DiyMobileAudio.com Car Stereo Forum banner

1 - 20 of 55 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
302 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I'm was just wondering, since I have been listening to MP3s for so long and can't even remember what uncompressed CDs sound like! :p

I'm going to be playing mp3s and WMAs only with my new system, most of them encoded at 192kbps, some are more, some are even WMA lossless. I wonder if I have been chasing ghosts trying to build a SQ system even though my source is just compressed music.

And a funny thought I had also - I was worried that I won't have a sub sonic filter for my sealed DIYMA R12, but then I wonder if my mp3s are even encoded to include frequencies that low....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
254 Posts
I'm was just wondering, since I have been listening to MP3s for so long and can't even remember what uncompressed CDs sound like! :p

I'm going to be playing mp3s and WMAs only with my new system, most of them encoded at 192kbps, some are more, some are even WMA lossless. I wonder if I have been chasing ghosts trying to build a SQ system even though my source is just compressed music.
I'd say "chasing ghosts" is probably an accurate statement, especially if you're talking about downloaded mp3s for which you've had no control over the encoding process. Most revealing high-end speakers might not be so kind to your compressed source music across the board, though statistically some will end up sounding OK.

And a funny thought I had also - I was worried that I won't have a sub sonic filter for my sealed DIYMA R12, but then I wonder if my mp3s are even encoded to include frequencies that low....
Some do, some don't. If you didn't encode them yourself, you won't know. There was a piece of freeware kicking around a few years back that would analyze your mp3 collection and identify the encoder used to make the compression on each file...some were pretty decent, and others were abominations that could make mp3s encoded with that software sound terrible and be filled with artefacts like hisses and pops.

Most of the software today does a much better job, might even give you the option to use different encoders to make the compression. I use EAC and LAME, which applies a high pass filter in the DOS portion of the compression around 20hz, stripping frequencies the program deems unuseable (but that many DIYMA members' systems are capable of playing back). Apple's encoding software in iTunes gives options to eliminate the lowest frequencies during the encoding process also.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
254 Posts
i can't hear above 16k.... imagine the quality i could get if i strip that too...
I'm sure it would be a thing of beauty...glorious to behold ;).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,203 Posts
It is well proven that above 16K, most people sense something with the music vs. actually hearing it. That something is probably due to harmonics.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26 Posts
I'm was just wondering, since I have been listening to MP3s for so long and can't even remember what uncompressed CDs sound like! :p

I'm going to be playing mp3s and WMAs only with my new system, most of them encoded at 192kbps, some are more, some are even WMA lossless. I wonder if I have been chasing ghosts trying to build a SQ system even though my source is just compressed music.

And a funny thought I had also - I was worried that I won't have a sub sonic filter for my sealed DIYMA R12, but then I wonder if my mp3s are even encoded to include frequencies that low....
bandwidth of mpeg layer 3 compression increases with the actual amount of kilobytes per second sampling.....

if you encode all of your music to 192 or above,, I use 360kbs you will be just fine,, and the final output sound would be either equal to or better than the source....

I promise,,,, lol

but the actual bandwidth will rely on the device you are playing the mp3 on.. if it is an mp3 player or head unit with mp3 capabillities,, it will depend on the abillity of the d/a converters and line level audio circuits to reproduce them ...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,951 Posts
bandwidth of mpeg layer 3 compression increases with the actual amount of kilobytes per second sampling.....

if you encode all of your music to 192 or above,, I use 360kbs you will be just fine,, and the final output sound would be either equal to or better than the source....

I promise,,,, lol

but the actual bandwidth will rely on the device you are playing the mp3 on.. if it is an mp3 player or head unit with mp3 capabillities,, it will depend on the abillity of the d/a converters and line level audio circuits to reproduce them ...
Are you seriously trying to claim that a compressed mp3 will be better than the source, or did i read that wrong?

Tell me how you can improve the original recording by removing parts of it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,951 Posts
So, you're claiming that you can improve the sound quality of a track by ripping it from a cd into an mp3 format.

Either I need to learn how to read, or you need to.

The original CD is as good it's getting (with the exception of the masters) you will lose quality 100% of the time by compressing it into an MP3. You can MAINTAIN the quality by ripping it into a lossless format, but you will NOT improve the quality no matter what you do.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,203 Posts
And if you strip off frequencies you THINK you can't hear or you THINK your equipment cannot reproduce, you're going to end up with a thin and lifeless sounding recording. Those upper frequencies contain the sense of the music, the intangible. We feel things we can not hear at those levels. Harmonics, typically, will be in those frequencies.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,951 Posts
And if you strip off frequencies you THINK you can't hear or you THINK your equipment cannot reproduce, you're going to end up with a thin and lifeless sounding recording. Those upper frequencies contain the sense of the music, the intangible. We feel things we can not hear at those levels. Harmonics, typically, will be in those frequencies.
Exactly! The only argument I could see is if you have bad recordings or very revealing speakers and the compression tones the music down by cutting out details. Although this may make the music sound better to someone, it is still a lower quality, altered version of the original.

The fact is you can't make a better quality copy than the original CD. You can make copies that are identical, but you can't improve upon the original. There are plenty of formats and bitrates that offer a great compromise to the original, but regardless of how close they are to the original, they are still a compromise.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26 Posts
Are you seriously trying to claim that a compressed mp3 will be better than the source, or did i read that wrong?

Tell me how you can improve the original recording by removing parts of it.
Ok,, first what I meant by better,,is that in studio terms,, 360k is better in quality than cd audio quality by far, i didnt actually mean that your compressed sound would be better than the source,, maybe I should have added a couple of extra words.. but I kind of figured that since it was just one guy asking a question in a thread that I could give him some quick hope with an answer without going into much detail,, but I didnt realize that other people would get so far away from helping the original poster and try to correct other people thus getting away from the original point of what the forum is for...,, anyway I digress,,, so if you compress a song off of a cd to 360k, it will lose absolutely nothing in the transition,,
and in reality no it will not be of better quality than the original.. that is impossible,, unless you put some eq or something into it before you compress it

and what are you talking about removing parts of it?????? the digital to digital compression from cd audio to mp3 removes nothing when compressed 192k and above,,, well within reason.. 192k leaves bandwidth kind of chopped at about 16k,, but if you do 256k or higher it is perfect... 360kbits per second has a bandwidth capable of reproducing audio both way higher than we can hear, and lower than most hardware can reproduce. and is totally translucent meaning no coloring of the sound,, ..

I work part time as a producer for a local recording studio called No Chorus Entertainment Productions... this is what I deal with daily...

We record our Wav files at 24 bit digital at 96k sampling rate then after premastering we cut them down to 360k mp3 to save space,, because the 360k mp3 is of as good quality as the 24/96000 wav recording,, and 24/96k wav audio is studio standard around the world,,,
cd audio is 16bit/44100 or 16 bit interpolation 44,100 kbits per second sampling rate...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,524 Posts
Ok,, first what I meant by better,,is that in studio terms,, 360k is better in quality than cd audio quality by far, i didnt actually mean that your compressed sound would be better than the source,, maybe I should have added a couple of extra words.. but I kind of figured that since it was just one guy asking a question in a thread that I could give him some quick hope with an answer without going into much detail,, but I didnt realize that other people would get so far away from helping the original poster and try to correct other people thus getting away from the original point of what the forum is for...,, anyway I digress,,, so if you compress a song off of a cd to 360k, it will lose absolutely nothing in the transition,,
and in reality no it will not be of better quality than the original.. that is impossible,, unless you put some eq or something into it before you compress it

and what are you talking about removing parts of it?????? the digital to digital compression from cd audio to mp3 removes nothing when compressed 192k and above,,, well within reason.. 192k leaves bandwidth kind of chopped at about 16k,, but if you do 256k or higher it is perfect... 360kbits per second has a bandwidth capable of reproducing audio both way higher than we can hear, and lower than most hardware can reproduce. and is totally translucent meaning no coloring of the sound,, ..

I work part time as a producer for a local recording studio called No Chorus Entertainment Productions... this is what I deal with daily...

We record our Wav files at 24 bit digital at 96k sampling rate then after premastering we cut them down to 360k mp3 to save space,, because the 360k mp3 is of as good quality as the 24/96000 wav recording,, and 24/96k wav audio is studio standard around the world,,,
cd audio is 16bit/44100 or 16 bit interpolation 44,100 kbits per second sampling rate...
This is why I am gonna love my Rhapsody through a car PC. :)

(160K WMA)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,807 Posts
I work part time as a producer for a local recording studio called No Chorus Entertainment Productions... this is what I deal with daily...

We record our Wav files at 24 bit digital at 96k sampling rate then after premastering we cut them down to 360k mp3 to save space,, because the 360k mp3 is of as good quality as the 24/96000 wav recording,, and 24/96k wav audio is studio standard around the world,,,
cd audio is 16bit/44100 or 16 bit interpolation 44,100 kbits per second sampling rate...
lol, i forsee some very expensive car systems here going up for sale soon :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
250 Posts
Ok,, first what I meant by better,,is that in studio terms,, 360k is better in quality than cd audio quality by far, i didnt actually mean that your compressed sound would be better than the source,, maybe I should have added a couple of extra words.. but I kind of figured that since it was just one guy asking a question in a thread that I could give him some quick hope with an answer without going into much detail,, but I didnt realize that other people would get so far away from helping the original poster and try to correct other people thus getting away from the original point of what the forum is for...,, anyway I digress,,, so if you compress a song off of a cd to 360k, it will lose absolutely nothing in the transition,,
and in reality no it will not be of better quality than the original.. that is impossible,, unless you put some eq or something into it before you compress it

and what are you talking about removing parts of it?????? the digital to digital compression from cd audio to mp3 removes nothing when compressed 192k and above,,, well within reason.. 192k leaves bandwidth kind of chopped at about 16k,, but if you do 256k or higher it is perfect... 360kbits per second has a bandwidth capable of reproducing audio both way higher than we can hear, and lower than most hardware can reproduce. and is totally translucent meaning no coloring of the sound,, ..

I work part time as a producer for a local recording studio called No Chorus Entertainment Productions... this is what I deal with daily...

We record our Wav files at 24 bit digital at 96k sampling rate then after premastering we cut them down to 360k mp3 to save space,, because the 360k mp3 is of as good quality as the 24/96000 wav recording,, and 24/96k wav audio is studio standard around the world,,,
cd audio is 16bit/44100 or 16 bit interpolation 44,100 kbits per second sampling rate...
Removes nothing? Then what's taking up the difference of a 40 megabyte .wav verses a 7 megabyte mp3? (at 360k) padding bits?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
250 Posts
Stuff that 99.99999999999999999999999999999% of the population can't hear in a double blind test.
Ok. So if most of what you can't hear is being dropped, then what about Transcoding? Would I end up with any difference transferring from WMA -> MP3 or OGG at a similar bitrate?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,149 Posts
and what are you talking about removing parts of it?????? the digital to digital compression from cd audio to mp3 removes nothing when compressed 192k and above,,, well within reason.. 192k leaves bandwidth kind of chopped at about 16k,, but if you do 256k or higher it is perfect... 360kbits per second has a bandwidth capable of reproducing audio both way higher than we can hear, and lower than most hardware can reproduce. and is totally translucent meaning no coloring of the sound,, ..

I work part time as a producer for a local recording studio called No Chorus Entertainment Productions... this is what I deal with daily...

We record our Wav files at 24 bit digital at 96k sampling rate then after premastering we cut them down to 360k mp3 to save space,, because the 360k mp3 is of as good quality as the 24/96000 wav recording,, and 24/96k wav audio is studio standard around the world,,,
cd audio is 16bit/44100 or 16 bit interpolation 44,100 kbits per second sampling rate...

I can't find your production company........ Let me google that for you

That was funny as hell........

you cannot archive at MP3 level, the library of congress will not even accept it ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,524 Posts
Ok. So if most of what you can't hear is being dropped, then what about Transcoding? Would I end up with any difference transferring from WMA -> MP3 or OGG at a similar bitrate?
I'm not sure on that one, might depends on several things. Try out out, do it several times over and see if it gets worse. Do it 10x over even to get an even better idea. Double blink test it if you know you heard something to know for sure.
 
1 - 20 of 55 Posts
Top