optimizing MP3 fidelity

Z

zenpicker

New member
Like everyone else, I routinely convert WAVs to MP3 for posting. There is noticeable difference in quality, but we put up with it....

However, I just did an MP3 conversion on a new acoustic guitar tune and the change in quality was DRASTIC. Much more harshness than I've ever heard before in a conversion. I tried it with both the Audition mp3 converter and a public domain one, with very similar results.

So - what types of specific audio characteristics make a given tune convert better (less loss of fidelity) than another tune? If one knew that, I guess one could do an MP3-targeted mix EQed with MP3 in mind as the ultimate target) and then a "real" mix....

Anyone know anything about this? I was just shocked at what I was hearing.
 
zenpicker said:
Like everyone else, I routinely convert WAVs to MP3 for posting. There is noticeable difference in quality, but we put up with it....

However, I just did an MP3 conversion on a new acoustic guitar tune and the change in quality was DRASTIC. Much more harshness than I've ever heard before in a conversion. I tried it with both the Audition mp3 converter and a public domain one, with very similar results.

So - what types of specific audio characteristics make a given tune convert better (less loss of fidelity) than another tune? If one knew that, I guess one could do an MP3-targeted mix EQed with MP3 in mind as the ultimate target) and then a "real" mix....

Anyone know anything about this? I was just shocked at what I was hearing.
Click to expand...
What was the bitrate of the mp3.....128k is a minimum for decent qualty....192k is a bit better. Too low, and it gets crappy sounding.
 
As far as I know, all samplerates are supported by nearly all players (all computer players, like WinAmp and WMP without a doubt, portable mp3 players I'm 95% sure.)
 
Hey Zen,

I've had a very similar problem with the loss of fidelity in mp3's since that's the quickest way to send/post a song online. It sucks, but like everyone here has already said, go with the 192kps and you should be straight with the clarity and what not. Also, here is an awesome converter that will let you convert just about any type of format whether it be an Aiff, wma, wav, mp3, mp4 or whatever you may have bounced your song into. Check that out, and even though it says you have to buy it, you can pretty much use it forever...you just have to put up with a display message asking for you to buy it.

mat
 
I use Acoustica to convert WAV to MP3. There is a setting to use the best possible bit rate of 320 kbps.

By user choice, Acoustica will also analyze the source WAV and only use the highest bit rate applicable to the individual source. I find this often varies between 128 and 192. It never generates the higher bit rates when it is allowed to optimize.
 
Well, I redid it at 192 and what a difference. My ignorance - I had always stayed away from the higher bitrate settings in my converter b/c 120 was marked "(Internet)" so I thought that was safest. When I had experimented with the MP3Pro VBR stuff, for example, what came out of my various media players was comical but not music. 192 seems to be handled just fine and the bump in quality is indeed significant.

In case anyone wants to compare, I've still got both versions here:

[192 version]

vs.



[120 version]

The 192 version is within spitting distance of WAV, though not as warm. At least it's acceptable quality for a download. Won't be posting it on my main site until I do some more cleanup and mastering (noise reduction, cleanup of some clicks, some more EQ) but I think this solves the MP3 quality issue.

So, THANKS!

e
 
Last edited:
Wait until you try a variable bit rate encoder.
It uses a higher bit rate for more complex parts and a lower bit rate for quiet or relatively simple parts. The sound is worlds better than a 128kps mp3 and noticeably better than a 192kps mp3. The only downside is that all players support them, but media player that ships with XP does, as does the winamp. It is becoming a standard feature...


zenpicker said:
Well, I redid it at 192 and what a difference. My ignorance - I had always stayed away from the higher bitrate settings in my converter b/c 120 was marked "(Internet)" so I thought that was safest. When I had experimented with the MP3Pro VBR stuff, for example, what came out of my various media players was comical but not music. 192 seems to be handled just fine and the bump in quality is indeed significant.

In case anyone wants to compare, I've still got both versions here:

[192 version]

vs.



[120 version]

The 192 version is within spitting distance of WAV, though not as warm. At least it's acceptable quality for a download. Won't be posting it on my main site until I do some more cleanup and mastering (noise reduction, cleanup of some clicks, some more EQ) but I think this solves the MP3 quality issue.

So, THANKS!

e
Click to expand...
 
amra said:
The only downside is that all players support them, but media player that ships with XP does, as does the winamp. It is becoming a standard feature...
Click to expand...
Do you mean NOT all players support, but WMP and Winamp do support? I was interested in trying this, my protools mp3 utility has a variable bit rate option.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top