trip_likeido
Do you loose quality when converting from 192 to 128 kb/s ?
Is there any noticable different to the human ear ?
Is there any noticable different to the human ear ?
Posted Mon 11 Feb 02 @ 2:01 am
it is noticible if you compare and then listen very very very very good
Posted Mon 11 Feb 02 @ 2:04 am
Of course you loose the quality but you can tell the difference if you blast it over the speakers. Sometimes I think the 128kbps is better... seriously
RealPlayer 32kbps is somewhat equivalent to 128kbps mp3 encode. well, it's my opinion
RealPlayer 32kbps is somewhat equivalent to 128kbps mp3 encode. well, it's my opinion
Posted Mon 11 Feb 02 @ 6:40 am
DJ Rick
I just finished re-sampling all songs that were 192 or greater back to 128. I hear no appreciable difference.
Posted Mon 11 Feb 02 @ 6:46 am
Tsjee Trip......you're a member....don't you know such things....man.....how old and wise are you?????
I only have one word for such stupid posts......PFFFFFFFFFFFFF!!!!
I only have one word for such stupid posts......PFFFFFFFFFFFFF!!!!
Posted Mon 11 Feb 02 @ 2:59 pm
OyyoDams
Hey Rodie please be polite ok ?
Posted Mon 11 Feb 02 @ 6:03 pm
Sorry dams, it is not that I wanted to be unpolite, but this man trip_likeido keeps posting the most stupid questions (that is what I think of his posts), and that irritates me. I'm sure Trip is a very nice guy, and I do not have any problems with him. Hope you got my point.
Cheers, Rogerzzz
Cheers, Rogerzzz
Posted Mon 11 Feb 02 @ 6:56 pm
trip_likeido
At least you didn't sign in as anonymous
1) My questions are not stupid, The only stupid questions are the one's that aren't asked
2) Other users become informed when they read these posts !
3) I dont want to ruin my mp3's if i were to convert them over
4) The purpose of foum is to help eachother out, not to critisize eachother on the stupidity of questions
5) If my so-called "stupid" questions bother you, candy@ss just ignore them ! This is a general discussion forum, so i can talk about whatever the F*ck i want.
6) I'm a beta-tester, you're not !!!!!!
7) I know i'm a nice guy :-)
Have a great day ;-) !!!!!!!!!!
1) My questions are not stupid, The only stupid questions are the one's that aren't asked
2) Other users become informed when they read these posts !
3) I dont want to ruin my mp3's if i were to convert them over
4) The purpose of foum is to help eachother out, not to critisize eachother on the stupidity of questions
5) If my so-called "stupid" questions bother you, candy@ss just ignore them ! This is a general discussion forum, so i can talk about whatever the F*ck i want.
6) I'm a beta-tester, you're not !!!!!!
7) I know i'm a nice guy :-)
Have a great day ;-) !!!!!!!!!!
Posted Mon 11 Feb 02 @ 7:08 pm
trip_likeido
But i do recognize that you are entitled to you're opinion !
If that's the way YOU feel then, its all good.
If that's the way YOU feel then, its all good.
Posted Mon 11 Feb 02 @ 7:09 pm
OyyoDams
trip_likeido it's also for you.
Rodie83 and trip_likeido please stop the war immediately, or we'll be forced to do something.
Sorry you can say whatever you want, but always with respect.
Hope you'll understand that.
Rodie83 and trip_likeido please stop the war immediately, or we'll be forced to do something.
Sorry you can say whatever you want, but always with respect.
Hope you'll understand that.
Posted Mon 11 Feb 02 @ 7:16 pm
I can fully understand triplikeido's point. He didn't know something so he did the SENSIBLE thing and asked for help. There is nothing stupid about that, in fact quite the opposite, it was the clever thing to do. How can one gain knowledge without asking the relevant questions? Rodie, until you discovered the difference between mp3's with different bitrates, you too were ignorant on the subject and therefore the so-called 'stupid' question must have, at one point or another, been in your mind.
If I ask a Physics Ph.D what an atom is, he may well think to himself 'what a stupid question' purely because he knows the answer and therefore believes the solution to be easy and obvious. To me, though, it would be a pertinent question.
If someone asking a question annoys you, then why not refrain from reading such posts? I trust that you never ask questions as by your logic anyone who reads the question and knows the answer must perceive it as a stupid question thereby making you the 'stupid' one. Have I made my point yet? I fail to understand how you have become so obviously omniscient without ever asking questions or seeking knowledge about or for 'stupid' and apparently 'obvious' things. Maybe it is innate... who knows.
As for triplikeido's valid question - A 128 mp3 file loses the higher frequencies when it is compressed. A 196 mp3 is less compressed and therefore loses less of the higher frequency range and so sounds less muffled with the added 'top' or treble. The difference in quality between the two file bitrates is only noticeable when playing the mp3's through a high quality mp3 player using a good soundcard and high quality speakers/amplifiers. I have become quite critical with sound quality and can immediately tell whether an mp3 has been encoded at 128 or something higher. Some people have poor hearing and never notice any difference, this can be attributed to hearing loss or damage from constant loud noise or the ageing process. The ability to hear high frequencies is the first thing to go, especially with age. It is said that after 7 years of age nobody will hear as well as they used to - hearing sensitivity begins to decline. I wish I had known that when I was 7 as I would have listened to more music!
Hope this helps. Keep on asking questions, it is the only way to discovery. I am more than happy to answer any questions from anybody - stupid or otherwise.
MiXmAsTeR
If I ask a Physics Ph.D what an atom is, he may well think to himself 'what a stupid question' purely because he knows the answer and therefore believes the solution to be easy and obvious. To me, though, it would be a pertinent question.
If someone asking a question annoys you, then why not refrain from reading such posts? I trust that you never ask questions as by your logic anyone who reads the question and knows the answer must perceive it as a stupid question thereby making you the 'stupid' one. Have I made my point yet? I fail to understand how you have become so obviously omniscient without ever asking questions or seeking knowledge about or for 'stupid' and apparently 'obvious' things. Maybe it is innate... who knows.
As for triplikeido's valid question - A 128 mp3 file loses the higher frequencies when it is compressed. A 196 mp3 is less compressed and therefore loses less of the higher frequency range and so sounds less muffled with the added 'top' or treble. The difference in quality between the two file bitrates is only noticeable when playing the mp3's through a high quality mp3 player using a good soundcard and high quality speakers/amplifiers. I have become quite critical with sound quality and can immediately tell whether an mp3 has been encoded at 128 or something higher. Some people have poor hearing and never notice any difference, this can be attributed to hearing loss or damage from constant loud noise or the ageing process. The ability to hear high frequencies is the first thing to go, especially with age. It is said that after 7 years of age nobody will hear as well as they used to - hearing sensitivity begins to decline. I wish I had known that when I was 7 as I would have listened to more music!
Hope this helps. Keep on asking questions, it is the only way to discovery. I am more than happy to answer any questions from anybody - stupid or otherwise.
MiXmAsTeR
Posted Mon 11 Feb 02 @ 7:43 pm
trip_likeido
Sorry, i'll be nice ... I don't want to start a war... i just love making my point clear.
Thanks mixmaster for your help ... i thought that 128, 192 and 256 all sounded the same, but i was wrong i guess. Is it possible that the quality would improve if you encoded 128 to 192 (if that IS possible) ?
Are the 24 bit Audigy family of sound cards any better than the normal 16 bit ones, just for playing mp3's ? Correct me if i am wrong, I have been told that mp3's are encoded in 16 bits, so that 24-bit playback won't improve quality at all.
I have always wondered how club DJ's do it, putting up with all that noise night after night ??? Can't they become tone deaf within a matter of years ?
Thanks so much for your help mixmaster, its pretty cool having people like you helping me out like that.
Cheers buddy.
Thanks mixmaster for your help ... i thought that 128, 192 and 256 all sounded the same, but i was wrong i guess. Is it possible that the quality would improve if you encoded 128 to 192 (if that IS possible) ?
Are the 24 bit Audigy family of sound cards any better than the normal 16 bit ones, just for playing mp3's ? Correct me if i am wrong, I have been told that mp3's are encoded in 16 bits, so that 24-bit playback won't improve quality at all.
I have always wondered how club DJ's do it, putting up with all that noise night after night ??? Can't they become tone deaf within a matter of years ?
Thanks so much for your help mixmaster, its pretty cool having people like you helping me out like that.
Cheers buddy.
Posted Mon 11 Feb 02 @ 8:13 pm
trip_likeido
And also .... what do you define a "good" soundcard ? Besides ones with digital outs, don't they all sound the same if they are all 16 bit ?
Posted Mon 11 Feb 02 @ 8:16 pm
DJ Rick
If you start with an MP3 that has already been encoded at 128, and re-encode it at 192, all you will get out of that is a bigger file. It will not improve on the original sound. If you have one that is encoded at 192, and you re-encode it at 128, you will get a slightly lower sound quality, but a considerably smaller file. I've been told that a 192 bit MP3 which is re-sampled to 128 could actually sound a bit worse than a file that was sampled at 128 originally. OK, that said, I just finished a huge project of re-encoding all of my mp3's which were 192 or higher. (I left the 160's alone). I have somewhere around 17,000 mp3's in the library, somewhere around 1500-2000 of them had been encoded at 192 or higher (what was I thinking). So I started by just doing the "A" folder. This was around 250 mp3's. I backed up this entire folder, and didn't overwrite the original files until I took the work hard drive out to several gigs. The sound was fine. There was no appreciable difference in the resampled files upon amplification in the club. I have since finished the project and freed up a lot of wasted hard drive space. If you are not sure, convert a couple that you know you might use, try them for a few days, then decide on the rest of your collection.
Good luck,
Rick
Good luck,
Rick
Posted Mon 11 Feb 02 @ 8:40 pm
Wouldn't sound quality be the most important issue if you are playing these songs at clubs, rather than the space it takes up ?
But then again when you have 17000 mp3's, size becomes a big issue !!!!!
Dave.
But then again when you have 17000 mp3's, size becomes a big issue !!!!!
Dave.
Posted Mon 11 Feb 02 @ 9:06 pm
DJ Rick
Sound quality is definately an issue. However after testing, the drop in quality was not audible after amplification. Thus the choice to resample to 128 and put the extra space to better use was an easy one. I have an 80 gig external drive, right now it's about 85% full. I still have hundreds of CD's in my archives to encode. I may need another drive.
Posted Mon 11 Feb 02 @ 9:30 pm
I'm sure another 40, 60 or even 80 gig notebook drive would cost you alot ?!?!
What program do you use to encode from cd's?
What program do you use to encode from cd's?
Posted Mon 11 Feb 02 @ 9:34 pm
Didn't want to start a war either...I just think you can find the answers one your "stupid" questions elsewhere, and not on a forum like this one. To much technical you know. AND...just keep your mp3'z in 192. A little more space you'll need, but definitly better quality. Cheers
Rogerzzz
Rogerzzz
Posted Tue 12 Feb 02 @ 11:01 am
ikke
I use RealJukeBox 2 Plus @ 128Kb
Posted Tue 12 Feb 02 @ 11:29 am
What would be the point in drudging the internet looking for an answer to that question when someone on here can and is happy to answer it immediately and in detail. Also, any other questions that crop up can be addressed whereas you cannot ask a webpage for elaboration.
If you don't like helping people, ignore the messages or don't bother perusing the forum. Simple.
If you don't like helping people, ignore the messages or don't bother perusing the forum. Simple.
Posted Tue 12 Feb 02 @ 1:32 pm
