Jump to content
Kdidobeboi

MP3 bitrates n conversion

Recommended Posts

alrite guys in mp3 320kbps is pretty much the highest..here;s my qn regarding the conversion of mp3...from an 128 source convert to 320kbps is there a improve in quality? sae bass and clarity? not lost details during encode from original cd sourse. i m comparing the 128 source n the converted 320kbps from it..

if no wat's all those extra sizes created by 320 format conversion for? thks for all help..

Edited by Kdidobeboi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When an MP3 has been "compressed" from CD into 128kbps, data has been removed and is lost forever. You cannot restore this lost data by converting it to higher bit rate. You'll need to re-encode again to 320kbps from the CD source again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do a test and even better, a blind test with someone's help to find out if its just placebo effect or you can really hear the difference that will justify the space premium :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thks for ur help but tt's not my intended qn thor hahhz

Hi,

I really don't know what you are asking. Why don't you write in better English so that we can understand? You will find more replies if more people can understand you.

 

Regards

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

extra size as you used more bits for the same amount of music.

 

to makes things simple,

 

lets say you have 12 marbles in your small bucket

 

when you up convert the mp3 to higher bitrates

 

you basically pour the 12 marbles into a bigger bucket.

 

same numbers of marbles but the size of the bucket is different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

alrite guys in mp3 320kbps is pretty much the highest..here;s my qn regarding the conversion of mp3...from an 128 source convert to 320kbps is there a improve in quality? sae bass and clarity? not lost details during encode from original cd sourse. i m comparing the 128 source n the converted 320kbps from it..

if no wat's all those extra sizes created by 320 format conversion for? thks for all help..

 

chesterqw basically nailed it.

 

The extra size created by 320kbps is there because you asked for it.

 

To continue the example:

There are 12 marbles. You know that, but the encoder doesn't.

You ask the encoder for a bigger bucket, and it is given to you.

The encoder assumes you have more than 12 marbles, otherwise, you wouldn't ask for a bigger bucket.

 

Hmm. So now you have a really big and heavy bucket, but there are only 12 marbles.

Wouldn't it be much easier to carry a smaller bucket? Sure.

So where did the big heavy bucket come from?

 

 

Sorry, but I think I got carried away XD

Love questions like these. They invite fun analogies.

Edited by radioactive28

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i agree with e blind test.. sorri dont quite agree with e marbles thingy.. radio broadcast quality is about 48 to 80kbit/s does everything sound compressed together to u ? .. it realli all depends on ur ears.. whether they tell e difference btw a 128kbit/s or a full quality FLAC file ..

find ur sweet spot where u dun feel much or any improvement when e bitrate is increased..

dats assuming u got a decent setup .. thou i heard ppl can hear e diff btw a 128 & 320 even on a default ipod buds.. diff ears :P hope it helps !

 

Do a test and even better, a blind test with someone's help to find out if its just placebo effect or you can really hear the difference that will justify the space premium :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, a lot will depend on the equipment used. If using more mundane phones without amp, then perhaps one can't hear difference between lossless and MP3.

 

If using quality equipment then certainly a difference may be heard. The question is whether you want to pay to hear the difference or you are fine just to enjoy the music.

 

That's my take.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well thks everyone quite surprise this trend is still on gg hahhzh...yea the equipment does play a great part..playing 128,320 and wav on the laptop n on my portable music system is like tian n di (heaven and earth) LOL..no $ for super hifi thor(still studying dad saes i m mad LOL)..currently running a rs2, d1 v2 and a creative zen vision m..gd enough system for me so far..

Edited by Kdidobeboi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i agree with e blind test.. sorri dont quite agree with e marbles thingy.. radio broadcast quality is about 48 to 80kbit/s does everything sound compressed together to u ? .. it realli all depends on ur ears.. whether they tell e difference btw a 128kbit/s or a full quality FLAC file ..

find ur sweet spot where u dun feel much or any improvement when e bitrate is increased..

dats assuming u got a decent setup .. thou i heard ppl can hear e diff btw a 128 & 320 even on a default ipod buds.. diff ears :P hope it helps !

 

it does :party:

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i agree with e blind test.. sorri dont quite agree with e marbles thingy.. radio broadcast quality is about 48 to 80kbit/s does everything sound compressed together to u ? .. it realli all depends on ur ears.. whether they tell e difference btw a 128kbit/s or a full quality FLAC file ..

find ur sweet spot where u dun feel much or any improvement when e bitrate is increased..

dats assuming u got a decent setup .. thou i heard ppl can hear e diff btw a 128 & 320 even on a default ipod buds.. diff ears :P hope it helps !

 

Which aspect of the marbles example do you not agree with?

 

 

As for FM sounding compressed,

I don't know the rationale for linking 80kbps MP3 to FM quality, but as I understand, the 2 forms of compression are different.

 

MP3 does its 'compression' by throwing away high frequency info, but does not alter volume per se.

 

FM, however, sounds compressed because of dynamic range compression, which pushes the lowest volume as close to the highest level as possible. This is necessary because of transmission constraints.

(I think they also throw away high frequencies for FM, but I can't confirm this. Again, probably because of transmission problems.)

Subsequently, it takes much lower MP3 bitrate to record FM faithfully.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I would think so. The encoder assumes it is compressing the source file (it cannot differentiate between a 128kbps file and a WAV file), so in order to do that, it has to discard certain data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...