mP3 encodeing rate

  • Thread starter Thread starter paresh
  • Start date Start date
P

paresh

Member
Is it worth using higher settings when creating MP3's to post to websites? I record the original audio at 16 bit/K. I don't mind a larger file if there is an audible diffeeence...What is the highest bit rate that would have a noticeable difference?
Thanks.
 
128KBPS is the "standard" or most commonly used and has a good file size. About 1MB per minute. But the quality is not good. Some songs can take it and others can't.

192KBPS is the best compromise between sound quality and file size. I hear little-to-no artifacts/crappyness on 192KBPS MP3s.

320KBPS is the highest quality that I'm aware of. But the file size is really big.

If you're posting to a site like SoundClick, which uses 128KBPS (unless you have a VIP account), then upload a 128KBPS MP3. If you don't, it will automatically re-convert to 128KBPS and that is a double-loss in quality.

If you upload to a site that doesn't care about bitrate (like www.lightningmp3.com) then upload as high as you want. I'd recommend 192KBPS.
 
I definitely wouldn't go any lower than 160, although I prefer to use 224 upwards.

I'm sure you can get a higher bitrate than 320 but 320 is the same quality as 16 bit 44.1kHz wav in MP3 encoding. That doesnt nesicerily mean 320 kpbs MP3 is as good quality as 16 bit 44.1kHz wave. Different encoders produce different quality also. I prefer to use Lame which seems to do the job pretty well IMO.

Eck
 
lame..

ecktronic said:
I definitely wouldn't go any lower than 160, although I prefer to use 224 upwards.

I'm sure you can get a higher bitrate than 320 but 320 is the same quality as 16 bit 44.1kHz wav in MP3 encoding. That doesnt nesicerily mean 320 kpbs MP3 is as good quality as 16 bit 44.1kHz wave. Different encoders produce different quality also. I prefer to use Lame which seems to do the job pretty well IMO.

Eck
Click to expand...

yeah, i agree, also i use a wee program called razorlame

its a frontend for lame, so you need to get lame aswell.

razorlame - http://www.dors.de/razorlame/
lame http://lame.sourceforge.net/index.php

there are options for things like variable bitrate, which does what it sounds like, it varies the bitrate according to what the program deems necessary, but as you know a computer doesnt have ears, and vbr mp3 can sound horrid.

the best thing to do is to encode a song into 4 or 5different encodings and listen to them all, then pick the one that sounds best, but generaly i stick to 320K constant bitrate for high quality mp3s and i go for 192k constant bitrate for my lo-fi ones =)

hope this helps
 
Thanks for all your replies. I do use Soundclick so that was good information. I will do some experimenting.
 
jonathanmitchel said:
yeah, i agree, also i use a wee program called razorlame

its a frontend for lame, so you need to get lame aswell.

razorlame - http://www.dors.de/razorlame/
lame http://lame.sourceforge.net/index.php

there are options for things like variable bitrate, which does what it sounds like, it varies the bitrate according to what the program deems necessary, but as you know a computer doesnt have ears, and vbr mp3 can sound horrid.

the best thing to do is to encode a song into 4 or 5different encodings and listen to them all, then pick the one that sounds best, but generaly i stick to 320K constant bitrate for high quality mp3s and i go for 192k constant bitrate for my lo-fi ones =)

hope this helps
Click to expand...
Nice.
I never heard of razorlame. Might get it.

A way of hearing the difference between a specific MP3 and the associated wave file is to play them at the same time in your DAW but invert the phase of one of them. If the 2 files are both lined up perfectly then all you will hear is the difference between the 2 files.
So the better the MP3 quality the less you will hear

Eck
 
ecktronic said:
Nice.
I never heard of razorlame. Might get it.

A way of hearing the difference between a specific MP3 and the associated wave file is to play them at the same time in your DAW but invert the phase of one of them. If the 2 files are both lined up perfectly then all you will hear is the difference between the 2 files.
So the better the MP3 quality the less you will hear

Eck
Click to expand...

long way for a shortcut....
 
jonathanmitchel said:
long way for a shortcut....
Click to expand...

Not really.
Have you compared a 320kbps MP to the associated wav file?
Its pretty hard to hear a difference between the 2.

By using the method I described in my earlier post you can hear how much is actually being lost by converting from wave to MP3 at 320.

Eck
 
ecktronic said:
Not really.
Have you compared a 320kbps MP to the associated wav file?
Its pretty hard to hear a difference between the 2.

By using the method I described in my earlier post you can hear how much is actually being lost by converting from wave to MP3 at 320.

Eck
Click to expand...

assuming that the phase cancellation is 100%

on the same vain, load in two copies of the same wav file into your DAW and invert the phasxe on one of them, you will hear something.
and that breaks your theory, cos the wav file doesnt differ from itsself
 
jonathanmitchel said:
assuming that the phase cancellation is 100%

on the same vain, load in two copies of the same wav file into your DAW and invert the phasxe on one of them, you will hear something.
and that breaks your theory, cos the wav file doesnt differ from itsself
Click to expand...

Totally wrong there.
If you inver the phase of a copy of a wave and play back both the wave and copy at same time, you dont hear a thing.

Eck
 
ecktronic said:
Totally wrong there.
If you inver the phase of a copy of a wave and play back both the wave and copy at same time, you dont hear a thing.

Eck
Click to expand...

in theory, yes, but in practice, no

try it man
 
Variable bit rate using the LAME encoder will keep the quality high whilst the file size stays reasonable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top