What's the difference btn 706 kbps/160 kbps?

  • Thread starter Thread starter muhairwejas
  • Start date Start date
M

muhairwejas

New member
I know I have seen this topic addressed before somewhere in the forums but cant seem to find where.

Could some one give me the difference of recordings at 706/160.
I have noticed a difference in all these.

Forgive my bluntant ignorance, but again, I am just starting.
How can I get my mix from 706 to 160 or nearer.

And could some one explain bitrates to me.

Cheers

Jas
 
That's a weird question, dude. It sounds like you are actually referring to MP3 encoding or some type of data compression on a small multi track. If that is the case than higher = better quality but also larger file size.

What equipment or software has this setting?
 
Jas:

I'm not claiming to be the world's greatest authority on anything, except perhaps screwing up. But, honestly, I've no idea what those numbers are referring to, nor do I ever remember seeing those numbers anywhere. So I'm guessing the majority of us here are in the same boat. Sounds like some kind of a modem speed or something? Can you give us a couple more hints?
 
OK,
I know my question really sounded funny.

Anyway I played a mix I was working on using winamp and compared it to other mp3.

Well i noticed my mix was running at 706kbps and other professional mixes didnt go anywhere above 200kbps. Which led me to thinking, is this why my mix stinks?

And I came along bitrates and wanted to know what's behind them. Geuss it's this insatiable quest to put in everything I come accross.

Hope this is better.

Otherwise you guys are really great,
And JR#97, thanx for the maths lesson'

Jas
 
KBPS = Kilobytes per second. It's how much data is being used to represent the audio you started with (kinda like throughput).

I hate encoding at anything less than 192kbps.

128kbps is usually pretty nasty - swirly cymbals & stuff like that. It's what most Morpheus/Kaaza/Napster people rip CD's at.

160kbps is much better - considerably fewer compression artifacts.

192kbps is groovy.

And yup, the higher the number the larger the file. I'd just hate to think somebody thought my mix sucked because of MP3 problems.

muhairwejas, unfortunately 706kbps wouldn't make your mix sound bad at all - in fact, it'd probably sound better than most other MP3's as far as sound quality. But I'd question whatever encoding software you were using that encoded at 706!

What are you using to encode?
 
okay that makes sense. My first post still applies.

Higher is better but the files are bigger. 128k is pretty standard, 196k is being generous and 256k is being self indulgent.

706k is just plain HUGE and you should be ashamed of yourself ;)

I've never seen an mp3 bigger than 256k. Chances are the mp3 compression is not the reason your mixes don't sound like the latest single from Nsync ;) Not that that is neccessarily a gad thing.

Post your stuff in the MP3 clinic and we will be glad to rip it apart, err, I mean provide some constructive criticism.
 
I may be wrong guys, but perhaps 706 is .wav?

it seems that whenever I play .wav files in winamp, the kpbs window says 706......
 
VotaIdiota said:
I may be wrong guys, but perhaps 706 is .wav?

it seems that whenever I play .wav files in winamp, the kpbs window says 706......
Click to expand...

My kbs for .wav files says 14H?
Either way, if it's a wave file it should have a .wav extension.

I've never seen an MP3 over 320kbs. 706 might be an mp2 or mp1?
 
JR#97 said:


My kbs for .wav files says 14H?
Either way, if it's a wave file it should have a .wav extension.

I've never seen an MP3 over 320kbs. 706 might be an mp2 or mp1?
Click to expand...

you're right, I checked again and .wav is 14H.......

although I have seen some files with 706 before, and I KNOW (I think, at least) that they were not .mp3 files....
 
Ok,
So far so good, but I still dont know how I got there....Infact I dont even know anything about encoding- yet.

I use Cool Edit Pro, after mixing down my three tracks, I did some noise reduction and added some full reverb and listened to it using winamp later. Now, I dont know how I arrived at that figure, Initially I thought it was the reason for the bad quality and now I understand it's meant to be better. Well, now I am even more confused. lol

Help guys,
Otherwise let me go and do some more reading.
 
...by all means, keep reading. But in the meantime, are you using Cool Edit for your multitrack recording/mixing, or just for encoding (saving as an mp3) the final mixdown from another program?
 
I'm sure he's just exporting to a wav file.. mp3 encoding only goes up to 320 kbps.
 
"...by all means, keep reading. But in the meantime, are you using Cool Edit for your multitrack recording/mixing, or just for encoding (saving as an mp3) the final mixdown from another program?"


Yes, Iam using Cool Edit for multitrack recording/mixing.

Anyway have any input on bitrates and how this works, I'd appreciate it.

Ta,
Jas
 
If I understand correctly then, you've exported a .WAV file from Cool Edit. Depending on your media/MP3 player, it may report something odd, because it's not an MP3.

MP3 encoding is really nothing more than compressing and saving as an MP3 (plus adding the MP3 header information if you want to).

So, you need an MP3 encoder. I believe that Cool Edit sells an MP3 plugin, so you could keep it all within the same program if you want. Also, you can find about a zillion freeware encoders on the internet. Search on MP3 ENCODER FREEWARE. ...can't think of any to recommend off the top of my head (hangover is impeding my memory)

Basically, you select a WAV file as input, choose your options (bitrate, codecs, etc..), fill in your header information, and save.

Now you have an new MP3 that's much smaller than the WAV you started with, and it won't take 12 years to upload :)

Once you get there, test the different codecs and bitrates you have available to see what you like best. My personal preference is 192kbps.
 
Well Again you guys have shown me what a remarkable lot you are.

Some of the knowledge I have got here in the time given, I consider priceless.

Just keep it going this way.

And thanx for all that contributed

Cheers
 
possibly a low quality wav with an mp3 extension. . . ie the filename is bla.mp3.wav . . . but windoze will only show bla.mp3 . . . right click and click on properties and look at the file type. . .

? maybe 12bit? or egh! 8bit? would explain why it would sound like crap :) and at such a high bitrate

peace
sam
zekthedeadcow@hotmail.com
http://www.track100.com
 
eEEeek @ Music Match....

Right...where to begin.....

If you rip a CD to WAV, the bit rate will be 1411Kbps.....therefore anything lower than this is not CD quality and will have a loss in data.

MusicMatch and other programs use 3rd party encoding software to reduce the size of the file by reducing the number of bits. Typically 128 Kbps is bad, and 256 kbps (using musicmatch) is almost indistinguishable from CD quality.

quotes from www.r3mix.net
In february 2000 c't magazin organised a blind listening test. 300 Audiophiles were involved, finalists tested 17 1-min clips from different artists (classic and pop):
original CD recording
128 Kbit/s Joint Stereo [MusicMatch (FhG) v4.4] encoded PC decoded Mac
256 Kbit/s Joint Stereo [MusicMatch (FhG) v4.4] encoded PC decoded Mac
all on cdrs and played in a Recording Studio.

Conclusions:

90% of the 128 Kbit material was picked out
MP3@256 was rated to have the same music quality as cd
If you find MP3@256 to be of inferior quality compared to the original cd, you're very likely to be doing something wrong with the test (correct decoder, no objective double blind testing, DSP filters distorting the process, ...)

The threshold of mp3 transparency lies somewhere between 128kbit/s and 256kbit/s, depending on the kind of music and your hearing and equipment.

Knowing the facts of mp3, you could, if space is not really an issue use: cbr (constant bit rate) 256kbit/s by Lame or some Fraunhofer encoders
Remarks: Guaranteed perfect(x) transparent encoding, but guaranteed overkill on most parts of the music.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The classic trade-off between space and quality for mp3-archival quality is: cbr 192kbit/s by any Fraunhofer encoder (audioactive, radium codec, mp3enc, ...)
Remarks: Decent sound quality, but not perfect so no archival quality. Clearly audible encoding artifacts on some music when using hq headphones.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LAME brings us the first (and still only) optimally tweaked (unlike Fraunhofer) VBR mp3 encoder that does not mess up

Why VBR (Variable Bit Rate)?
VBR seems like a no-brainer. Near the beginning and ending of a song (assuming it starts and ends softly), where the volume is lower, and the music is less "demanding" in terms of its encodability, it makes sense to drop the bit rate, simply because there's not much there to encode, and the wasted space is overkill. In the middle of the song, where it may be more complicated, the idea of giving the encoder the option of "bumping up" the rate on a frame-by-frame basis is great! You may end up with a file that's the same overall size as a 170kbps CBR, but that uses frames as low as 32 on the really dead parts, and as high as 320 on the really tough parts. The bitrate is dynamically adapting to keep the quality constant. To know that the whole file isn't bloated where it isn't necessary, is a real bonus

In conclusion..

USE 'LAME' encoding......with this, you can get guaranteed CD quality MP3's.......and honestly.....noone will be able to tell the difference........I could post up 2 versions of my latest mix.....one around 40MB and one around 4 Mb, and you would not be able to tell the difference.....

Lame itself is a command line program, with a miriad of different front ends...........there is a load of information about this all over the web....but by far the best resource for this is... www.r3mix.net

Have fun

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