|
quality difference between different bitrate MP3s (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| RavingLunatic |
Actually to tell the truth, I can't hear much difference between the two!
the 192k one does sound slightly better, but only slightly, and the filesize is double.
this is in winamp of course, EQ off.
I then tried it in Virtual Turntables, loaded one track into each deck to compare. (turned off the EQ)
it's easier this way, you can set both to play at once, then move the cross fader across for easy comparison.
the difference is more evident here, the 192k file sounds "brighter" the snares sound crisper. my conclusion is that the 96k drops a lot of the high pitched sounds, making them sound muffled...
but all in all sounds pretty damn close.
All I wanna know how to get the the Dj with no name mix to sound better! :) |
|
|
| reveal |
you seem to have forgot one important thing regarding those two samples...
the one encoded in 96kbps is only in 32kHz frequency, while the one encoded in 192kbps in in 44kHz frequency. this is VERY important when you're talking about quality |
|
|
| RavingLunatic |
those 2 are loosely related though..
a higher sample rate means you have to stream at a higher bitrate to get all the info there in time.
so in a standard 128kbps mp3, the sample rate is usually 44.1khz
in a 56kbps stream the sample rate is 22khz
but a 40kbps stream can also have a 22khz sample rate, and won't sound as good.
even a 24kbps stream can have a 22khz sample rate, and will sound about the same.
I got this by listening to different streams from here. http://www.di.fm/
anyway, my point is that the 92k file is encoded at a lower khz out of neccesity, not to skew the results of the test. |
|
|
| eekthecat |
Get a live will y ???:whip:
whats the deal with this 192 and 96. :conf:
errrr.... i dont care u saved in 192 or 96 or even in 32 . really i dont care.
some believe, u can change the bitrate higher, then u get a better quility sound. So, ok, some of us are Deaf, and some of us, are not deaf. :D j/k
Anyway, i like how u both mixin this stuff, not like me, snif snif.
But hey, some, doin this for Fun, and some doin this for serious. :D
Dawn and no name, have a good stuff. And i like it.
so wut the prob ???.....
yes i D/L noname live sets into my comp. in 96 bit. the sound a little bit wacky, but im not complaining, coz 96 bitrate are fast to D/L. but not 192. (somethin todo with the compression i think...:D dont ask me, im stupid enough with this.) and Down live sets, Geeshh i D/L yr livestes and copy it into my MD and put it on My car stereo lol....
so please cut the chit chat. A hole. And PLEASE,,,,, start to make a new live sets for us again aight ?????? i dont care u put it on 192 or 96.
ps. am i the only 1 who neutral in this ????:clown:
j/k no offence all |
|
|
| RavingLunatic |
| lol.. your too funny eek. |
|
|
| eekthecat |
| look at my pict :eyes: :D :D :D :D |
|
|
| Dmatrox |
| How can someone not tell the difference between 96 and 192? When I first started listening to music a while ago, didn't know anything about this quality thing. As people listen more to music they SHOULD be able to tell the difference between a 96 and 192 bitrate quality. There is substantial sound differences. Period. Oh yeah Dj Dawn is right :) |
|
|
| TurboGS-R |
| there's no doubt there's a huge difference between listening an mp3 with 96kbit and an mp3 with 192kbit. heck i can hear differences between 128kbit and 160kbit. i'd like to hear the samples too paul. also i thought the samples dj dawn posted were perfect. it clearly shows a huge discrepancy between the two qualities. |
|
|
| DJ_Ballistic |
once u get to 192 k/b u wont notice any difference cause any sound that takes up the entire channel at say 320 k/b is in audible to the human ear
the only differences in 128 & 192 are determined by how high the bass is, if its a song with blasting bass, then 192 is the way to go to stop distortion, beats are usually the only thing that will reach the full capacity of the channel in a 128 k/bit encoded song, and yeah if u encode from lower to higher bit rate, u wont notice a difference except maybe in how much distortion there is, because encoding a song can't recreate the original sound wave |
|
|
| tranZistor |
If anyone would like to resolve this thread, please go to r3mix.net and read up on the quality testing section. Most tests were done double blind between actual cds, 256kbit encoding, 192, etc. Most 'experts' agreed that the 256 sounded 'cd-quality' and anything less had a noticable difference in quality... now whether this is 'deaf' or 'hearing' people that is a matter of opinion.
Anyway, it only matters what you think because everyone hears different. I only rip, encode and download files that are 256k or better, but I play music on custom speakers that are above and beyond the computer speakers many people listen to music on. Granted, I still collect all trance, and if I can only get a song at 128, then that works for me.
tranZistor |
|
|
| Tranzmit |
Paul i hate to be cruel but the difference between is 92 and 192 bit mp3 is usually huge. But i just realised why you may not be able to distinguish them from another and that boils down to your audio hardware. If you're listening with cheap headphones and a cheap soundcard in your system then true you won't be able to tell the difference but try listening on a system with a SB Live or an Audigy and using sennheiser or AKG phones (like i use). If your audio equipment isn't good quality don't expect to get good quality sound from it whatever the bitrate of mp3's it is.
VBR encoded mp3's are usually of highe quality then the same bitrate normal mp3's, thus a 128bit VBR mp3 would probably sound about the same as a 192 bit mp3. It's all variables that have to be taken into consideration |
|
|
| djdawn |
Hey, thanks for the input everyone!
TranZistor, I already mentioned that webpage, that's what got me to use LAME in the first place.
Some people sounded as if they thought I was trying to start a fight about who's rips sound the best, but that's not what I intended.
I just think it's interesting to get everyone's opinion on technical stuff like this. Because if we agreed that 192 kbps IS wasting space because nobody hears a difference compared to 96 kbps, then everybody should know. That would cut the size of all the shared files IN HALF and thus be very important.
But I think it's clear that most people prefer 128 kbps or above, for me VBR is the way to go.
@RavingLunatic: When you install that MP3Pro Plugin, you need to activate it in order to hear the difference (there IS one):
Go to options, preferences, plug-ins, Input, configure the Thompson mp3 pro decoder and set the "enable" switcht, then start the song again.
I think it's much better than regular 96kbps encoding, but I notice a lot of "hiss" in the cymbals and other high tones... |
|
|
|
|
