96@48khz or 96@32khz

[dado023]

96kbit/s @ 48khz or 96kbit/s @ 32khz

wich one is better for the ears.....
i dont notice the difference between those two(file size is ~3megs higher for 96@48khz,124min)
maybe the sound is a litle bit tougher in 32hz mode
but maybe my speakers are bad so i want your opinon


thanks in advance

[Taric25]

what is this 96? kb/s?

[dado023]

yes
i corected it:)

[sh0dan]

With that bitrate you're probably better off using 32khz sample rate.

LAME will probably apply a lowpass filter around 16khz, when you're encoding @48khz anyway, so you won't have any tones at these frequencies anyway.

My suggestion would be to resample 48->32khz using SSRC and then let LAME use 32khz sample rate.

[LigH]

Per default, LAME encodes MP3 files with 96 kbps for 32 kHz output because it applies a filter fairly below 16 kHz, therefore it would be useless to force LAME to use 48 kHz mode: The frequency handling is different between 32 and 48 kHz output configuration (joint stereo subbands are finer), in 48 kHz mode LAME would need to store 1/3 of 0 values - even after compression the'll eat some space, so why waste so much bandwidth?

[dragoman]

Ugh....96 kb/s? How can you stand to listen to that....

Ac3 all the way.....

dragoman

[diji1]

u might wanna remember as well that u may get synch issues at 32kHz if u choose that ( for divx anyways ).

[Slogra]

Originally posted by diji1
u might wanna remember as well that u may get synch issues at 32kHz if u choose that ( for divx anyways ).

Really? What about 22khz, does this have sync issues too?

[diji1]

yep - and it throws off the filesize calculation in gknot.

[Slogra]

Guess i have to use something else than mp3. I'll probably use WMA... if this will work alright.

[tangent]

Use Ogg Vorbis, it wouldn't have the problem at lower bitrates

[FakerZ]

Wow ! these are very low settings ! Can you get something correct this way ???

[diji1]

Well, its pretty bad quality thats for sure. :\

I occasionally backup the odd pr0n dvd ( well, a fair few actually :) ) and thats generally what i use ( 96 @ 48kHz with a lotta other space saving feature turned on as well ) because the music is crap and with pr0n space for video is at a premium - its *very* hard to compress as a norm.....

under normal circumstances ( ie. the average dvd ) its much too low quality for me personally, but u know, everyone has to decide what suits them and saving room for audio is going to mean better quality video generally - its a balancing act.

[dado023]

it was interesting reading your replays
Ill probably stick to 96@48 but who knows maybe in the near future i wont be using mp3, Ogg is a great alternative......

thanks again for your effort
:)

[rmatei]

I've done plenty of audios at 32 khz, on those older movies that hardly have anything above 16 khz anyway. With the same settings, it'll encode faster and save you some space if you resample. And I've never had any synch problems. So you should definitely try.

[movmasty]

>LAME will probably apply a lowpass filter around 16khz, when you're encoding @48khz anyway, so you won't have any tones at these frequencies anyway.

>48 kHz mode LAME would need to store 1/3 of 0 values

>I've done plenty of audios at 32 khz, on those older movies that hardly have anything above 16 khz

nyquist frequency strikes again...............

store 1/3 of 0 values ????????????????????
because 16 is 2/3 of 24??????
Ligh, also if only frequencies of 1000hz were present,
the encoding doesnt store any 0 value, just that sound will be sampled 48 times per each wave.

never thought that if max audible frequency is 20khz(10khz would be a more realistic value),also 44khz is too much??
who can hear a sound of 22khz??
and why studios use 96khz??

do this test:
downsample a song from 44khz to 11kz,then the max freq encoded is 5500hk, very bad!

now.....take the same song and with an equalizer mute all the freqs above 5500, then...encode it at 44khz.....
again only freqs below 5500 are present but.....
very hard to hear any difference from the original sound!

nyquist frequency become important only under 11kz,we need high sampling rates for a good sound definition.

think that a wave of 8khz is sampled only 6 times at 48khz!
how can you define a waveform with just 6 samples??
also the 12 times of the 96khz are nothing!
44khz is like images at 16 bits, so 96khz is like 17 bits...
then if 48khz can sound well at 96kbs is another thing....

really we need more and more higher sampling rates,
and not the shit that are selling us on those costly,no-fidelity, CDs!