Mp3 cutoff... - TranceAddict Forums

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Production Studio
-- Mp3 cutoff...

Posted by Tranc3 on Mar-09-2004 03:12:

Mp3 cutoff...

So I ran something I made through a spectral analyzer the other day, and noticed everything gets cut off after 16KHz. At first I thought it was exceptionally bad production on my part, which may indeed be part of the case, but then I ran some other mp3s through the same analyzer and got the same result.

I'm guessing the compression involved with mp3s (depending on quality of course) generally includes cutting off frequencies below 50Hz and above 16KHz...is this right?

Posted by Matt Jay on Mar-09-2004 03:38:

I think encoding to mp3 cuts out frequencies we can't hear, so that might be the reason why?

I'm not 100% sure though

try testing a wav file through the analyzer then encode to mp3 and do the same.

Posted by hey cheggy on Mar-09-2004 04:50:

Yeah, above 16k

Posted by J.L. on Mar-09-2004 07:58:

depends on what bitrate you encode it in...

generally with 96 kb, you should be able to hear a loss in quality even if you have crappy speakers

with 128 kb, with most computer speakers, you should be able to hear a small reduction in the higher end frequencies if you listen very carefully

and 192 kb is considered "cd-quality" but there is still a slight reduction in quality but usually only those with high-quality monitors and "golden ears" can really notice the difference...

Posted by Tranc3 on Mar-09-2004 08:51:

quote:
Originally posted by kewlness
depends on what bitrate you encode it in...

generally with 96 kb, you should be able to hear a loss in quality even if you have crappy speakers

with 128 kb, with most computer speakers, you should be able to hear a small reduction in the higher end frequencies if you listen very carefully

and 192 kb is considered "cd-quality" but there is still a slight reduction in quality but usually only those with high-quality monitors and "golden ears" can really notice the difference...

Yeah this was all encoded at 192k/s, and I first noticed it because it sounded a little off. Not too sure on the golden ears thing though, it seems fairly obvious to me.

Posted by dbl on Mar-09-2004 10:21:

you can hear a little difference on a track if you first listen to it on a CD (the original cd offcourse) and then listen to the track on mp3....

but if you only listen to the mp3 you don't really notice the difference if you don't really pay attention to it and want to hear it

Posted by Cryogenic on Mar-09-2004 10:36:

quote:
Originally posted by dbl
you can hear a little difference on a track if you first listen to it on a CD (the original cd offcourse) and then listen to the track on mp3....

but if you only listen to the mp3 you don't really notice the difference if you don't really pay attention to it and want to hear it

So what exactly do you mean by "mp3"... a file at 96kbit, 128 kbit or 256 kbit ?
It all depends on the encoding you know.

Cheers.

Posted by dbl on Mar-09-2004 12:34:

quote:
Originally posted by Cryogenic
So what exactly do you mean by "mp3"... a file at 96kbit, 128 kbit or 256 kbit ?
It all depends on the encoding you know.

Cheers.

ok.. sorry.. meant "CD" quality offcourse (192kbit)
well.. it's the same with above 196 too

if it's 96 or 128kbit offcourse you hear a difference since the quality is shit....

and i have tryied this in a studio

Posted by J.L. on Mar-09-2004 14:41:

I'm just wondering.. what kind of encoder do you use? for ex: (LAME, MP3PRO)

Posted by Tranc3 on Mar-09-2004 17:54:

I use the LAME encoder, not too sure but I've been told it's one of the best out there. All I really know is mp3 quality is shite.

Posted by Luke Terry on Mar-09-2004 18:29:

mp3s are fine aslong they are encoded properly. i can personally distinguish between between an mp3 and a wave encoded at best quality in cdex at 192k, however at 224k i can't tell the difference. the new release method encoding in vbr is rather poor imo as you can tell its an mp3 almost straight away as areas drop into 96k, especially at the start of songs when there is nothing covering the percs.

Posted by iLLicit on Mar-09-2004 22:01:

Well mp3s are made to reduce the amount of file usage of a wav file. So surely there is some information lost when encoding. That's the risk you have when using mp3s. But rest assure, this has nothing to do with your producing capabilities. It happens to everyone turning their songs into mp3.

Most people will probable can't tell the difference in quality, so it isn't that big of a problem. Most people will listen on hifi speakers, instead of high quality monitors.

Posted by Tranc3 on Mar-10-2004 00:23:

quote:
Originally posted by iLLicit
Well mp3s are made to reduce the amount of file usage of a wav file. So surely there is some information lost when encoding. That's the risk you have when using mp3s. But rest assure, this has nothing to do with your producing capabilities. It happens to everyone turning their songs into mp3.

Most people will probable can't tell the difference in quality, so it isn't that big of a problem. Most people will listen on hifi speakers, instead of high quality monitors.

Yeah I understand the way mp3 compression works, I was just wondering if it's fairly common for so-called "high-quality" (192k, 16 bit) files to cut off all frequencies after 16Khz, which does indeed seem to be the case.