| MP3 Quality -- Anything Better? [message #65194] |
Tue, 07 December 2010 21:22  |
GoodVibrations
Messages: 75
Registered: November 2010
Location: TX
|
Viscount |
|
|
I listen to mp3 music on my Sansa player and I am so impressed with the quality of sound. Is it the mp3 format that makes the music so pure or is it the equipment? I know you need good equipment to qualify the sound, but when it comes to format, is there anything better than mp3? How can this be tested?
Music is a tonic for the tired and weary mind
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: MP3 Quality -- Anything Better? [message #65215 is a reply to message #65194] |
Thu, 09 December 2010 17:09  |
Adveser
Messages: 434
Registered: July 2009
Location: USA
|
Illuminati (1st Degree) |
|
|
After viewing the voiceprints of many MP3 bitrates and very very recently learning what I used to think wasn't a big deal was ruining my fun, I;ve concluded that320 is just about mandatory with 224kbps being the bare minimum.
This is not a hard and fast rule though. In the context of music you have never heard otherwise, you are unlikely to notice anything wrong at 160kbps. Something you've heard on CD a dozen times is a completely different story.
Here is my MP3 format command line:
-b 320 -m s -h -c -V 9 -B 320 -q 0 -k
(-b 320) the bitrate
(-m s) real 2-channel stereo
(-h) high quality encoding
(-c) mark as copyrighted
(-v 9 -b 320) variable bitrate @ 320 target @ highest quality
(-q 0) use the absolute best and slowest algorithms for encoding
(-k) do not use any filtering
I'm pretty sure the VBR setting is making them CBR since the average bitrate is always 320 and I never see any fluctuation in the bitrate.
http://adveser.webs.com/
|
|
|
|
| Re: MP3 Quality -- Anything Better? [message #65227 is a reply to message #65194] |
Fri, 10 December 2010 17:33 |
Adveser
Messages: 434
Registered: July 2009
Location: USA
|
Illuminati (1st Degree) |
|
|
I have noticed a lot of filtering on several albums that seem to be what everyone is bootlegging. You really have to make sure that the highs are being rolled off naturally in the studio and not brick walled by an encoder.
More highs is going to sound smoother and less harsh, contrary to the common assumption.
The texture and fidelity is completely missing on the brick walled encodings.
Be careful, don't ruin the perception of the music you love with terrible quality files that may have been floating around for more than a decade when the tech was no where close to being accurate or good at all.
I'm currently using Lame 3.89, which is a few years old at least, but it is the last one where the coveted "disable any and all filtering" option actually works which will reproduce the exact frequency range of the WAV file.
http://adveser.webs.com/
|
|
|
|
| Re: MP3 Quality -- Anything Better? [message #65230 is a reply to message #65194] |
Fri, 10 December 2010 19:38 |
GoodVibrations
Messages: 75
Registered: November 2010
Location: TX
|
Viscount |
|
|
Thanks for the links Wayne. Adveser, I wish I knew what you are talking about. I will look at the sites and see if it sinks in. I didn't realize there were as many other formats that are shown in the first link, but it makes sense that some formats are made for marketing to the masses. I'm sure I will have more questions after reading this stuff!
Music is a tonic for the tired and weary mind
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: MP3 Quality -- Anything Better? [message #68036 is a reply to message #65194] |
Fri, 03 June 2011 14:25 |
Forest
Messages: 15
Registered: May 2011
Location: Woodinville, WA
|
Chancellor |
|
|
|
I think MP3 on any radio sounds better then a cd or over the radio on the same radio. I don't know if I have been able to experience that brand of radio. Is it a regular radio or a car radio? I think it's pretty cool how they are making cars with MP3 players now!
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Get a T-Shirt!
