hey

when downloadin music, it gives you a choice of bilt rate per second. i want to know what is better the higher the number or lower the number. or dosent this matter. i just want my mp3's to be top sound quality before i put them on cds


cheers

the higher the bit rate the better, also the higher the sampling rate too(44khz at least), but mp3 still isnt the greatest for sq, it cuts off part of the frequency spectrum that we supposedly can't hear, and cuts off the first few miliseconds after a loud noise.......

but that said any bit rate 192 ore above is decent enough quality, and you won't really notice while driving, anything less than 128 isnt great

make sure you are using a quality ripper and encoder also e.g LAME and the exact audio extractor/copier (cant remember its name now)

also try searching the forums, there has been many previous discussions.

192 is much better than 128, while CDs are MUCH better than 192 :hehe:

get nero 6, there is a toolkit that rips mp3s and wmas and also allows u to edit the overall volume and frequency ranges of mp3s before u burn them etc. i cant remeber what its called but its on there. its good for lower volume mp3s, but makes the files larger depending on what u do.

if ur an intense audiphile, 320kb is the stuff for you, but usually 128-192 is good for normal day to day use. Remember that the higher the bit rate, the bigger the file aswell.

MP3 next to the word quality???

haha. i thought that but when i play cds on wmp it says its runnin at 64 bilt/ min

yea it prolly is but the sample rate is right up there.. i would reccommend ripping mp3's with exact audio copy as stated above with lame set on VBR cause it usually sits at 320-420kb/s but it goes down as low as 256kb/s at some points and the difference in sound is phenomenol (spelling )

just my 2 cents

im my humble opinion, dont expect a cd to be miles ahead in quality than a well encoded mp3. If the files has been ripped and encoded well, it is very difficult to tell the difference between the two. Ive even got some commercially released cds that dont sound as good as some mp3s i have thta i have ripped off my vinyl.

Just if you're interested....

MP3 quality is usually measured in kilobits, not kilobytes, eg:

128 kilobit/second
192 kilobit/second

....etc


There is 8 kilobits in one kilobyte, so 128 kilobit = 16 kilobytes, meaning that for every second of a song 16 kilobytes of space is being used, or 0.015625 kilobytes.

So a 700mb CD can store 747 minutes of 128 kilobit quality mp3
498 minutes at 192 kilobits
373 minutes at 256 kilobits

as far as im concerned you cant improve quality fullstop, it only gets worse when transferred, by how much is obviously the key thing

claf_43 - Xristo was refering to mp3s that were ripped off vinyl that may have been mastered differently to the cd version, therefore sound better even after any quality loss (however minmal) from converting to mp3..

Anyway, this topic was discussed recently in this thread:

http://www.caraudioaustralia.com/forums/vi...pic.php?t=31440

Now the idea behind mp3 (and several other lossy compression formats) is to use psychoacoustic methods to throw information that is masked by other sounds, which you will not hear, resulting in improved compression. This is used with other compression methods like joint stereo etc.
In ideal circumstances, it is quite possible to reduce the bitrate to a fraction of the original, while still maintaing transparent quality (ie you will not be able to ABX the difference between the original and a directly encode version)

Now mp3 does have a series of limitations that can affect the quality. However, with a well tuned codec and suitable bitrate for the recording, almost transparent quality can be the result. Naturally, the more information the recording contains, the higher the required bitrate, so naturally noisy distorted recordings will require higher bitrates than quiet classical music. Naturally a variable bitrate method is preferred, to maintain constant quality, rather than constant bitrate.

As stated in the previous thread, Exact audio copy in combination with Lame, using either --preset standard (or --preset extreme, or --preset insane depending on you're preference and possible listening tests) is recommended if you prefer quality.

Before automatically assuming that mp3s are of poor quality, I strongly recommend doing ABX listening tests. Sure there may be exceptions, but the majority of recordings can be encoded virtually transparantly. In most cases, you probably wouldn't actually notice the difference, unless you were doing an direct ABX comparison..

But you don't have to limit yourself to MP3, as there are other formats that may be technically superior available, such as AAC, MPC, OGG Vorbis etc. Not to mention lossless formats that can still achieve decent reductions from the original. Remember that to get manufacturer support, there needs to be demand. So the use of alternative formats, especially lossless formats is encouraged..

Also, while I don't condone downloading music of the internet, release groups are increasingly switching to VBR files encoded by Lame, including the standard/exteme/insane presets. By choosing to download these files, perhaps other people will start to take notice and follow.

One of the various mp3 analysis programs can tell you what encoder was used. The more recent versions of Lame actually include lame tags inside the file which makes it easier for progams like encspot to tell...

Secondly, to maintain constant average volume, it is also recommended that some form of replaygain (such as mp3gain) is used, so that the average volume of recordings is more constant, so you don't have to keep adjusting the volume knob for each track/cd that you play.