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.

Yeah, above 16k

___________________
1 out of every 4 people in this country are mentally disturbed. Look at your 3 closest friends. If they seem okay, then you're the one.

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...

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.

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

___________________
Daniel

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.

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

___________________
Daniel

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

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.

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.

___________________

w: www.luketerry.com

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.

___________________
www.ultimatedjbattle.com