MP3 settiings?
- Thread starter PRHunt
- Start date
jimmys69
MOODerator
It depends on the host site you are sending to, and what they will allow. 320 is the best resolution for MP3. That is like 1/8 of the information that a wav file has, thus resulting in less that ideal sound representation. My fraction above may be mathematically incorrect, but any site that demands MP3 (most of them), will demand file sizes less than that of a wav file. Export as high as you can for the file size that is allowed.
Bobbsy
Boring Old Git
As Jimmy says, "it depends".
The higher the bit rate the better the quality but often you have to compromise on file size depending where your MP3s are going to go. I try to keep at 192kbps or above.
Similarly, if you codec gives you the option of variable bit rate (VBR), that can do a better job than constant bit rate (CBR) because it makes more efficient use of the available bits. However, there are some players out there that can't handle VBR so, unless I know where the MP3 is going, I tend to stick to CBR for anything I'm sending away.
The higher the bit rate the better the quality but often you have to compromise on file size depending where your MP3s are going to go. I try to keep at 192kbps or above.
Similarly, if you codec gives you the option of variable bit rate (VBR), that can do a better job than constant bit rate (CBR) because it makes more efficient use of the available bits. However, there are some players out there that can't handle VBR so, unless I know where the MP3 is going, I tend to stick to CBR for anything I'm sending away.
Massive Master
www.massivemastering.com
256kbps is a nice middle-ground... If size isn't an issue, 320 all the way. If you're looking to cram as much reasonably listenable info on a single source, 192 can be decent with a really good algorithm.
PRHunt
I void warranties
Thanks everyone!
My question was originally posted in the "Mix This" section, and the context of the question was related to that, since I was interested to know how the mp3s were being made by those submitting finished mixes.
The mp3 program I am using, lame (linux command line version) provides a shed-load of options and I was curious to find out if users were doing anything beyond specifying the bit rate.
Paul
My question was originally posted in the "Mix This" section, and the context of the question was related to that, since I was interested to know how the mp3s were being made by those submitting finished mixes.
The mp3 program I am using, lame (linux command line version) provides a shed-load of options and I was curious to find out if users were doing anything beyond specifying the bit rate.
Paul
R
RAMI
Guest
PR, just for the record, my MP3 was at 320. I wouldn't be surprised if that's what most of the others up-loaded it at.
rayc
retroreprobate
192kbps is the MINIMUM rate though I wouldn't recommend it & even if I did that it would be with the information that there'll be artifacts and severe degredation of sound.
Which Converter you use also makes a difference. LAME isn't the best at 320 - there are a few that come out fairly evenly - but at 192 it's ahead of the pack.
This site isn't convinced about the benefits of FLAC but 320 is ALMOST universal with folks who want their track to be listened to seriously.
Do a little research & find out what suits your machine, converter & circumstances.
Which Converter you use also makes a difference. LAME isn't the best at 320 - there are a few that come out fairly evenly - but at 192 it's ahead of the pack.
This site isn't convinced about the benefits of FLAC but 320 is ALMOST universal with folks who want their track to be listened to seriously.
Do a little research & find out what suits your machine, converter & circumstances.
Thanks Boosy. You have answered my quesyion about VBR.
I use an old version (1.5) of Adobe Audition for MP3 encoding but MAGIX Samplitude Silver has an encoder in it all for free.
If I have mangaged to get the attachment "attached" can you tell me what all those options mean please?
Dave.
PRHunt
I void warranties
rayc, can you explain further?
The benefit of FLAC (ignoring for now considerations of open standards and royalty-free use) is a smaller audio file which preserves the exact audio quality of the source. As the FLAC algorithm implements loss-less compression, concerns about audio quality are irrelevant.
Cheers! Paul
rayc
retroreprobate
Folk aren't convinced about the need for FLAc particularly given that a 320 MP3 can be approx 10% of the original wave file's size and a full spec FLAC is closer to 50%.
There's also the probem of how few of the popular media players - especially steamers and such - play FLAC.
Setting up winamp to do so is a hassle - Foobar is good.
I rather like the idea of FLAC for music critiques when wavs are just too big to zip around the net quickly.
There's also the probem of how few of the popular media players - especially steamers and such - play FLAC.
Setting up winamp to do so is a hassle - Foobar is good.
I rather like the idea of FLAC for music critiques when wavs are just too big to zip around the net quickly.
Bobbsy
Boring Old Git
I'll try.
Intensity Stereo is a technique to reduce bit rates by only coding a single mono channel plus directional information for the higher frequencies (which human ears detect more directional info) only. It tends only to be used at low bit rates.
"Mid Size" is probably a typo for "Mid/Side". The L and R channels are summed to a "Mid Channel" while difference info is coded to give directional info.
Mixdown to Mono (I assume) is self explanatory--a mono track uses half the bits of a two channel (stereo) track.
"CRC" = Cyclical Redundancy Check. The MP3 spec allows for the inclusion of some extra data bits (16 per frame from memory but don't trust me) to check on the accuracy of the transmission. Frankly, in my opinion it's a waste of the bits since errors are rare and the error correction unreliable.
The others are, I assume, just marking the metadata in the MP3 with the information as stated.
PRHunt
I void warranties
Which is interesting given that FLAC is a completely open and royalty-free format. Makes one wonder if certain parties are not that happy about open standards.
The European Broadcasting Union seems to adopting FLAC to some extent. EBU.CH :: Frequently Asked Questions
Bobbsy
Boring Old Git
FLAC works really well and is truly lossless. The trouble is, the vast majority of people these days are more concerned about file size than audio quality. They'd rather have their entire music collection on their MP3 player in muzzy 128kbps files rather than have pristine, high quality copies and have to, heaven forbid, be a bit selective.
I do wonder if this will become a moot point in a few years though. Storage is becoming ridiculously cheap making small files less important--and we're not that far off having true broadband connections everywhere--I've already ordered my 100Mbps fibre connection to the home for when they start installing it next year.
The only question is: have people become so cloth eared listening to MP3s that they'll never recognise quality again?
I do wonder if this will become a moot point in a few years though. Storage is becoming ridiculously cheap making small files less important--and we're not that far off having true broadband connections everywhere--I've already ordered my 100Mbps fibre connection to the home for when they start installing it next year.
The only question is: have people become so cloth eared listening to MP3s that they'll never recognise quality again?
Last edited:
Thanks Bob,
One thing I can't get my head around. How are stereo files twice the size of mono? FM stereo and NICAM don't use anything like twice the bandwidth?
N.B. I do mean "stereo" and not two discrete audio channels.
Dave.
Bobbsy
Boring Old Git
Good point. I should have added "depending on the encoder" since different versions handle things differently.
Without using special techniques, stereo IS two discrete audio channels, hence a mono wave of a certain duration and spec using have the data of a stereo wave file of the same duration and spec.
However, for transmission purposes (like your Nicam or FM stereo examples) there are neat tricks that can be used to minimise the bandwidth. Most of these use some variation of transmitting a centre channel plus information detailing the differences needed for L and R.
MP3 can be the same. The basic stereo format is, in effect, two discrete audio channels but there are lots of techniques that can be used to simulate stereo--for example the "intensity stereo" listing on the menu you posted, However, different codecs will handle things differently so I was over simplifying to say "stereo is double mono". I can be but, as with so many answers in here, "it depends".
Without using special techniques, stereo IS two discrete audio channels, hence a mono wave of a certain duration and spec using have the data of a stereo wave file of the same duration and spec.
However, for transmission purposes (like your Nicam or FM stereo examples) there are neat tricks that can be used to minimise the bandwidth. Most of these use some variation of transmitting a centre channel plus information detailing the differences needed for L and R.
MP3 can be the same. The basic stereo format is, in effect, two discrete audio channels but there are lots of techniques that can be used to simulate stereo--for example the "intensity stereo" listing on the menu you posted, However, different codecs will handle things differently so I was over simplifying to say "stereo is double mono". I can be but, as with so many answers in here, "it depends".
rayc
retroreprobate
FLAC has suffered from the need for small sizes & that should diminish with the price of terabyte stuff these days but folk are now far less interested in quality/fidelity in their music - a bit like the transister radio days - they hear it in cheap form & want to replicate that as it's what sounds right to them.
I resisted FLAC for some time purely because I didn't believe it was truly lossless & persisted in buying media players that could handle wav. I'd love to get my hands on a pocket player that did FLAC these days but they don't seem to be about. You'd think, given it's royalty free nature etc & the fact that unpacking a FLAC filke takes less energy that packing it, that it'd be all over the cheapie market but NO!.
I started a thread that explained the difference in MP3 encoders somewhere on the forum. I'll see if I can dig it up.
This is where I stole the info from anyway:
http://milaa.tripod.com/mp3Comparison/
I resisted FLAC for some time purely because I didn't believe it was truly lossless & persisted in buying media players that could handle wav. I'd love to get my hands on a pocket player that did FLAC these days but they don't seem to be about. You'd think, given it's royalty free nature etc & the fact that unpacking a FLAC filke takes less energy that packing it, that it'd be all over the cheapie market but NO!.
I started a thread that explained the difference in MP3 encoders somewhere on the forum. I'll see if I can dig it up.
This is where I stole the info from anyway:
http://milaa.tripod.com/mp3Comparison/