agar8 Posted August 29, 2005 Report Share Posted August 29, 2005 What would be a good bit rate for MP3's to play and or convert on the hi md format. I'm new to this tech and don't know much about it. I want good sounding music, but I also want to get as much as possible on a disc. I found a site don't know if I sound mention the name but its in Russia. They allow you to pick your out rate and format. The charge is base on the size of the download (.02 per meg). So you're probably figured out what I'm after, a good sound with a reasonable sized file. I'm currently doing 256 Lame variable. What you think?Oh I just purchased a MZ_RH910 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IdiotSavant Posted August 30, 2005 Report Share Posted August 30, 2005 What would be a good bit rate for MP3's to play and or convert on the hi md format. I'm new to this tech and don't know much about it. I want good sounding music, but I also want to get as much as possible on a disc. I found a site don't know if I sound mention the name but its in Russia. They allow you to pick your out rate and format. The charge is base on the size of the download (.02 per meg). So you're probably figured out what I'm after, a good sound with a reasonable sized file. I'm currently doing 256 Lame variable. What you think?Oh I just purchased a MZ_RH910←Well ideally you'd want as a high a bitrate as possible so you can convert to Hi-SP (ATRAC 256kbps) and transfer to Hi-MD. While it does involve transcoding, having the track in ATRAC format means you don't get the problems associated with the volume reduction in the treble region during MP3 playback... but this will only get you about 2h20 on a 80 Minute MD and 7h55 on a 1GB Hi-MD blank.Personally when using MP3 my preferred option is to transfer direct to MD at 192kbps. While this does mean you have to apply the EQ to compensate for the incorrect MP3 playback, you don't have to transcode and you also get a much more reasonable amount of space on a disc; 3h30 on a 80 Minute disc and about 12 hours on 1 GB Hi-MD blank.You could go for lower bitrates (lower bitrate MP3s or LP2 and below ATRAC bitrates) but I wouldn't exactly call it a 'good sound.' Likewise, the only way to get a higher bitrate than Hi-SP would be to use PCM (and then you're getting what.. 20 minutes on a 80 minute MD?) or transfer MP3s to Hi-MD at up to 320kbps (which seems somewhat pointless given the volume filter on MP3 playback, meaning that you're not getting much extra quality for the extra space each track would use.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agar8 Posted August 30, 2005 Author Report Share Posted August 30, 2005 Thanks for the reply Idiot Savant. Gee Whizz you sound like you have a good handle on this stuff. What my ultimate goal is to play the music thru my car stereo via FM modulation. I guess what I want to try to do is eliminate the load of CD's I have in my car now. So the more I can get on one MD the better. I'm not what you would call a pure music freak, but I would like decent sound. Actually most of my stuff is a 128 and it pretty much sounds OK to me. Whats you opinion of Variable vs Constant Again Thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenmachine Posted August 30, 2005 Report Share Posted August 30, 2005 constant bitrate = variable qualityvariable bitrate = constant qualityIf you use the LAME encoder, --alt-preset medium (medium quality, ~160 kbit/s VBR) or --alt-preset standard (high quality, ~190 kbit/s VBR) would propably suit you fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MusicBringer Posted August 30, 2005 Report Share Posted August 30, 2005 good answer greenmachine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doomlordis Posted August 30, 2005 Report Share Posted August 30, 2005 I would recommend 160 or 192 kbps, variable or constant. I use mainly 192kbps but have a few 128kbps all of which sound good.The treble volume issue has been talked about a lot, it is more noticable with lower bitrate MP3s and certain songs (my doorbell by the whitestripes is one). I have got used to the playback and dont use equalizer to "fix" the issue , i find it makes the highs very shrill and tinny and doesnt improve the sound at all.It also reduces battery life by a couple of hours per charge.Headphones play a large part in this issue i believe, ex71s really amplify the issue as they are already bass heavy. With HJE50s the treble sounds ok to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IdiotSavant Posted August 30, 2005 Report Share Posted August 30, 2005 Thanks for the reply Idiot Savant. Gee Whizz you sound like you have a good handle on this stuff. What my ultimate goal is to play the music thru my car stereo via FM modulation. I guess what I want to try to do is eliminate the load of CD's I have in my car now. So the more I can get on one MD the better. I'm not what you would call a pure music freak, but I would like decent sound. Actually most of my stuff is a 128 and it pretty much sounds OK to me. Whats you opinion of Variable vs Constant Again Thanks←If you're after 'the more the better' and 128MP3s are OK for you.. you might want to seriously consider Hi-LP (64kbps.) It has to be heard to be believed, but it sounds as good as LP2 (which is twice the bitrate) and you'll get about 32 hours on one Hi-MD. That said, I've only used it with stuff I've had on CD in the first place - I imagine transcoding from a low bitrate MP3 would give an awful result (as it does with LP2.)But if you're fine with MP3s at 128kbps then just stick with that - you'll get about 16 hours on a Hi-MD.As for variable vs. constant, I don't really rip stuff to MP3 that much so I can't really say. I mean, I've had constant bitrate MP3 files and they've sounded fine.. but I've never tested the quality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imzu Posted August 30, 2005 Report Share Posted August 30, 2005 constant bitrate = variable qualityvariable bitrate = constant quality←Sorry, I thought it was vice-versa. My layperson understanding is that VBR reduces the bitrate at quieter/less complicated sections of the track, therefore smaller filesize. With CBR you get better or at least the same quality but always with higher filesize.Explain and enlighten me please, greenmachine! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparky191 Posted August 30, 2005 Report Share Posted August 30, 2005 Sorry, I thought it was vice-versa. My layperson understanding is that VBR reduces the bitrate at quieter/less complicated sections of the track, therefore smaller filesize. With CBR you get better or at least the same quality but always with higher filesize.Explain and enlighten me please, greenmachine!←I thought that aswell???256 Lame variable on a 910 should sound fine. I wouldn't bother transcoding them to ATRAC. Leave them as MP3's and buy a decent and appropriate set of earphones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcx693 Posted August 30, 2005 Report Share Posted August 30, 2005 Sorry, I thought it was vice-versa. My layperson understanding is that VBR reduces the bitrate at quieter/less complicated sections of the track, therefore smaller filesize. With CBR you get better or at least the same quality but always with higher filesize.Explain and enlighten me please, greenmachine!←Let me take a stab at it, if I may....When greenmachine says that:constant bitrate = variable qualityvariable bitrate = constant qualityHe means that if you use CBR, the quality of your encodings will vary because no matter how complex or simple the music is, the same amount of encoded information is saved. Even if more data is required to accurate encode a section of music, CBR won't do it. The quality is "variable" because the ability of CBR to accurate encode the music is "variable".With VBR, the amount of encoded information varies with the complexity of the music. Yes, you should get a smaller file size if you are encoding very simple music, but you'll also get a bigger file if you encode something more complex. The quality of the encoding is certainly more "constant" in the sense that you'll get a more accurate representation of the original source. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenmachine Posted August 30, 2005 Report Share Posted August 30, 2005 Exactly, and if you need the best quality out of a predictable bitrate, there's also ABR.Sorry, I thought it was vice-versa. My layperson understanding is that VBR reduces the bitrate at quieter/less complicated sections of the track, therefore smaller filesize. With CBR you get better or at least the same quality but always with higher filesize.You don't primarily set a maximum bitrate for vbr, but a quality. The encoder chooses whatever bitrate is necessary for each part to maintain constant quality.http://lame.sourceforge.net/doc/html/modes.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparky191 Posted August 30, 2005 Report Share Posted August 30, 2005 How does it define "Quality" ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcx693 Posted August 30, 2005 Report Share Posted August 30, 2005 Exactly, and if you need the best quality out of a predictable bitrate, there's also ABR.I actually use ABR most of the time. I use VBR with min of 64 kbps and max of 192 kbps and set the ABR to be 128. It nets me a good mix of quality and file size. In listening tests, I found it very good, so I stuck with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcx693 Posted August 30, 2005 Report Share Posted August 30, 2005 How does it define "Quality" ?←I believe the "quality" setting for VBR recordings refers to how often the variation in the bit rate occurs to accommodate the source. For example, it might check the bit rate every 1/4 sec to see if it needs to be increased or decreased to more adequately encode the music. Changing the setting changes how often the checking occurs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lecram1971 Posted August 30, 2005 Report Share Posted August 30, 2005 If you're after 'the more the better' and 128MP3s are OK for you.. you might want to seriously consider Hi-LP (64kbps.) It has to be heard to be believed, but it sounds as good as LP2 (which is twice the bitrate) and you'll get about 32 hours on one Hi-MD. That said, I've only used it with stuff I've had on CD in the first place - I imagine transcoding from a low bitrate MP3 would give an awful result (as it does with LP2.)←For me, it´s true that Hi-Lp Sounds incredible, if you think it´s only 64kbs, sounds like MP3 128, but I can´t say it sounds like LP2. I had many things in Hi-Lp and I get bored with the sound and I converted them again to LP2. Lost 17 hours of recording, but best sound. As you said Hi-Lp get´s better result if you have a good source, like MP3 192 or higher or if possible a CD.But always depends of each one, and for what you want to use it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breepee2 Posted August 30, 2005 Report Share Posted August 30, 2005 (edited) Sorry, I thought it was vice-versa. My layperson understanding is that VBR reduces the bitrate at quieter/less complicated sections of the track, therefore smaller filesize. With CBR you get better or at least the same quality but always with higher filesize.Explain and enlighten me please, greenmachine!←Is it OK if I provide an explanation ? Some parts of music are better 'compressable' than others. Some part's are more difficult. The codec requires less bits, at easy parts, to achieve a certain level of quality, than more difficult parts, which require more bits to achieve that certain level of quality.CBR uses a specified bitrate, so the easy parts will have a higher level of quality than the more difficult parts.VBR is better, but requires a little bit more intelligence (processing power) than CBR. Edited August 30, 2005 by Breepee2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparky191 Posted August 30, 2005 Report Share Posted August 30, 2005 I think I understand it now. Apologies if its repeating the same point again. Take 64kps CBRIf for example, you encoded at 64kps. The compression needed to record slience @ 64kps is nothing, but in the middle of a very complex symphony you'd need very heavy compression to squeeze it into 64kps. So while the compression rate is constant (64kps all the way) the quality of the music is perfect where its silent, but terrible in the middle of a very complex symphony. So the quality varies/ Take VBR in the silent bits the compression would be 64kps so the quality is still excellent, but in the middle of a very complex symphony the compression increases the bits to 320kps so the compression is less, but the quality of the music is the same as silence @ 64kps. So the compression is variable, but the quality is the same through the track. So henceconstant bitrate = variable qualityvariable bitrate = constant quality Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenmachine Posted August 30, 2005 Report Share Posted August 30, 2005 Read some analogies about it here:http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=36198 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waterboy_71 Posted September 1, 2005 Report Share Posted September 1, 2005 For me, it´s true that Hi-Lp Sounds incredible, if you think it´s only 64kbs, sounds like MP3 128, but I can´t say it sounds like LP2. I had many things in Hi-Lp and I get bored with the sound and I converted them again to LP2. Lost 17 hours of recording, but best sound. As you said Hi-Lp get´s better result if you have a good source, like MP3 192 or higher or if possible a CD.But always depends of each one, and for what you want to use it.←sorry to hack your conversation but are you saying that anything over 128 would sound better if i transferred them in 64kbs0??... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.