The Gang of Five
Beyond the Mysterious Beyond => The Arts => Sound Off! => Topic started by: action9000 on September 07, 2007, 10:42:19 PM
-
MIDIs have the majority and MP3 the minority
This isn't something I see/hear very often anymore. ;) :wow
You've sparked my curiousity: Why is your MIDI collection so much larger than your pre-rendered audio collection?
What are the purpose of .mid files in digital world as we know it now, in your own words? I stopped using them because I generally consider them obsolete. While MIDI technology is Certainly not obsolete by any means, .mid files seem to be getting further and further removed from the mainstream world and are seen mainly on the production side of music.
-
Because a lot of what I have in my archive is a collection of all the music I have encountered in my computer travels. Back in the day, lots of games and programs were made that used MIDIs. Some of the programs had a ridiculous number of MIDIs, like, by the dozens. Do you know what would happen to the size of my archive if every MIDI were to be converted to MP3? Given that I have hundereds (that use just over 10 MB of file space), it wouldn't be pretty. In fact, the reason that I have as many MP3s as I do is that I've sort of been on a "holy crusade" to eliminate all MIDI files from video games in favor of authentic MP3s as the music was on the original games (for example, I replace a truck-load full of MIDIs from various Sonic the Hedgehog games from the Genesis era with MP3s that sound like the real music). And, besides, using MP3s for Doom WADs (I'm an active meber of the Chex Quest fan community, which is a popular Doom total conversion) is generally considered bad business. B)
EDIT: Oh, yeah, lots of programs I used still accept MIDI files as an audio source, so I see no reason to convert them.
-
Do you know what would happen to the size of my archive if every MIDI were to be converted to MP3? Given that I have hundereds (that use just over 10 MB of file space), it wouldn't be pretty.
Plus the process of converting is generally unncessary and very time-consuming. The results won't sound any different either unless you have a software or hardware synthesizer or virtual instrument to run the MIDI through. Completely makes sense.
-
Midis...that's peculiar. Last I knew WMP could play them, without any real trouble and I wouldn't spend time trying to find conversion tools either. Only as Tim said, as audio players continue being developed for new operating systems, midi might be left in the dust, so one day it might be necessary to convert, but not now.
-
I just checked. MIDIs compromise 599 files at 10.3 MB, *MP3s 327 files at 1.02 GB, and WAVs 333 at 584 MB. And, yes, WMP plays the MIDIs just fine.
*327 files does not count album art, so the file size figure is a little off. The total files with album art is 371.
-
I know this goes way off topic, but why keep WAV files? They're huge and not taggable. You should go lossless and save about 50% of space.
-
but why keep WAV files? They're huge and not taggable.
I second this Unless you need to be able to load the waveform into an editor and manipulate it. I have trouble getting lossless files (FLAC, WMA Lossless) to load in Goldwave (my personal favorite waveform-level editor). Perhaps there is better software for manipulating lossless files; I just don't know of it. The only lossless compressed files on my computer are CD rips which I have never needed to manipulate so the issue of manipulating these files has never come up for me.
I do agree for the most part; Lossless compression is your friend if you have any concerns about hard drive space or tagging.
midi might be left in the dust
midi files have been semi-in-the-dust (My old sound card handles old-school soundfonts better than my new soundcard for MIDI playback; Windows hasn't updated the MIDI synth in ages) for a number of years but I don't think we'll see it come close to disappearing for a long, long time. There are many people who consider MIDIs very useful (myself included).
I do have to wonder though: Who is the main consumer audience for MIDI files these days? The default Windows GM synth is abysmal (at least I find it quite abysmal :p) and most people don't have an upgraded sound card to support soundfonts (I have a 56MB soundfont loaded into RAM just for playing MIDI files; it's a free download). Soundfonts are among the easiest and cheapest ways to improve MIDI audio quality.
As for myself, I tend to use MIDIs for the data within them as opposed to listening to. I use them as "musical source code".
-
midi sure isn't used by the video game industry when they can make high quality cd tracks....and if the move is to high def, they certainly will look into that more.
-
midi sure isn't used by the video game industry
Not anymore it isn't. Back in the Doom days (early-mid 1990s), MIDI was the way to go. B)
-
I know this goes way off topic, but why keep WAV files? They're huge and not taggable. You should go lossless and save about 50% of space.
The reason for this is because some of the WAVs, were ripped from video games. In particular, I have a WAV file (the Streets of SimCity theme) that is 5:35 minutes in length and takes up 14.1 MB (and this is considering that I did not alter the file at all, i.e., file compression). That's pretty good for WAV standards, where a normal file could easily reach and exceed 50 MB. Another reason is that a lot of them have pretty short lengths and file sizes (again, for WAV standards). And, to put the icing on the cake, I ran a test with a WAV file extracted from a YouTube video. The WAV file in it's unlatered state was around 10 MB. Converted to MP3, the file size was 2 to 3 MB (depending on the bit rate chosen). That same MP3 file converted to WAV bloated itself to around 40 MB when it was originally a 10 MB WAV! This is important to me because I use programs that either behave awkwardly with anything that isn't WAV or MIDI (i.e., MP3), or they simply won't accept MP3s (or WMA or any other "alternative" audio format, for that matter) as an audio source.
MIDIs are also important to me because, as I said, I play and edit Chex Quest maps, which is essentially Doom modding.
EDIT: And what do you mean by "lossless"? I've got WMP set to rip audio CDs at 320 Kbps, which is "Best Quality". It's as good as I can go with MP3s.
-
You have a very funky WAV file if its only taking 15 meg and is five minutes. Sorry to say that's not cd quality, so somebody did something to it down the line. If you're making WAV's from youtube videos, the highest you can get is 4-bit, monophonic audio and maybe a 16khz lowpass if you're lucky. In that case, yes, a 16-bit mp3 would be larger than the WAV and sound no better.
Lossless means a format that loses no quality...all the 0's and 1's will be exactly the same and will sound exactly like the cd they were taken from. If you're using WMP, you should be able to rip into WMA Lossless. Instead of 1411kbps WAV files, most lossless tracks average out around 500-700kbps and lose no audio quality...you can see the space savings already. ;) MP3 is a "lossy" format, so you do lose audio quality; whether you actually notice or not is a different story altogether. 320kbps is overkill for the most part. If you're going to use MP3 as a file solution, consider going lower (192kbps with WMP is perfectly fine and you'd still have a hell of a time picking that out from the original WAV file).
-
The WAV file in question was a direct rip off of the Streets of SimCity game CD. It was not an actual audio track, but rather, a WAV file on the CD itself. And, no, the MP3 was not larger than the original WAV, but the new WAV converted from the MP3 made from the original WAV.
Will the 600 Kbps WMA file be larger than the 320 Kbps MP3, and will it sound better? Also, will 320 Kbps MP3 sound better than 192 (or whatever) Kbps MP3? I'm weighing all of my options here.
EDIT:♫Now for ten years weÅfve been on our own
And moss grows fat on a rollinÅf stone,
But thatÅfs not how it used to be.
When the jester sang for the king and queen,
In a coat he borrowed from james dean
And a voice that came from you and me,
Oh, and while the king was looking down,
The jester stole his thorny crown.
The courtroom was adjourned;
No verdict was returned.
And while lennon read a book of marx,
The quartet practiced in the park,
And we sang dirges in the dark
The day the music died.
We were singing,
"bye-bye, miss american pie."
Drove my chevy to the levee,
But the levee was dry.
Them good old boys were drinkinÅf whiskey and rye
And singinÅf, "thisÅfll be the day that I die.
"thisÅfll be the day that I die."♫
Sorry, I just had to do that, seeing as it was my 1,000th post. It seemed vaguely appropiate, and I happen to like old songs like that, as well. :lol
-
The WAV file in question was a direct rip off of the Streets of SimCity game CD. It was not an actual audio track, but rather, a WAV file on the CD itself. And, no, the MP3 was not larger than the original WAV, but the new WAV converted from the MP3 made from the original WAV.
Is Streets of SimCity a new game, or have high-def quality audio? If its older, then that could explain the oddness of the WAV file. You don't want to make new WAV files from mp3s...get the original file for absolute best quality.
Will the 600 Kbps WMA file be larger than the 320 Kbps MP3, and will it sound better? Also, will 320 Kbps MP3 sound better than 192 (or whatever) Kbps MP3? I'm weighing all of my options here.
Do the math...a bit is a bit no matter which audio file format you're using, so yes, 600 will take up more space than 320. You must understand there are multiple versions of the WMA format....the one I keep talking about is WMA Lossless, NOT WMA Standard. WMA lossless means it is exactly identical to cd audio, bit for bit perfect digitally and audibly. WMA standard is lossy meaning it discards information that you probably cannot hear, and it not identical to cd audio. Digitally it looks different (as in on a spectrogram) but audibly you may not notice. That's why you have lossy file formats to save space...they can throw out things you wont necessarily hear. MP3 is lossy. A 320kbps mp3 in theory should sound better than 192kbps, but your chances of actually hearing that difference is terribly miniscule as most all modern mp3 encoders can reach transparency (or where you can't tell the difference between the mp3 file and original cd audio) around 160kbps using variable-bit rates.
Its a very hard process to explain. As I said earlier, its plenty ok to use WMP if that's what you're comfortable with. I'm not out to convert you to my system of encoding audio which is dreadfully complicated for new users. If you want to use WMP and have a lot of available disk space, you should encode to WMA lossless and have a direct duplicate of the cd audio at your fingertips (you paid for full quality, right? ;) ). If you're short on space, you can use the mp3 encoder built in and set it to 192kbps. If you'd rather me try to explain what I do, I can do that, but its complicated.
-
Streets of SimCity was first released in 1998 or '99, so yes, it's an older game. Like I said, the WAV file came straight off of the CD (NOT an audio track, but an actual file in an actual folder). I've never tried to mess with it or convert it to MP3, but I'm sure I would get similar results like the audio rips from the YouTube videos. And speaking of that, what I did to get audio from the YouTube videos is that I first used an online downloader to download the .flv file. Then, I used video converter software to physically convert the video file to a .wav audio file.
And, with the way I use the MP3 files, I don't think anyone's going to give me any beef over the fact that I use mildly lossy 320 Kbps MP3 encoding over lossless WMA. In fact, 3D Movie Maker, which is the chief application that I would use these files with (besides WMP to listen to them with) , only accepts MIDI and WAV audio, and unless a special program is used to by-pass this encoding feature, it automatically compresses the WAV files to a ridiculously low file size so the file size of the movie file is not too big. It makes the audio files sound a bit scratchy, but it's better than distributing a movie file harboring 10 or more WAV music files that take up several (up to and beyond 50 for larger tracks) MBs each.
And, is there a particular reason I shouldn't use WMP with files other than WMA?
Also, a lot of my MP3s aren't even CD rips (several are, though), but files taken from video games like SimCity 4, or downloaded off of websites like Galbadia Hotel or simcity.com.
-
And speaking of that, what I did to get audio from the YouTube videos is that I first used an online downloader to download the .flv file. Then, I used video converter software to physically convert the video file to a .wav audio file.
That's about what I would do.
And, is there a particular reason I shouldn't use WMP with files other than WMA?
Considering the player and the audio format are made by the same company, they're practically made for each other (tagging, properties-wise). They can play mp3 and wav files of course. I just know when I used wmp to play mp3 files, the program absolutely destroyed some of my files' headers so it wouldn't display the correct time anymore. It only happened to files that I played very often.
-
Huh. Well, I'm not going to re-do my entire MP3 collection just for that reason alone, because if I decided to go completely WMA solely for the reason of WMP use, there's a chance I'll get messed up somewhere down the road. If WMP goes "bad" or I decide another player is better for me, I'll have to re-re-do my WMA collection back to MP3. Besides, MP3 is a versitle format, unlike WMA. Lots of things support MP3, where WMA's support is, as far as I know, fairly limited to WMP (besides all of the bazillion programs to convert them to other formats and do other edits, of course) and some other external media player like an iPod or something that plays WMA files. So, for now, I'm stickin' to me guns.
-
Not a problem. Tim will confirm I'm not a big fan of WMA either. ;) Lossless is lossless no matter which audio program you're using, so that's why I mentioned it.
-
I'm starting to scare myself. I didn't know that I knew that much about audio codecs and things. :P:
-
Well, looks like I missed some fun here! :P:
have a WAV file (the Streets of SimCity theme) that is 5:35 minutes in length and takes up 14.1 MB (and this is considering that I did not alter the file at all, i.e., file compression). That's pretty good for WAV standards, where a normal file could easily reach and exceed 50 MB. Another reason is that a lot of them have pretty short lengths and file sizes (again, for WAV standards). And, to put the icing on the cake, I ran a test with a WAV file extracted from a YouTube video. The WAV file in it's unlatered state was around 10 MB. Converted to MP3, the file size was 2 to 3 MB (depending on the bit rate chosen). That same MP3 file converted to WAV bloated itself to around 40 MB when it was originally a 10 MB WAV!
Why? Sampling rates. B)
Chances are for a game that old, the audio was still in 22kHz sampling rate (or maybe even 11 kHz). This is half of the 44.1 kHz sampling rate used in modern audio (Many games, CDs use 44.1 kHz). The numbers don't lie though: More samples (instantaneous recordings of the source material) means more data. Also, are your .wavs in mono or stereo? Stereo .wav files are literally twice the size of mono .wavs (twice as many samples: one set for left, one set for right). Let's do some quick math.
Assuming 16-bit audio (8 bit hasn't been used in ages)
16 bit per sample
22 kHz (22,000 samples per second)
=352,000 bits per second = 352 kbps....for MONO
x 2 for stereo =
704 kbps for stereo 22kHz audio.
22kHz sucks :p
for 44.1 Khz audio, we're looking at even bigger numbers!
16-bit audio
x 44,100 Hz (samples per second)
= 705600 bits per second (705.6 kbps) MONO
x2 for stereo
= 1411 kbps
Many .wav recorders nowadays will default to 16-bit 44.1khz stereo (CD quality). Could this maybe explain the odd differences in filesize?
Compare 1411 kbps for raw .WAV to 192 kbps MP3. Difference in sound quality? Probably negligible. DIfference in file size? 7.34:1 ratio. B)
-
And to think people think we need 96khz sampling rates. :rolleyes: They must play all that Beethoven to their pet bats. :lol: :lol:
-
And to think people think we need 96khz sampling rates.
For the sake of arguement, I am going to try and justify 96 kHz sampling rates. B)
Let's take a normal CD at a 44kHz (44 is easier to type than 44.1 so I'll just stick with 44 for the purpose of this discussion :p) sampling rate. Physically, the Single Highest audio frequency that can be captured with a 44kHz sampling rate is 22kHz. The reason for this is simple physics:
To create a wave, one needs to connect two or more instantaneous points in a pattern of some sort. The simplest wave one can produce is the sinusoidal (sine) wave, which can be created using only Two points in a repeating pattern: the top of the wave and the bottom of the wave. Draw a steady line from the top point to the bottom point to the next top point. There are no shortcuts; 22,000 Hz is the single highest frequency we can produce with 44,000 dots per second.
As an audio guy, I don't really care about 22 kHz soundwaves because nobody can hear them anyway. This is just an opening into my arguement.
Remember, we need to build digital audio out of instantaneous samples of the source audio signal. Using simple logic, the more samples of the original audio we have, the more closer the new digital audio will be to the original.
at 44kHz, Any frequency above 22kHz is lost, that's a fact. I don't care about this data for the sake of my arguement because humans can't hear that high. :p BUT also consider that any frequencies above approximately 11 kHz will also be somewhat distorted and data below 11kHz will be progressively less distorted as the frequency becomes lower. According to physics and mathematics, sampling will deteriorate the original data. Anyone who has taken calculus and used the trapezoid rule will understand this clearly. Basically the idea is that one can approximate the original waveform using sampling but the subtle details will be lost in all but a 100% copy.
If you have an 11kHz wave, not necessarily a sine wave in the source, sampled at 44kHz, you have 4 samples (down, down, up up; or down up down up) to capture the details of this wave. The first sample in a wave must be "down" and the last must be "up", for the sake of this "essay". I could reverse it but flipping a wave upside down doesn't change the sound so I declare those as being equal. Therefore there is a total of TWO combinations of sample patterns to produce an 11kHz wave. This doesn't create a very accurate representation of the original wave, especially if it was largely complex. A sine wave needs only two samples, but our world isn't made up of just sine waves. I consider 11kHz an important frequency range to capture accurately because it is in the realm of human hearing.
With 96kHz sampling rates, we get over 8 samples (8.72 repeating, to be exact) to produce this same 11kHz wave. This allows for the sampling process to capture more details from the source wave and produce a more consistant result.
Whether or not we can hear the difference (or whether speakers are precise enough to reproduce a difference) between 44kHz and 96kHz sampling rates is debateable but I can guarantee you'd see quite a difference if you zoomed in on the waveforms, even well below 20 kHz. B)
-
I can't resist. :p
Does bit rate for an MP3 file always guarantee audio quality? I've got two MP3s of Diana Ross's "If We Hold On Together". Here are the specs (information courtesy of Windows Media Player):
File "a" (came from landbeforetimelover's protected archive):
Length: 4:09
Bit rate: 112 Kbps
Media type: Audio
Audio codec: MPEG Audio Layer-3 112 Kbps
File size: 3.33 MB (3,493,728 bytes)
File "b" (OGG conversion not from landbeforetimelover's archive)
Length: 4:07
Bit rate: 128 Kbps
Media type: Audio
Audo codec: MPEG Audio Layer-3 128 Kbps
File size: 3.78 MB (3,965,177 bytes)
Would either file be of better audio quality than the other? I'm not always going to trust higher bit rates for better quality (it's been proven to me that file size is not always an indicator of quality, as with the YouTube video WAV sampling), plus, what if being an OGG conversion messed up the second file? But the first file has some popping in it mentioned in another thread I posted in, so I dunno. How do I know that the first file wasn't converted from OGG format?
This also brings up another issue that's apparently forgotten here: What are OGG files!? :blink: What are their specs? Are they lossless are lossy? Are they similar to MP3, or do they share their roots more with WAV files? Is OGG to MP3 lossy?
-
I'm not always going to trust higher bit rates for better quality (it's been proven to me that file size is not always an indicator of quality, as with the YouTube video WAV sampling),
Like anything in life, one needs to "consider the source". B)
The WAV recordings off YouTube will be perfectly lossless quality...with regards to the quality of the audio Found on Youtube. 99.9% of users will compress the audio in their videos to reduce the overall filesize (as we've seen, uncompressed audio is HUGE) and Youtube will further compress the audio Again, resulting in very poor-quality sound by the time the video actually makes it to Youtube. Recording a .WAV from Youtube will result in an incredibly accurate depiction of what you hear on Youtube but it won't magically recreate the lost data and restore audio quality.
128 kbps MP3 Will sound better than a 112kbps MP3 Assuming they are produced from equally-good-quality sources. If the source of the 128kbps MP3 is only 64 kbps, the result will sound LESS than 64 kbps. If the 112 kbps Mp3 is produced from a CD, it will sound like a 112 kbps MP3. In this example the 112 kbps Mp3 is clearly higher-quality, even though it takes up less data per minute of music than the 128 kbps mp3.
If you don't know the source of the mp3 file, you are taking your chances. I have noticed a patten though: If 192 or higher bitrates are used, typically the person who produced the mp3 used a very good source (or they wouldn't bother with such a high bitrate). 128 kbps files can be iffy because it's a sort of "default" for mp3. If you see a 128 kbps file, the source could basically be anything.
As for OGG, I don't have a lot of experience or knowledge about it. All I know is that Goldwave doesn't like them and it's an open-archetecture file format similar to Mp3 (they are lossy) but with a different compression algorithm.
To answer the question:
Does bit rate for an MP3 file always guarantee audio quality?
The short answer is "Yes, as long as the sources are of similar quality."
-
There seems to be a misconception here. I never recorded any WAVs off of YouTube. I downloaded the video files in FLV format and used a video converter to convert the file itself into WAV format.
-
I downloaded the video files in FLV format and used a video converter to convert the file itself into WAV format.
Same thing as recording straight off youtube, as far as I know. Unless the streamed videos have the quality reduced while the downloaded FLV files don't (I don't see why Youtube would do that, but you never know), you'll get the same result either way.
Can anyone confirm if the quality of the video/audio is different depending if you play the video off Youtube versus downloading it as an FLV? If the file has compressed audio, you can't magically recover it. Fact of life. It depends on how Youtube did the compression in the case of FLV downloads. I don't see why it would be different.
-
If I actually used something like Sound Recorder to record it off of YouTube, I'd likely end up with a 50 MB file, where if I just converted the downloaded video file itself, I'd get the same quality for only 10 MB. I've seen it a lot where two different WAV files of the same quality have differing file sizes.
-
Youtube is a unique case because the audio quality is crap anyway :p
.WAV conversions from Youtube are probably using 22kHz sampling rates (or lower) and mono. Sound Recorder probably records 44kHz and stereo. That would account for the size difference right there. If the sound in the video is only 22kHz mono (or 11kHz mono, whatever), using 44kHz stereo won't make it sound any better. You'll only be wasting space. This goes back to "consider the source". B)
-
Recording actual audio always jacks up the file size. I can record a 100 KB MIDI file with Sound Recorder and make it 70 or whatever MB. :D I've always thought that you're better off simply using file conversions than simply manually recording the audio to WAV.
-
I can record a 100 KB MIDI file with Sound Recorder and make it 70 or whatever MB.
*snicker snicker* :lol This is really an apples and oranges example but I see what you're saying. :P:
I've always thought that you're better off simply using file conversions than simply manually recording the audio to WAV.
Depends what you're recording and what you need the resulting audio file for. If you need 100% quality, WAV -> Lossless compression are among your best options. If you can get away with sacrificing a tiny bit, 128 kbps Mp3 may do just nicely. It all depends on what you need in your specific circumstance.
If you're ripping a CD to your computer, the only way you will get full quality is with .WAV or lossless. Even 320 kbps Mp3 will drop data.
-
Goldwave handles audio recording much more nicely than Sound Recorder. It records to WAV but only stores it in RAM or in temp files on your hard drive (depending on your options. RAM is faster but you need to have a lot of RAM installed). You can see the waveform and convert it to whatever you want (resampled .WAV, mp3, whatever you have a codec for).
-
I thought that physical audio > recorded audio. If I rip a, say, 320 Kbps MP3 from a CD that goes to 50 MB when converted to WAV, and then use Sound Recorder to record the audio from that 320 Kbps MP3 that results in a 60 MB WAV, is it really better than the original 50 MB WAV, or even the 320 Kbps MP3?
-
thought that physical audio > recorded audio.
That's another topic all together :p
I could get into calculus again to explain this one but I'll try not to :lol
We could get into this if we want. Remember that CDs don't really count as "physical audio." They are just as digital as a .WAV file. A lossless CD rip file on a computer should sound exactly like the CD itself
If I rip a, say, 320 Kbps MP3 from a CD that goes to 50 MB when converted to WAV, and then use Sound Recorder to record the audio from that 320 Kbps MP3 that results in a 60 MB WAV, is it really better than the original 50 MB WAV, or even the 320 Kbps MP3?
Okay let me see if I made sense of that:
CD -> 320 kbps MP3 #1-> 50MB WAV
50MB WAV -> 320 kbps MP3 #2 ->60MB WAV
In order of quality, from HIGHEST to LOWEST, here is what you will have from that:
CD-> 320kbps MP3 #1 AND the 50MB WAV -> 320kbps MP3 #2 AND 60MB WAV (these both sound LESS than 320 kbps in actual quality)
The simple answer to this is "As soon as you convert audio, the resulting file will NEVER, EVER be better than the original file. The only way it will even be EQUAL to the original file is if lossless compression is used."
The fewer conversions, the better. The fewer Lossy conversions, the better, specifically. Multiple lossy conversions will quickly reduce quality. You are right when you say a direct conversion is the quickest and easiest, not to mention the best-quality solution.
In this example, the best way to get 320 kbps quality is to simply
CD -> 320kbps mp3. No WAV conversion. Converting this 320kbps MP3 to a WAV will result in a file that sounds Exactly like the 320 kbps mp3 but it will be many times larger. This process is useless for quality purposes. You won't gain Anything. Why? The source is no longer the CD. The 320 kbps MP3 is lower-quality than the CD. You can't gain back this quality without using the CD as the soruce. Consider that CD level of quality non-existant in the 320 kbps mp3.
-
My head is spinning after reading all of this. The short form answer:
CD -> WAV -> MP3 (yes!)
CD -> MP3 -> WAV -> MP3 (no!)
End of story. You can't get the audio lost through compression back by converting it to a lossless file.
Now the FLV...to my ears, they're exactly the same, and to be perfectly honest, youtube's audio compression is about 22khz, mono mp3, and not sure of the encoder. Also, I've done some mp3 encodings of audio from youtube, and even LAME 3.90.3 with the alt-preset-standard switch, I can only manage 130kbps VBR...meaning there's not much reason to use anything about 128kbps mp3, especially considering the signal is monophonic too.
And before I forget, those 128kbps and 112kbps files from Austin are probably not that good unless they're vbr. At that bitrate, mp3 doesn't do too good in cbr mode.
Ogg (is the container) Vorbis (is the encoder) is a free lossy encoder of music. Software support is decent if you leave WMP or itunes behind, but most portables don't play this format.
-
meaning there's not much reason to use anything about 128kbps mp3, especially considering the signal is monophonic too.
Makes sense to me
112 kbps mp3, mono for a decent quality:space ratio would probably do fine.
-
Okay let me see if I made sense of that:
CD -> 320 kbps MP3 #1-> 50MB WAV
50MB WAV -> 320 kbps MP3 #2 ->60MB WAV
I can tell that equation is wrong solely from the fact that there never was a second MP3. :p Here's what happened:
Master Quality CD *-> ripped 320 Kbps **10 MB MP3 -> converted 50 MB WAV -> recorded 60 MB WAV. The CD will be the best quality, and all of the others will be of lower quality. Same quality for everything else, but vastly different file sizes from that same 320 Kbps MP3. Am I right?
*To.
**File sizes are assumed and arbitrarily "winged".
-
Simple answer:
The converted one is good. 50 MB of WAV is approximately 5 to 6 minutes of 44kHz stereo.
The recorded one is probably useless. I assume it's 48 kHz and that's the only difference CDs are 44.1kHz anyway so this will have no gain whatsoever.
The 320 kbps mp3 will sound Exactly like the 50 MB .WAV and the 60 MB .WAV.
-
If one is to discount the CD (because, for listening purposes, CD owns all, except for possibly lossless WAV or WMA, but the WAVs here aren't lossless because they were either recorded or derived from lossy MP3s), then the MP3 would be the best choice for listening purposes, because it has the best quality, as well as the lowest file size. But for programs that don't accept MP3s, then the first 50 MB WAV would be the best. Same quality as the MP3, just with a larger file size. Am I also correct with my last statement?
-
Petrie: I hope I don't offend you. But I'm curious. Just what is so great about FLAC? No offense, but to me it's just another media player. I don't see anything special about it that makes it stand out.
-
But for programs that don't accept MP3s, then the first 50 MB WAV would be the best. Same quality as the MP3, just with a larger file size. Am I also correct with my last statement?
Yep, everything you stated in your last post is entirely correct (except I assume you meant "lossy mp3s" not "lossless mp3" because there is no such thing as "lossless mp3" :p). B)
If you don't need the mp3, I would suggest
CD -> .WAV
Totally cut out the mp3 step, then you get CD-quality audio in the .WAV so it's still completely lossless. Goldwave can do this easily. The filesize of the .WAV won't be any larger than converting the mp3 to .WAV so you might as well do it this way to save time and quality.
-
(except I assume you meant "lossy mp3s" not "lossless mp3" because there is no such thing as "lossless mp3" :p). B)
I edited that back before you even posted. :P:
I find ripping the original WAV from the CD a tad pointless, because the program that doesn't accept MP3, only WAVs (which is 3D Movie Maker, by the way), super compresses the WAVs to a lower file size than even MP3, or at least equaling it. There's a third party program that bypasses the super compression, but honestly, who'd, in their right mind, want to load several 50 MB WAVs into a movie file? :DD It wouldn't be pretty, that's for sure.
-
If one is to discount the CD (because, for listening purposes, CD owns all, except for possibly lossless WAV or WMA, but the WAVs here aren't lossless because they were either recorded or derived from lossy MP3s), then the MP3 would be the best choice for listening purposes, because it has the best quality, as well as the lowest file size. But for programs that don't accept MP3s, then the first 50 MB WAV would be the best. Same quality as the MP3, just with a larger file size. Am I also correct with my last statement?
Yes.
Petrie: I hope I don't offend you. But I'm curious. Just what is so great about FLAC? No offense, but to me it's just another media player. I don't see anything special about it that makes it stand out.
I'm not so easily offended. FLAC is lossless, meaning you can rip tracks from cds, and save all audio quality. FLAC is an audio file format, not a media player, but because FLAC does not require any royalties to be paid, many encoders and players can add support to play FLAC for free. Most lossless formats are open source code and free, meaning that they have to potential to become playable in many media players with no cost. The exceptions are WMA Lossless (need to pay Microsoft for licenses) and Apple Lossless (pay Steve Jobs' company). FLAC will sound NO BETTER than any other lossless format, but sound in not my concern...I need to be able to take those FLAC files and make mp3 files out of them. You don't need to pay money to get software that can do this because you didn't need to pay a license for FLAC support.
MP3 has the LAME development team which are on top of audio quality...you can make really good sounding mp3 files with their encoder (which is free).
-
I find ripping the original WAV from the CD a tad pointless, because the program that doesn't accept MP3, only WAVs (which is 3D Movie Maker, by the way), super compresses the WAVs to a lower file size than even MP3, or at least equaling it.
Point taken.
Totally your decision. I know I can rip CD -> WAV faster than I can rip CD -> Mp3 -> WAV. Since you'll end up with the same filesize and better quality in less time, and you need the .WAV anyway, it makes sense with how I do things. If you have a way you prefer, be my guest. B)
-
Err... LAME? Is that their actual name?
-
Yep!
LAME Mp3 encoder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LAME) B)
-
Their acronym. Lame Ain't an Mp3 Encoder (but it is) :P:
-
I find ripping the original WAV from the CD a tad pointless, because the program that doesn't accept MP3, only WAVs (which is 3D Movie Maker, by the way), super compresses the WAVs to a lower file size than even MP3, or at least equaling it.
Point taken.
Totally your decision. I know I can rip CD -> WAV faster than I can rip CD -> Mp3 -> WAV. Since you'll end up with the same filesize and better quality in less time, and you need the .WAV anyway, it makes sense with how I do things. If you have a way you prefer, be my guest. B)
I can find an MP3 on my computer and convert it to WAV faster than I can dig out a CD ans use WMP to rip a WAV off of it. :D
-
Hey manny, I'm going to do something for you....check back later. I'll show you just how much youtube compression kills audio.
-
My poor old human ears tell me that YouTube compression kills audio quality. I took an audio file of "If We Hold On Together" extracted from an LBT video on YouTube and compared it to a 128 Kbps MP3 of it, and I could tell just from ear that the YouTube conversion was not up to standard.
-
For Manny and everyone else who wants to do this:
http://download.yousendit.com/36BFCD1B7E8A0642 (http://download.yousendit.com/36BFCD1B7E8A0642)
This zip file contains two files from the animated musical The Pebble and the Penguin. They are both in WMA Lossless (so all you WMP users can play them with no loss in quality ;) ). One was an original audio rip I did. The other is the wav rip of audio from the youtube video I put up using that original audio rip. This should accurately show how much youtube really hurts the quality of what you upload, largely thanks to a 22khz sampling rate.
-
That says it all right there; 22kHz and 64 kbps at best on the YouTube recording.
YouTube is notorious for killing audio quality. It's useful as a last resort but there is almost always a better source of audio elsewhere. It depends how badly you need the audio. If you really need the quality and nobody is sharing a good-quality audio clip, the option of recording an official source yourself may be desirable.
-
Link expires 9/20 if anyone else is interested. I just knew Manny recorded audio off of youtube, so I felt it was necessary to show what youtube does to the audio and prove its just better to locate a better source.
-
I already know that YouTube messes up audio just by listening to converted audio from a YouTube video and then a more "authentic" audio file. ;)
-
I never notice any YouTube "killing audio" then again I'm probably just more tolerant or just don't bother playing close attention.
-
*a little bump of sorts*
I put a ton of Christmas music on my Zen recently and had to decide what I would encode it to. I figured LAME -V5 --vbr-new would be good enough (around 130kbps avg depending on the music). I'll say this with some confidence--encoders these days are really REALLY good...unless I really focus hard, I'll never hear the difference between this and the original. :o (hopefully Tim is still breathing and sitting upright because I'm surprised he'd hear me say that :lol: )
Something to think about if you're making Christmas playlists. :)
Tested: Lame 3.98b5
Switch: -V5 --vbr-new
Software: foobar 0.9.5b command-line encoder
Player: Creative Zen MicroPhoto, iriver ifp-795
Headphones: Sennheiser MX-400 earbuds; Sony MDR-J10 earbuds, Panasonic RPHT-45 open-air headphones
Song styles: pop (mix of old-60s and new-90s+), orchestral and brass Christmas tunes
Original Source: CD
-
I don't do portable players. If I do any Christmas CD ripping, it will be good-old fashioned Windows Media Player ripping at 320 Kbps MP3 (it's just more flexible than WMA).
-
I don't do portable players. If I do any Christmas CD ripping, it will be good-old fashioned Windows Media Player ripping at 320 Kbps MP3 (it's just more flexible than WMA).
You might as well do WMA Lossless if you're going to use 320kbps mp3 CBR...not much more space taken (again depending on the music) and you lose no quality. The mp3 encoder in Windows Media Player (FHG ACM) does its job at 160kbps or 192kbps; 320 is overkill for any mp3 encoder.
-
Well, I'll see what the file size difference is. If I could re-rip them, save them as WMA lossless, and be able to reconvert them back to MP3s with a program like Goldwave (for whatever the reason), then I might switch.
-
Mmmm...its highly unlikely that Goldwave will work with WMA lossless. If that's you're ultimate goal, your choices are probably WAV (which I don't recommend) or Mp3. If I remember Tim, he's mentioned that goldwave doesn't like variable-bit-rate mp3 files, so yeah, 320kbps might be your only option IF that is what you plan to do with the music.
When using Windows Media Player
Just for playback: WMA lossless
For editing: MP3, 320kbps CBR
-
That could be a problem. My main concern with WMA is compatibility. If I want to use these files for projects, programs, games, applications, etc., will a specialized format like WMA still work or will it not work? I started using 320 Kbps MP3 with that in mind. It sounded like a popularly supported format with the highest audio quality.
-
Yes, there's practically nothing that won't support mp3....and for compatability, I'd say CBR only (though that's messed up because variable bit rates are part of the mp3 standard :rolleyes: ). Yeah stick with mp3.
-
My only other question is the "320 Kbps overkill issue." Even the big companies seem to favor 128 Kbps for their MP3 files in their games. Am I not improving the quality at all by using 320 Kbps over 196 or whatever Kbps?
-
How much quality is too much quality?
That is one of the ultimate debates in digital audio. A full answser would take more space than this forum will allow for and would require more research than I'm willing to sit down and do.
Am I not improving the quality at all by using 320 Kbps over 196 or whatever Kbps?
The use of 320kbps over, say, 192 kbps will *Always*, *Always* improve quality. Why? 320kbps is capturing a more accurate image of the original source sound than the 192 is, every single time, no matter what the original source it.
The question is, how important is the gain in quality? If you analyze two mp3s graphically, one with 192 kbps and one with 320 kbps, you will Definitely seem some differences. The higher-quality the source material, the more differences you will see. This is because at lower bitrates, mp3 starts cutting out the detail in the higher frequencies in order to compress the data, even to the point of removing them entirely.
Let's have a little fun, shall we? Here are a couple of images:
Here is a spectrogram (the multicoloured box that is the focus of these images) of an excerpt from "Rescue, Discovery of the Great Valley". It is read as such:
From lowest frequencies (20Hz and lower, "bass") to the highest frequencies (20kHz and higher, "treble"), read from the bottom to the top of the spectrogram. Black signifies little to no data in that frequency range. A slight volume level is indicated by purple, then blue, green, yellow, orange and red. The closer the colour is to red, the more audio content of that particular frequency exists.
Anyway, here are the screenshots: This first one is of a .wav directly ripped from the CD. This is completely lossless and is not compressed in any way. Note the quantity of data in the red box I drew on the image, especially.
(http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h141/action9000/wav.png)
Next up is an image of the same part of the music, encoded to a 320 kbps mp3. Again, note the quantity of data in the box I drew. The amount of data in the extremely high frequencies is significantly less than that in the lossless rip. Some data in the extreme ranges of the original .wav is completely gone in the 320 mp3.
(http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h141/action9000/320.png)
Lastly, here is the .wav encoded to a 192 kbps mp3. Here we really see the difference between a 320 mp3 and a 192 mp3. Notice how much data has been removed from the audio in the higher ranges especially. Think: If this much data is removed from the higher ranges, how much have the slightly lower ranges been distorted? How much damage has been done to the audio by using this much compression? The answer, mathematically, is "quite a bit".
(http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h141/action9000/192.png)
Whether or not you can hear this difference depends on your listening style, focus, and "pickyness". It also depends on the quality of equipment you're using to play back the audio (namely, speakers). Low-quality speakers won't show a difference between a 160 kbps and a 320 kbps mp3, whereas a more expensive system will, especially if the listener is listening for this difference.
In reality, mostof what is being cut out by a 192 kbps mp3 is inaudible to the human ear (most people's ears anyway) because it is such high frequencies. Depending on who you are, this difference is more or less obvious. A young child would have an easier time telling a 192 mp3 from a 320 mp3 than a 30-year-old would in most cases.
Even the big companies seem to favor 128 Kbps for their MP3 files in their games.
This is interesting. I can't think of any examples off-hand of games that use 128 kbps mp3s. Are you talking about newer games? Older games may have used more compression in order to reduce the overall size of the game on the hard drive. Most new games don't care about how much space they take up anymore. :P:
-
Even the big companies seem to favor 128 Kbps for their MP3 files in their games.
This is interesting. I can't think of any examples off-hand of games that use 128 kbps mp3s. Are you talking about newer games? Older games may have used more compression in order to reduce the overall size of the game on the hard drive. Most new games don't care about how much space they take up anymore. :P:
SimCity 4 comes off of the top of my head. I might could find more examples, if you wish. :p But, yeah, I was pretty sure there was a difference between 320 Kbps MP3 and 196 Kbps. I think I'll stick with my current method untill I see reason to change.
And, in my opinion, there would be no such thing as too much quality, were it not for file space constraints....
-
Whether or not you can hear this difference depends on your listening style, focus, and "pickyness". It also depends on the quality of equipment you're using to play back the audio (namely, speakers). Low-quality speakers won't show a difference between a 160 kbps and a 320 kbps mp3, whereas a more expensive system will, especially if the listener is listening for this difference.
In reality, mostof what is being cut out by a 192 kbps mp3 is inaudible to the human ear (most people's ears anyway) because it is such high frequencies. Depending on who you are, this difference is more or less obvious. A young child would have an easier time telling a 192 mp3 from a 320 mp3 than a 30-year-old would in most cases.
This is the kicker in the whole thing Tim laid out. The graphs are (prettty) though baloney....if you can't hear it, it really doesn't matter in the end if the sound goes all the way to 22khz and you can't hear anything over 17khz. That's why I said if you can go lossless, no harm, no foul because nothing's been touched. For lossy and on the road in portables none of these graphs matter. You are not going to hear sub-bass or super tweeters on the road.
The problem here is you're using goldwave, which I know will not touch wma lossless (or probably any lossless format). What you can do is decode the files into wav for editing purposes when they arise. Its an extra step, but you're not working with compressed music.
-
The problem here is you're using goldwave, which I know will not touch wma lossless (or probably any lossless format). What you can do is decode the files into wav for editing purposes when they arise. Its an extra step, but you're not working with compressed music.
Not necessarily Goldwave (thought that's also likely), but any program like that. Despite the fact that my music gets used mostly for listening, a habit which has gradually increased over time, that's not my ultimate goal. I was sure that MP3 would be widely supported, while I had my doubts on WMA. If there was a way I could easily convery WMA to 320-128 or whatever MP3 with any program (Goldwave?), then I might could get away with WMA. The current software I use is limited to 12 Kbps. There's no option to decide the bitrate output that I know of.
And as far as "on the road in portables go, I don't have a portable media player [the 3 closest things to that that I might use are car CD/cassett players, a protable cassett tape player/recorder, and a laptop computer, none of which ever touch my music collection on the go].
-
If there was a way I could easily convery WMA to 320-128 or whatever MP3 with any program (Goldwave?), then I might could get away with WMA. The current software I use is limited to 12 Kbps. There's no option to decide the bitrate output that I know of.
I could give you one that would do it. :) I use foobar as my command-line encoder and I've pretty much set it up to work with anything you'd need (wma, mp3, ogg, flac, wav). It doesn't need to be installed to run. Let me know.
-
...What is "Foobar?" Is it a program that can convert from lossless WMA to 320 Kbps MP3, among other things?
-
...What is "Foobar?" Is it a program that can convert from lossless WMA to 320 Kbps MP3, among other things?
It's only the best audio player on the planet (IMO), but it can be set to convert audio formats to all sorts of other file types if you have the executables to run. I can send you a zip that's set to have everything you'd need. You can try it...you don't like it, try it as an audio player and not a converter. Still don't like it...delete it.
-
Would the download at the official site at http://www.foobar2000.org/ (http://www.foobar2000.org/) not be adequate to do converting like that?
-
For Manny and anyone else who wants to try it:
http://download.yousendit.com/8B75843B4450DB1E (http://download.yousendit.com/8B75843B4450DB1E)
When you first open it, you add files going to File and then Add Files. Once files are added into the playlist, you can right click on any one of them and select "Convert to" all the way at the bottom of the list. Then you have your choice of formats. A couple of the mp3 presets I had set for specific purposes (the 128 cbr and youtube one)...you don't want those, the one you want for mp3 encoding is the V2 one. ;) Have fun!
-
Would the download at the official site at http://www.foobar2000.org/ (http://www.foobar2000.org/) not be adequate to do converting like that?
Yes, but I'd suggest you take my download...I've set it up already to have all the executables set and included...you won't need to do all the switches and setup yourself...I saved you a hell of a lot of work. ;)
-
EDIT: Whoops, you posted ahead of me. Anyway, does that contain all of the executables (.exe files and whatever) to fully install the program, or is it just an entire "Program Files" folder that you have used?
-
All the exe files are for the encoder portion....foobar is already set to point to the files in the folder "Converter" so don't mess with it. ;) Its all set up to go. You have to set it all up yourself if you just download from the main site...you wouldn't have a clue as to what to do so I did it all for you.
-
I'll download it when I can get a hold of a broadband internet connection. ;)
-
Whoops! It sounds to me like it might not work on my computer. I'm on XP (but I'm always in wonder of how much longer that will last...). Mabey I won't encounter any problems....
EDIT: Alright, so you removed the link. Can the original download from http://www.foobar2000.org/ (http://www.foobar2000.org/) do what I want it to, and if not, where can I find these "plug-ins?"
-
http://download.yousendit.com/8B75843B4450DB1E (http://download.yousendit.com/8B75843B4450DB1E)
This is the link. The reason I took it off is because of the couple of things below you have to do.
You must put the folder 'foobar 0.9.5b' in C:\Program Files\ otherwise the encoder won't work. :rolleyes: That's my fault.
Also, you need to tell it what you use for a soundcard for it to play any music. Go to 'File' then 'Preferences'. On the list you should see something called 'Output', click that and you have an option to choose your sound output device. System default is whatever you use. Click save and exit.
-
Now that I think about it since I may not get online for the rest of the day, I'm just going to give small directions for you to try the encoder now.
1.) go to 'file' and 'add files' first
2.) once they've been added, right click and there is a large dialog box; go to the bottom for "Convert to", hover over 'Convert to...' This will give you the option to save the files where you want to.
3.) then you choose the encoding preset; Choose mp3 (LAME) -V2, fast. This setting is variable-bit rate and will usually average 190kbps depending on the music. This is transparent for just about everyone...you cannot tell the difference between this setting and the original CD.
4.) Leave the replay-gain, dsp processing boxes all unchecked...you don't need them enabled.
5.) Hit Ok, and then you'll be asked to choose where you want to save the file. Choose a folder, and hit OK and you're done. If you see a warning about transcoding, that means one of more of your files is not from a lossless source; it is ok to continue but transcoding usually results in bad sounding files. Only use lossless sources if that's possible.
That's it. :) Easy. And it'll 'eat' just about any audio file format you throw at it. Just an FYI do not choose the cbr 128kbps or youtube modified profiles for mp3. The cbr is for uploads to an internet radio station and the youtube one is for audio ripped from youtube. Neither are good for quality.