for yourself, setting 128kb as low, and 192kb as high ... and then one with 192kb as low and 320kb as high. Compare, and see if you can hear any difference on your speakersystem. If you can, you have an amazing system, and very good ears! :) If you can not hear difference, just think about all the space you will free up, compressing the audiofile more.. ;) After all, its really hard to tell the difference between a high quality JPG file (compressed) and a RAW picture file... There is a reson for mp3 format to be so popular, its because its "near cd" quality, good enough for almost any users, and much so for DJs playing at low quality speaker systems at clubs ;)
yes, raw WAV file got a better frequency spectrum (CD's are also digital music, coded, 16-bit linear PCM, remember that by the way) than mp3's. But a audio system can often reproduce less that that "theoretical" spectrum, and the ear often does not hear all of that neither...
BOTTOM LINE : USE A GOOD ENCODER (LAME or WMP), and decide for yourself what bitrate you want, by thinking of where you are going to USE the files, and cost/benefit/space ratio... :)
happy mixing ;)
And I'm saying this : SPEAKERS AND AMP has as much to say about what you are hearing, as the MP3 format itself! For the user that said 128kbits sounded as good as CD or 192kbits mp3, he's probably 100% correct, on HIS SPEAKERS and on HIS SYSTEM!
I have done so many "blind test" with audience for mp3 quality its almost funny by now.. people can not tell difference on "bad" audio systems, like ALL NIGTHCLUBS have :) Some even have rotten PA systems, and even play in mono, as said before.. So being a laptop dj, with small hardrive, compressed mp3 is no issue, as long as encoded with a GOOD encoder (such as lame)
For practical purposes, it often really doesn't matter if lower bitrate MP3's sound inferior to CD's. For casual listening (e.g. on PA systems at clubs, trashy built-in laptop speakers, or in noisy environments etc) 128Kbps is probably more than adequate. I have done some further informal tests with non-critical listeners, and they really don't notice (nor do they care about) the difference in audio quality between CD's and 128Kbps MP3's when played at "bad" audio systems.
Sometimes, it is beneficial to put aside scientific/engineering mumbo jumbo, and instead analyze the cost/benefit ratio. Given a fixed amount of storage, one can store considerably twice as much music at 128Kbps than at 256Kbps. Before deciding what bitrate to use, analyze the target audience and listening environment, and then make a educated decision as to what bitrate is appropriate. 128Kbps has been chosen by many people because it's of sufficient quality for the vast majority of listeners. If you like to listen on a portable device with small storage, such as a 256MB flash-based MP3 player, you can fit more songs on the device if you use a lower bitrate. Anything lower than 128Kbps is unacceptable, IMHO. Personally, I will stick with 192Kbps with VBR for most my music, because I do play them at my home HI-FI system also... but each to her/his own.. :)
From MY use, using my mp3s both at home stereo (good system) and for djing at club ("bad" system) - I have found that anything less than 160kbit is not good, because some dynamic is lost when compressed to much. When I code my own music, I always choose 192kbits with LAME VBR, to be safe, although coded the same with 160kbits sounds as fine in my ears. When using VBR (with LAME), do a test for yourself, setting 128kb as low, and 192kb as high ... and then one with 192kb as low and 320kb as high. Compare, and see if you can hear any difference on your speakersystem. If you can, you have an amazing system, and very good ears! :) If you can not hear difference, just think about all the space you will free up, compressing the audiofile more.. ;) After all, its really hard to tell the difference between a high quality JPG file (compressed) and a RAW picture file... There is a reson for mp3 format to be so popular, its because its "near cd" quality, good enough for almost any users, and much so for DJs playing at low quality speaker systems at clubs ;)
yes, raw WAV file got a better frequency spectrum (CD's are also digital music, coded, 16-bit linear PCM, remember that by the way) than mp3's. But a audio system can often reproduce less that that "theoretical" spectrum, and the ear often does not hear all of that neither...
BOTTOM LINE : USE A GOOD ENCODER (LAME or WMP), and decide for yourself what bitrate you want, by thinking of where you are going to USE the files, and cost/benefit/space ratio... :)
happy mixing ;)
Posted Tue 12 Jul 05 @ 6:01 am
Rune (DJ-In-Norway)
and a litte free tip for the road :
While frequency analysis is of important academic significance, the bottom line is whether or not human ears can hear any difference. Most adults, especially men, have ears which cut off at or below 16KHz ;)
thats the HUMAN limitations...
Then check your stereo limitations.. ;)
mp3s are fine for most use :) even those mp3s that are compressed more than "audiophiles" like to say is the correct quality to use... :)
given Apopsis analyze :
128 13900
192 18600
256 20000
320 21300
WAV 22050
you can all see that 192kb is fine for humans in most settings :)
issue for "flanger" and other bad "effects" is using a good ENCODER! ;) (hint: lame, vbr)
While frequency analysis is of important academic significance, the bottom line is whether or not human ears can hear any difference. Most adults, especially men, have ears which cut off at or below 16KHz ;)
thats the HUMAN limitations...
Then check your stereo limitations.. ;)
mp3s are fine for most use :) even those mp3s that are compressed more than "audiophiles" like to say is the correct quality to use... :)
given Apopsis analyze :
128 13900
192 18600
256 20000
320 21300
WAV 22050
you can all see that 192kb is fine for humans in most settings :)
issue for "flanger" and other bad "effects" is using a good ENCODER! ;) (hint: lame, vbr)
Posted Tue 12 Jul 05 @ 6:13 am
Maleko
right...im gettin there I think :P hehe
There me in the corner 128 guy......192 big boys hanging around else where :P hehe
So what encoding software is best then?
Ive tried a few in the past, so what do you guys use?
There me in the corner 128 guy......192 big boys hanging around else where :P hehe
So what encoding software is best then?
Ive tried a few in the past, so what do you guys use?
Posted Tue 12 Jul 05 @ 9:45 am
Chromolli02
i use DbpowerAMP:)
Posted Tue 12 Jul 05 @ 10:20 am
Homeboy
Yeap same here.
Posted Tue 12 Jul 05 @ 10:21 am
djdad
When i encode from an original Audio CD, no matter which encoder i use, 192k is far beeter than 128k. But when you try to download mp3 from you know where, things are complicated. I've downloaded mp3 in 128 which were better than others in 160 or higher. This happens because someone had a bad track, used a bad method or the original audio disc, was not that much original.
Maleco if you don't listen to the difference in the first case, then you belong to the second, i am afraid.
Maleco if you don't listen to the difference in the first case, then you belong to the second, i am afraid.
Posted Tue 12 Jul 05 @ 10:57 am
bagpuss
CDex is free, and arguably one of the best ripping/converting softwares out there (with LAME):
Anyone who's interested download it here (less than 2mb):
http://www.download.com/3120-20_4-0.html?qt=CDex&tg=dl-2001
Anyone who's interested download it here (less than 2mb):
http://www.download.com/3120-20_4-0.html?qt=CDex&tg=dl-2001
Posted Tue 12 Jul 05 @ 11:16 am
bagpuss
Norways right on the bite rate issue when he says it's been discussed over and over, and it still is now, and will be again, one of the reasons is that some people are new to mp3, as the thread starter probably was, and also in time, things have changed..
In the beggining everyone went for 128kbps, but now, most believe 192kbps is the most adeqoute quality, but their are an increasing number of people going for 300kbps, and some will only use pure WAV's.
It's strange that mp3 came about really, it was only invented for reasons of file size/storage, but however we look at it, it's a downgrade of quality (detectable or not), look at all the other formats, the DVD revolution, Digital TV's and satelitte services, and all the computer hardware, everything has been created to be an increase in technical quality, to move on with the times sure, but large compressions like mp3 are kind of backwards..., As long as the difference isn't detectable to the human ear, then it makes no odds, but clearly, alot of mp3 files aren't close to the high standards of CD..
In the beggining everyone went for 128kbps, but now, most believe 192kbps is the most adeqoute quality, but their are an increasing number of people going for 300kbps, and some will only use pure WAV's.
It's strange that mp3 came about really, it was only invented for reasons of file size/storage, but however we look at it, it's a downgrade of quality (detectable or not), look at all the other formats, the DVD revolution, Digital TV's and satelitte services, and all the computer hardware, everything has been created to be an increase in technical quality, to move on with the times sure, but large compressions like mp3 are kind of backwards..., As long as the difference isn't detectable to the human ear, then it makes no odds, but clearly, alot of mp3 files aren't close to the high standards of CD..
Posted Tue 12 Jul 05 @ 11:33 am
drdecibel
Maleko, you say that you are a proffessional dj??? I think that no proffesional dj´s work with creative audigy sound card, the sound is really bad, but maybe something´s wrong wirh your ears, have you try to buy new ears ??????
Posted Tue 12 Jul 05 @ 11:52 am
Maleko
Few pointers...
Firstly, I have been using MP3's for years even before they were popular amoung people.
Secondly, I have never said I'm a profesional DJ...In my first post I said I wasn't...
Creative bad quality? Don't think so....Been working with computers for a long time now, haven't had any bad experience with Audigy cards.
Don't wanna sound funny or anything, I'm not a pro DJ, just do it occasionally and enjoy it. But I do know my hardware/software.
One thing I have noticed, in using dBpowerAMP with the LAME codec at 192 does have that little bit more crisp-ness to the sound.(which I have just been testing)
Firstly, I have been using MP3's for years even before they were popular amoung people.
Secondly, I have never said I'm a profesional DJ...In my first post I said I wasn't...
Creative bad quality? Don't think so....Been working with computers for a long time now, haven't had any bad experience with Audigy cards.
Don't wanna sound funny or anything, I'm not a pro DJ, just do it occasionally and enjoy it. But I do know my hardware/software.
One thing I have noticed, in using dBpowerAMP with the LAME codec at 192 does have that little bit more crisp-ness to the sound.(which I have just been testing)
Posted Tue 12 Jul 05 @ 12:45 pm
nitebeatdisco
In the forties there was a common belief that the human ear preferred a limited frequency response.
With the advent of Hi Fi 20hz-20khz was considered the ultimet in sound.
CD is 16bit (offering about 90db dynamic range) was 44.1 Khz sample rate which offers 20Khz freq range.
DVD offers considerably better 24bit (over 120 db) 196khz offering just under 100khz freq response.
The average human in there prime 16 years old can here to 20khz by middle age this commonly drops to about 16khz (fm radio quality).
Yet sounds outside this range can be perceived and harmonics also alter the sound in the audible range.
As DJs do we continully replace our collections with higher grade recordings or do we aim at acceptable quality given the less than ideal acoustic environment we play in, not to mention the effects various chemicals commonly used have on the punters perception.
I accept that speed and storage are not as much an issue as they once were, and this trend is set to continue, For me personally I use 256CBR which most people accept as being accoustically transparent in respect to CD quality. 320 is great to, 192 is the std used by most fm broadcasters in the US, 256 the standard here in New Zealand.
With the advent of Hi Fi 20hz-20khz was considered the ultimet in sound.
CD is 16bit (offering about 90db dynamic range) was 44.1 Khz sample rate which offers 20Khz freq range.
DVD offers considerably better 24bit (over 120 db) 196khz offering just under 100khz freq response.
The average human in there prime 16 years old can here to 20khz by middle age this commonly drops to about 16khz (fm radio quality).
Yet sounds outside this range can be perceived and harmonics also alter the sound in the audible range.
As DJs do we continully replace our collections with higher grade recordings or do we aim at acceptable quality given the less than ideal acoustic environment we play in, not to mention the effects various chemicals commonly used have on the punters perception.
I accept that speed and storage are not as much an issue as they once were, and this trend is set to continue, For me personally I use 256CBR which most people accept as being accoustically transparent in respect to CD quality. 320 is great to, 192 is the std used by most fm broadcasters in the US, 256 the standard here in New Zealand.
Posted Tue 12 Jul 05 @ 2:15 pm
bagpuss
Those of you with low quality mp3 files, you have two options according to nitebeatdisco.
1: Re-enode at higher bite rates :)
2. Play to audiences at or over middle age :(.
hehe.
1: Re-enode at higher bite rates :)
2. Play to audiences at or over middle age :(.
hehe.
Posted Tue 12 Jul 05 @ 2:33 pm
