MP3 compression question

Discussion in 'Archived Threads 2001-2004' started by Geoff MK, Nov 15, 2001.

  1. Geoff MK

    Geoff MK Extra

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    17
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hi, I have a Pannasonic RP91 which is capable of playing MP3 encoded CD-R's. I would like to know if the compression artifacts in MP3 format are noticeable compared to regular CD's. If so, how bad is it?
    I also thought about converting the MP3's back to PCM and burn the songs onto a CD-R or CD-RW, would this make the quality better?
    Geoff
     
  2. Ron Hanson

    Ron Hanson Agent

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 1999
    Messages:
    40
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    On a high resolution system you can tell something is missing. It's totally listenable, just not good for critical listening.
    Converting from mp3 back to anything wont help. Mp3 is a lossy compression, you cant get it back.
     
  3. Clinton McClure

    Clinton McClure Casual Enthusiast
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 1999
    Messages:
    4,370
    Likes Received:
    400
    Trophy Points:
    4,110
    Location:
    Central Arkansas
    Real Name:
    Clint
  4. Brian W. Ralston

    Brian W. Ralston Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 1999
    Messages:
    604
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    Real Name:
    Brian W. Ralston
    Certain MP3 encoders are better than others as well. In my opinion...the best one is the LAME encoder.
    ------------------
    Regards,
    Brian W. Ralston
    "Success is a journey, not a destination." - Unknown
     
  5. TheoGB

    TheoGB Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2001
    Messages:
    1,744
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    128K compression is pretty much CD quality. You can hear the bad effects of 44.1khz 16-bit recording on a CD with the right set up. I've very occasionally noticed my Mini-Disc seeming to lose a bit of quality.
    MP3s tend to sound different to me but not necessarily bad. Usually it seems like the bass gets EQ'd a bit more.
    What it may well come down to is what you've been doing With your ears over the years. I've been to a lot of gigs and concerts and play my guitar and drums loud in rehearsals. My ears aren't very good so I'm not that bothered about a small loss in quality. [​IMG]
    ------------------
    My band is @ http://www.mokita.net
    My Novelty Coasters
     
  6. Henry Carmona

    Henry Carmona Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2000
    Messages:
    1,299
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    San Antonio
    Real Name:
    Henry Carmona
     
  7. Greg_Y

    Greg_Y Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 1999
    Messages:
    1,466
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
  8. Kimmo Jaskari

    Kimmo Jaskari Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2000
    Messages:
    1,528
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I disagree that 128kbit is CD-quality... you introduce a great deal of artifacts into the sound using 128kbit CBR (constant bit rate). Lame using r3mix VBR (variable bit rate) varies between an average of 180-220kbit, and that is CD quality IMHO. VBR can go as high as 320kbit in the most demanding sections but dips much lower for parts of a song that are easier to compress.
    ------------------
    /Kimmo
     
  9. Bryant Frazer

    Bryant Frazer Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 1998
    Messages:
    121
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Just to add my two cents -- even using LAME, I don't think you get into anything that you could get away with calling "CD quality" until you hit 256k, and even 320k can be easily distinguished from an actual CD if you play the two side by side. Bottom line is 256k sounds really good in my so-so car stereo; anything less, I can start to hear the audio artifacts.
    -bf-
    ------------------
    Bryant Frazer
    Deep Focus
    www.deep-focus.com
     
  10. Jeremy Anderson

    Jeremy Anderson Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 1999
    Messages:
    1,049
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I find that 192k is a nice compromise for MP3's. I use the Radium optimized version of the Fraunhoefer codec to encode MP3's. Given that it is a lossy compression scheme, however, don't expect it to be CD quality at any level or with any codec.
    Specifically on the Panasonics, I don't see the need to encode at any higher than 192k. In fact, my Panny RV-31 tends to choke on variable bitrate files and files at 256k or higher (and by choke, I mean stutter and skip, whereas my PC will play them fine). I would imagine the RP-91 will be about the same.
     
  11. TheoGB

    TheoGB Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2001
    Messages:
    1,744
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hmm. Actually I should point out it's going to depend on what you listen to - how complex and how many instruments and frequencies are going - same way that CD handles some stuff better than others.
    I've not really heard much difference between 128K and CDs but then I don't have a top range piece of equipment so fair enough.
     
  12. Jonathan Burk

    Jonathan Burk Second Unit

    Joined:
    May 31, 1999
    Messages:
    452
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    110
    Location:
    Castaic, CA
    Real Name:
    Jonathan Burk
    Definitely go to www.r3mix.net and read everything there. I've been using EAC to rip my cd's, and razorlame to encode the music, for months. The sound quality is indistinguishable from CD on every system I've tested it on.
    And the great thing is, EAC and Razorlame are free!
    Here's how you can test.
    1.Pick a few of your favorite songs on CD.
    2.Rip them to your HD using EAC.
    3. Encode them to MP3 using the r3mix settings of Razorlame.
    4. Decode the MP3's back to .wav files using Razorlame.
    5. Burn an audio CD-R with both the original .wav's, and the MP3 processed .wav's. I usually do the same song five times: two or three of the original, and two or three of the MP3 processed ones.
    6. Listen to the CD on the system of your choice. Set the CD player to "Shuffle", and get a notepad.
    7. Every time a song starts, jot down whether you think it's the original, or the MP3 processed one. (Or whether you think the sound is CD-quality, or sub-CD-quality).
    8. After writing down your opinion, look at the CD player and write down the actual track number.
    9. Compare your notes with the actual layout of the disc, and see how well you did.
    10. Anytime someone claims that MP3 isn't "CD quality", ask them to try out your CD.
    I've also made test CD's with the same song having been encoded/decoded at different bit rates. I've always been able to pick out the 128kbs compared to the original, so I don't think 128kbs could ever be considered "CD quality".
    http://www.r3mix.net/
    http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/
    http://www.dors.de/razorlame/
    [Edited last by Jonathan Burk on November 16, 2001 at 11:45 AM]
     

Share This Page