Learn how to make good mp3's. NOW!

vbimport

#1

everyday many new people discover mp3s. everyday more people get stuck with the same misconceptions about what actually good mp3 quality is and most don’t even stop to think about quality because they don’t know it’s an issue.

most read or learn or assume that a 128k mp3 is “CD-quality” and a few days later the world is richeranother set crap quality mp3’s.

after a few months or weeks they get aware that their music sounds bad with these mp3’s.

some switch to 160k or even 192k. some join the “scene” and think that they’re l33t and take 192k.

well, 128k, 192k, 160k, it’s all crap. I didn’t realise this immediately but went through the same painful learning proces most have to go through.

I decided to spend some of my time trying to get this message through to you and other people. Maybe if more people did this you could enjoy mp3’s you download from the net in future.

please try to win some info on the subject and get yourself informed or visit http://www.r3mix.net (or forum) which I found to be one of the best sites to learn some mp3 quality facts. Best think for yourself rather than mimmic other people or take their word for it.

you don’t have to take 128k or 192k crap.

mp3freak2003@hotmail.com


#2

For some us who still only have a 56k connection, we need those lower bitrates to download songs in a timely fashion :wink: Seriously, have you ever tried downloading an 192k song with a 56k dialup? It blows!


#3

I dunno what you’re trying to say but I enjoy my mp3’s as much as my cdz


#4

I understand both points 100%, you have to sacrafice for what you want if your on 56k. You want good quality then slower DL. Faster DL lower quality. Your choice.


#5

As long as you have the right Codec (Fraunhofer) you can good enough quality. Variable bitrate is more than sufficient for me, as long as the highest quality is set.

Many people can’t even hear the difference between 192 and higher bitrates, especially not on their computer speakers. Some people are fortunate enough to have a high end sound system and are able to hear the difference, but they can afford to buy the original cds as well so shouldn’t complain anyway…


#6

I completely agree with ta tax, the difference is only noticable on high-end audio installations

No matter what you use, it will always have some advantages, or disadvantages


#7

I must say that my mp3z sound just great!!! The 128k’s & 192k’s. I always use the Fraunhofer codec (allready mentioned)! And ofcourse sometimes a downloaded mp3 doesn’t sound very good, but own made always do! :wink:

So no complaining about bad mp3z overhere! :stuck_out_tongue:


#8

Some people are fortunate enough to have a high end sound system and are able to hear the difference, but they can afford to buy the original cds as well so shouldn’t complain anyway…

In fact, these people donot hear the differences on their expensive audio systems at all ! A while ago, a test was made with mp3 Xing-coded (!!!) cd’s (burned to wav of course) on a dutch forum http://forum.hifi.nl and all participants where dead wrong !! Most of them found that the mp3’s sounded better, and could not distinguish them from the original…
In a short while a new testresult will come out from the high-enders, I will keep you posted…

dagg.

testresults:

The sequence on the CD was as follows:

   TRACK "Parade of the Ewoks" 

   1)      Audio active studio V2.0       MP3       256KB/s 
   2)      XING audio catalyst V2.1      MP3      Variable bitrate      32 KB/s to 192 KB/s 
   3)      "The original" !!!! 
   4)      Audio active studio V2.0            MP3      128KB/s 
   5)      XING audio catalyst V2.1      MP3      Variable bitrate Hi Quality 32 KB/s to 300 KB/s 
   6)      XING audio catalyst V2.1      MP3      128KB/s 

   TRACK "Ride across the river" 

   1)      XING audio catalyst V2.1      MP3      Variable bitrate Hi Quality 32 KB/s to 300 KB/s 
   2)      Audio active studio V2.0            MP3      128KB/s 
   3)      XING audio catalyst V2.1      MP3      128KB/s 
   4)      XING audio catalyst V2.1      MP3      Variable bitrate      32 KB/s to 192 KB/s 
   5)      Audio active studio V2.0       MP3       256KB/s 
   6)      "The original" !!!! 

The choice of the testers, best sound, and thereby assuming the original number:

   Track:            Parade of the Ewoks                                               Ride across the river 
   --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
   Tester 1:       XING Variable bitrate HiQuality                 XING Variable bitrate HiQuality 
   Tester 2:      XING Variable bitrate HiQuality                 XING Variable bitrate HiQuality 
   Tester 3:      XING 128KB/s                             XING Variable bitrate 
   Tester 4:      Audio active 128KB/s                               XING 128KB/s 

[Edited by dagg on 07-03-2001 at 21:42]


#9

Owke, i see you’re point but not everyone is so damm picky as you are. I’m ripping for 4 years now and i never heard anyone complain about the quality of my songs. It’s just a matter of how good you’re reader can rip the songs…

And beside what they tell you on the site XING ENCODERS ARE NOT BUGGY. I installed that lame EAC program and it crashed and F*CKED UP my whole system. (It also trasht some of my friends systems) I use Audiocatalyst for years now and it NEVER crashed, not once.

One more thing about the 256 bitrate… PEople with a normal modem (56k) will take about, lets say, FOREVER to download a song. A 5 minute songs is then more then 10 mb, wich destroys the use of mp3, because it’s supposed to bring you good quality music while the file remains quite small…

So there,

I’ve spoken

JunKX

(This post does not mean to say that you’re a mean f*cker or something, i’m just trying to make a point here.)