Log in

View Full Version : Mp3 Quality£ºWhich is Better?


mldragon
7th January 2003, 05:18
I use VirtualDub Audio->Compression to convert a soundtrack into

MPEG layer3 Audio.Shall I choose 128Kbps/48000Hz or 160Kbps/32000Hz?

Which quality is better?

rjamorim
7th January 2003, 05:26
160Kbps/48000Hz :D

Different sampling rates don't affect the encoded file size. Only bitrate does. A 160Kbps/16kHz file will have exactly the same size of a 160Kbps/48kHz file. (160 kilobytes for each second of audio)

Actually, 160kbps for 32kHz is a bit of overkill.

Regards;

Roberto.

mldragon
7th January 2003, 11:44
Yes I knew the relation between bitrate and the file size.

But I thought that if I got down the sample rate,it would pay more bits to every sample,so it can improve the quality¡_¡_

mldragon
7th January 2003, 11:53
Yes I knew the relation between bitrate and the file size.

But I thought that if I got down the sample rate,it would pay more bits to every sample,so it can improve the quality¡_¡_

DJ Bobo
7th January 2003, 12:04
I'll recommend 160kbps @ 44,1KHz. But you can keep it on 48KHz though, 160kbps is transparent enough. Adjust the lowpass filter to 18KHz.

48KHz is too much for 128kbps and will produce more artifacts than the 44,1KHz version (easy to distinguish if you have a surround function on your sound card)


Downsampling to 32KHz is recommended only for bitrates equal or lower than 96kbps.

amoeba
7th January 2003, 18:11
i was wondering how u adjust the lowpass filter, i use Besweet for audio encoding so is there an option there?

DJ Bobo
8th January 2003, 00:51
Probably yes, but as I don't use it, I can't tell ya.
I use RazorLame, there you can setup the lowpass filter.

seewen
8th January 2003, 02:43
Originally posted by amoeba
i was wondering how u adjust the lowpass filter, i use Besweet for audio encoding so is there an option there?

Yes of course.

I assume u are using BeSweetGUI. In that case, just go in the 2nd Lame Menu ( "Lame 2" ).
In the "Filter Option" zone.

But to be able to use it, you cannot use "--alt-preset"..

And first, you should really try the "--alt-preset" option ( with ABR/CBR, if you go for 96/128/160kbps, and "--alt-preset Standard" if you want to use 180-195kbps ).

I have very good result with "--alt-preset cbr 128" @48khz (DivX-Standalone cannot use VBR/ABR really good for now.. ). It give me better result than the same @44.1khz.
The "--alt-preset" family is highly recommended by Hydrogen Audio.


See Ya

JReiginsei
8th January 2003, 05:19
I prefer the settings for ABR 128 from ff123.net here they are:

--abr 128 -h --nspsytune --athtype 2 --lowpass 16 --ns-bass -8 --scale 0.93

But I change scale 0.93 to scale 1 because that is what BeSweet uses and I think I read if you're going to mp3gain the file, scale 1 is better.

Mango Madness
8th January 2003, 10:51
The following settings are from hydrogenaudio.org. They work VERY well. They are meant for lame version 3.94 alpha 7 or 8. I highly suggest upgrading to the latest lame and use some kind of program that'll send a commandline to the encoder.

-q 0 -V3 --nspsytune --nsmsfix 3.0 --athaa-sensitivity -15 -X 1,3 -Z -Y

I use -q 0 but that is really overkill. -q 3 or so is normal usage.

seewen
8th January 2003, 23:14
Originally posted by JReiginsei
I prefer the settings for ABR 128 from ff123.net here they are:

--abr 128 -h --nspsytune --athtype 2 --lowpass 16 --ns-bass -8 --scale 0.93

But I change scale 0.93 to scale 1 because that is what BeSweet uses and I think I read if you're going to mp3gain the file, scale 1 is better.

lol

It's not really different from "--alt-preset cbr 128" , which is synonyme for

--abr 128 -h --nspsytune --athtype 2 --lowpass 17.5 --ns-bass -6 --scale 0.93)

Lowpass 16 Vs 17.5 and -ns-bass -8 Vs -6.

I've never heard a real difference on my HiFi... ( tried both, of course.)

DJ Bobo
9th January 2003, 01:32
--alt-preset as well as nspytune are too slow, so you may REALLY consider encoding in plain CBR!! (and I'm serious)

--alt-preset is IMHO only useful for very low bitrates, say 112kbps and lower. The advantage by higher bitrates is marginal to non existent.

I personally use the fraunhofer engine (like Musicmatch) for 128kbps files, and *eventually* lame for higher bitrates or other specific needs.
Fraunhofer is good enough (by 128kbps I felt like fraunhofer is definitely better than lame) and damn fast ;)