MP3s playback quality

C

Chuckschwandt

New member
I've noticed my MP3 playback quality
is not near the quality of my CD.
Other musicians on MP3 have very
good quality in playback. Would this
mean the upload was faulty ?
 
It all depends on the compression software used and the computer used to encode.

It also has a LOT to do with the WAV file that was encoded.

I use Audio Active Production Studio, which I believe has a harware interface as well. You bet your ass professional acts take their CD's to a place that has that set up.

But the software works just fine too.

Avoid XING Audio Catalyst and Mucousmatch Pukebox, those are shit encoders.

Try AudioActive, Mp3 Producer Pro, Blade

Those are the best.
 
MP3 encoders

Hi WeAponX,

Thank you for the reply and information.
You really raised my ears with curiosity
here. I did upload with Musicmatch and
that may be the problem. Are you saying
musicians are taking their songs to places
that can upload superior quality ? I don't
understand all the encoding lingo, but
I can hear the difference in quality when
clicking from song to song on MP3. Tell us
more. Where can I go for this service ?
How much per song and etc.

Thanks
Chuck

[Edited by Chuckschwandt on 09-07-2000 at 13:06]
 
Regebro, the evil bastard strikes again...

weAponX said:
Avoid [...] Mucousmatch Pukebox, those are shit encoders.

Try AudioActive, Mp3 Producer Pro, [...]
Those are the best.
Click to expand...
Interesting. All of these uses the Fraunhofer encoder...so why does one suck and the other two is the best?
 
MP3 shootout reveals that...

...there seem to be absolutely no sonic difference between dfferent software using the Fraunhofer encoder, as expected. MusicMatch makes an MP3 that sounds exactly as AudioActive in both 128K and 56K.
Xing AudioCatalyst I was only able to test in 128K, since the demo version only uses this, and the differences betweendifferent 128K encoders are small. So I can't say if Xing sucks, since the differences get bigger with lower bitrates.
 
reply to Rejebro

I am having trouble uploading CDRs recorded
in my home studio. I have no problem with songs
on my commercial project from discmakers, but
my CDRs won't work. Sometimes they seem to upload
fine, but no sound plays back from MP3.com !!!
Any ideas ?

Thanks
Chuck
 
weAponX is correct!

The Fraunhofer codec is considered to be one of the two best codecs for 128kbs conversions. At 192kbs (what I always encode at, but mp3.com won't allow...:() the field opens up a bit, but still the Franhofer seems to be just a little more accurate.

Let's get some clarification here from Chuck. Are the .wav files you are making mp3's from already on your hard drive? Where they put there via either mixing to your computer through your soundcard, or via a CD? If CD, are you doing a digital transfer to the hard drive, or using the software built into many mp3 encoders that allows you to make mp3's from CD's? If digital transfer, are you doing the transfer real time via a stable, usually bit for bit perfect protocol like AES/EBU and S/PDIF, or are you using "ripping" software which is supposed to copy the DATA from your CD to the hard drive from you CD drive?

If you are using the mp3 software to interface directly with your computers CD drive, is this drive a SCSI drive? If it is an IDE CD drive, do you have the ASPI driver (I think ASPI is what I am thinking here, sorry, it has been a long time since I played around with trying to use my CD drive for copying music on CD's to the hard drive, which never quite worked out for me by the way)?

Tell me exactly how your music gets onto the computer before you encode mp3's. This will make a major difference in how your mp3's sound.

Much of the mp3 encoding software that will encode music that is on CD in your CD drive does so by utilizing the D/A converters from the CD drive that go to your soundcard, then recording a .wav file via your sound card. Unless you have SCSI drives, which in this case, it makes usually an exact digital copy to the hard drive. The problem with doing it via the CD drives D/A converters and the soundcards A/D converters is that you are doing a D/A conversion using a very cheap D/A converter that is on your computers CD drive, then doing yet another A/D conversion via your soundcard, which usually has pretty bad A/D converters if it is the type that will allow an internal CD player to hook up to it. Like the Soundblaster stuff! Then, already bad sounding audio that doesn't sound as good as the CD does is then data compressed down by a 12:1 ratio (128kbs encoding scheme) using a encoder that may not be all that great, then the mp3 DECODING, which there are some differences in the quality of decoding codecs too, then yet another D/A conversion by your computers soundcard, which has typically rather lousy D/A converters, so you can actually hear it!

WOW. That is a lot of stuff to happen to the original sound. You can rather expect that in this scenario that the sound can potentially change a great deal, and not for the better!

Here are the keys to making great sounding mp3's. If any other source tries to tell you otherwise, have them get ahold of me and I will set them straight....:)

1- You have to get the music to the hard drive first. If you mix to your hard drive, well, it is there! If it is on CD, I have found that the best way to get it from CD to the hard drive is via the digital inputs of a soundcard from the digital outputs of a CD player. If you don't have digital outs on your CD player, well, you will need to get one.

2- Use a quality mp3 encoding codec. Fraunhofer and Lame are the best at 128kbs. All others do not match up at 128kbs. It is as simple as that, and this is supported by many techy papers I have read, and my own experience.

3- If you are going to go the route of "ripping" the music from a CD via the data cable on your computers CD drive, make sure that this ripping software allows you to "rip" at 1X speed. Any faster and the resulting .wav file will have errors compared to the original music. Also, your CD drive needs to have the proper device driver so that "ripping" is possible. Not all internal computer CD drives will allow "ripping" at 1X speed, and some don't come with the proper driver to even allow "ripping" at all. If you have all in one mp3 software that claims it will makes mp3's from your CD inserted in your CD drive, if you don't have the option to this with a digital transfer, then it is going to do the whole D/A conversion from your CD drive, then the A/D conversion from your soundcard. THIS IS ALWAYS GOING TO DEGRADE THE QUALITY OF THE MUSIC!!! So, if that is what is happening, either figure out a different way to get music from CD to your computer, or live with the resulting bad quality mp3's.

Good luck.

Ed
 
Reply tp sonusman

Hi Sonusman,

Thank you for the lengthy feedback on MP3 quality.
Some of the things you mentioned are comprehendable
to me, but I'm not that technical yet with this stuff.
Anyhow, I'll try to share what I do know in reference
to your information. I put my CD in my CD-ROM drive
and record to the to the Musicmatch jukebox that I downloaded from the MP3.com site. I even have the
$29.00 upgraded version ! It is supposed to do all
the ripping and encoding by default. I looked at the
settings and it is 128 bps. I don't understand it, but
rather trust it do it's thing. I do have a CDRW700 CD
writer; it has digital out settings too. I'm thinking
your way sounds like the ticket. Send it directly to
the hard drive ?

Thanks for taking the time to explain this process,
Chuck
 
You got it....

If you soundcard has a digital input that you can make work with your CD players digital output, that would be by far the best way to assure a good quality .wav to start with. Other methods I have tried just didn't yield great results. Often, other methods of copying CD music to the hard drive resulted in a degregation of the quality of the music.

I am not sure what codec your software is using. If it is not Lame or Fraunhofer, then you are using the lesser codecs, which some yield okay stuff, but not in the league of the Lame and Fraunhofer codec. I used to use XING with thier VBS or something another codec that is supposed to competer with the Fraunhofer codec, and it just plain didn't sound as good. While XING codec dealt with frequency responce fairly well, the bit depth issues were very present. The resulting mp3's lacked depth. The Fraunhofer codec not only deals with frequency resonse in an excellent way, but the depth of the mp3 when compared to the .wav is very close. At 192kbs, it is hard to tell the difference in fact! Believe me, I want to hear a big difference, but have a hard time doing so with Fraunhofer encoded mp3's at 192kbs!

If you lack scrupples about ummmmmmmmmm using ummmmmmmmmmmmmmm "shareware" (meaning a application that you SHOULD pay for, but someone cracked the serial number registration and will "share" it with you) it won't take you very long to find some websites that have these ummmmmmmmmmm "free" versions of some of the best mp3 encoders on the market. You decide what you want to do! I will just state for the record that using cracked software is illegal! But wouldn't it be great to rest your mind about the difference between something like Audio Production Studio (Pro) and XING BEFORE you pay for one or the other? Ahhhhhhhhhhh, the internet!

But, I think you will hear an immediate difference in your mp3 quality once you are dealing with a .wav file on the hard drive to encode rather then the appearent D/A A/D conversion your software is mostly likely doing to make an mp3 from a CD in your CD drive. I have done some of those, and they really sound lousy!

Good luck.

Ed
 
Most newer CD-ROM drives can read digitally from Audio CD's too, and whcih case you don't need a digital out on the CD and a digitla in on the soundcard. It can read it like it reads a CD-ROM, basically. This is the default for MusicMatch. I have started using MusicMatch too, it seems excellent. It also uses the Fraunhofer encoder which seems to be the best there is.
 
consider the new .asf codec

Many guys think the lame encoder sounds best,followed by fraunhoffer (they are threatening to collect royalties on everybody that uses their stuff) and blade a distant third.I got into the new Windows streaming format .asf a few months ago and the sound quality is at least as good as mp3 but the file sizes are about half or less.Windows Media Authoring Tools is a free download somewhere on the microsoft site.Sorry I have no link.Bizland deactivated my brother's mp3s last week for legal copyright fears and other servers are getting antsy too.That was one of the reasons I'm sliding over to the new format.
Tom
 
Reply to sonusman

Hi Sonuman,

I'm afraid I can't speak on your technical level
when it comes to MP3 uploads. I simply put a CD
in the CD-ROM drive, record to the musicmatch jukebox,
and then upload to mp3 from my hard drive. Sometimes
it uploads, but most times it just spits me out with
server problems of some sort. I don't know a ripper
from rip van winkle, or a decoder from the morse code.
I think that has alot to do with all my problems. When
it comes to recording with my audio gear it is no problem,
but when it comes to ripping, decoding, and uploading, it just gets really confusing. The technical verbage is just
not totally understandable to me, so I get lost. Why can't
I just upload my music and leave the drving to the techs?

Chuck
 
Hmm. "Upload" is usually referred to putting a file on an internet server. You put a CD into the CD-ROM-drive, which shouldn't involve any uploading at all. And also since MusicMatch complains about server errors, there seems to be some internet activity involved. This makes me kinda confused to what you are actually trying to do, and what is happening...

If you are just trying to make MP3's from your CD, that I find that pretty straightforward with MusicMatch. The only Server-activity involved in that should be getting the CD info from http://www.cddc.com, which works painlessly for me.
 
reply to regebro

Hi Regebro,

I record the CD from CD-ROM through the Musicmatch
to my hard drive. It is supposed to do the the fancy
dancing stuff like ripping and coding to prepare the
the file for upload. Then when I log onto my mp3.com.
I click there to upload a song. It gives me a box where
I can browse my c drive for the mp3 song. I click on
it and it jumps into the dialog box. It is a MP3 file
too. It starts uplaoding. Then after about 15 minutes,
I get thrown off the uploading process. The message says
the "server could not be found". I thought MP3.com is
the server location ?????????????????

Thank you for helping,
Chuck
 
AHA!

Now I get it. Yes, mp3.com is the server location.
There is something fishy when you try to send the file with http to mp3.com. This is either due to a problem with your browser, your ISP or mp3.com. I think you need to talk to mp3.com about it...
 
Reply to Regbro - AHA!

Hi Regebro,

This whole problem just recently developed.
I used to upload commerical songs with no problem.
The quality was the pits, but at least they did
upload. Now I just get kicked out while uploading.
"Server can't be found" is the message coming back.
by the way, I did what you said and contacted the musicmatch help network. They wanted to know where
I was trying to upload. They also mentioned some http verbage. SoI working on it anyway.

Thank you for helping too,
Chuck
 
A possibility....

mp3.com is a very very busy server these days. They could have reset some server settings, or just the huge load of into going to and from their servers are probably contributing to this problem.

In either case, http is not a great way to move large files on the internet. ftp is far more reliable, and usually, if a upload didn't complete, the recieving server will allow to start a new upload where the last one left off. I am not sure if this is possible with http uploads.

Also, your isp may be having increased traffic too. Their server could be losing too many packets and thus, you get the error messages.

Like I said, http is not really the established way to transfer large files on the internet, ftp is. Even x-drive has a ftp interface to use with uploading/downloading to their servers, and some people I have talked to that use x-drive say that it works much better then the http route.

So, while this doesn't solve your problem with uploads to mp3.com, at least you have an idea of what the problem is. Maybe they will add move server capacity here soon and the problem will start to go away, maybe they won't. Right now, they are having to pay off a rather large chunck of money to record labels for a settlement to their copyright infringement suit, and if Universal wins their award in a seperate suit but for the same reasons, mp3.com probably won't be around any more. We are talking an award that is over $400,000,000 dollars to Universal. I can't see mp3.com coming up with that dough. Neither can they from what I have read.

You may want to find a different route for uploading your music to share with the world! :)

Ed
 
Uhm..

No, you should contact mp3.com, not MusicMatch, since your problem arises when uploading to mp3.com.

So uploading commercial stuffworks, but not non-commercial? Hmmm...
 
Re: Regebro, the evil bastard strikes again...

regebro said:
Interesting. All of these uses the Fraunhofer encoder...so why does one suck and the other two is the best?
Click to expand...

I can't answer WHY, but the fact is, yup. Music Match really DOES produce worse results than other Frauhofer encoders, strange as it seems. It's really mostly noticable in lower qualities, but then, it's in the low qualities that fraunhofer usually excels, and it's when you need low bitspeeds that you really need to use fraunhofer.

I like Musicmatch jukebox as an application, but I'm dissapointed on it's low performance on 56K MP3 encoding. Not that I care much, I'm gonna use 128K in the future anyway, but it casts my doubts over the quality of 128K encoding too.
 
Reply to Regbro

Hi Regebro,

I will keep these things in mind. Yes Musicmatch has
met it's match. I'm frustrated with the whole thing.
We put quality into our recordings, then the upload
technology flushes it down the tubes. Maybe it will
all get better into the future.

Chuck
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top