|
Post by jq on Nov 19, 2007 18:41:03 GMT -5
Okay, so, something I am continually worried about is how I compress my music. I want to get the most out of every compression, but I also want convenience. When I first got my computer I was loading my cds onto my computer at 128 kbps wma (oh, the horror!) THen I realized I could up the quality 50% and do 192 kbps wma. Still not ideal, (i would prefer 256 or 320 wma, BUT, 2 things: one, WMP doesn't allow that, and 2, I don't have enough space to do that with all my music.) So recently I listened to an old favorite. Nine Inch Nails the downward spiral. To my horror, it was compressed at 128 kbps wma, and I could definitely hear that it wasn't at a great quality. Well my cd collection has been stolen since hten so I checked it out of the library, and just compressed it at 192 kbps wma. And the difference is amazing. WHen listening to earphones I can hear so many of the badass layers that made The Downward Spiral legendary. HOWEVER, that leads me to believe that 320 would be better. But therein lies the problem. WMP doesn't compress at that high of a rate. THrough my Zen mp3 player, it comes with a program that compresses for you. It compress mp3s up to 320 kbps. Well, here is the bad part-- I did that with the newest NIN album (which hasn't been stolen or lost yet) because I felt I may be missing out with my 192 compression. Unfortunately, to my horror, THE 320 KBPS MP3 THROUGH ZEN ECODING IS LESS QUALITY THAN THE 192 COMPRESSION OF WMA. I am not guessing that, and not making it up based on statistics I have read on the internet. I can HEAR the difference. I was in my girlfriends car, which has nice speakers, and cranking it, and my goodness, we could both tell without a shadow of a doubt that the quality had been significantly reduced. Because NIN uses so many percussion elements, it is far easier to tell what quality it is verses most music. So I took up more space on my computer and mp3 player, but alas, the encoding is apparently very inefficient. So what I am wondering is, what is an EASY, SIMPLE, CONVENIENT AND MOST OF ALL FREE encoder I can use to up the quality on certain cds? Does one exist? Thanks for taking the time to read this
|
|
|
Post by jq on Nov 19, 2007 19:15:13 GMT -5
I should also clarify that WMP DOES do MP3 at 320 kbps, but I am not sure I trust them, since when I select that option it has a little button you can press which leads to "information" regarding the mp3, and claims that 192 wma is better than 320 mp3. I know from various lab tests printed on the internet that WMA is indeed slightly higher quality than mp3 (if encoded properly, at the same bit rate) but obvously 320 is a LOT more than 192. Having said that, I wonder if the encoding that WMP does would purposely make the mp3 weaker to support that statement....
|
|
|
Post by Kizzume on Nov 19, 2007 19:20:19 GMT -5
ITunes does a good job at compressing, and you can use either AAC (which is nice) or MP3 compression. I think RealPlayer has something in it too, but I don't really use it for that. It has a pretty good interface for it, and you can set it so every time you put in a CD, it will convert it to an AAC or MP3 automatically. Edit/preferences/advanced/importing, now select CUSTOM and make it look like this: If you're doing individual tracks, one at a time, and you already have them as a WAV or an AIF, Audacity is a good program. Another thing--once the file is converted to a wma or mp3 or whatever, you can't make those have more quality--you must go back to the original source, the original cd--I assume you know that already, but I thought I say it just in case.
|
|
|
Post by jq on Nov 19, 2007 19:33:54 GMT -5
Another thing--once the file is converted to a wma or mp3 or whatever, you can't make those have more quality--you must go back to the original source, the original cd--I assume you know that already, but I thought I say it just in case. Oh yeah, I am aware of that. Thanks for the idea Kizzume, I find it to be a very good idea. I am surprised I haven't tried to do that yet with my Itunes...... Also, which do you prefer, CBR or VBR? I have heard the argument for VBR and find it somewhat compelling. But I have always done CBR. Also, do you think there would be a difference between the MP3 encoding that Itunes does and the encoding WMP does? It is too bad there is no other way to verify this than going through the annoying process of encoding both and comparing them by ear....
|
|
|
Post by jq on Nov 19, 2007 19:36:09 GMT -5
One other thing. And I am sure I have asked you this before but I don't have it in writing anywhere and can't remember what you said....what compression rate do you use for your general music library on computer? (I mean, do you do EVERY song at 320, or do you, for the sake of space, go with a lesser bitrate for most stuff?)
|
|
|
Post by Kizzume on Nov 19, 2007 19:45:40 GMT -5
If it's a song that I need to share with others online, particularly if I need to put a new song up on MySpace or something, I specially make a 192 version, otherwise I've been using 320 for everything lately. I used to use 192 all the time, but it really started to get on my nerves.
I've been using CBR most of the time--the variable type I've read that it can both have issues with some players, and also that there will be points where one can hear the quality switch to lower at times and then back up. I recommend CBR.
|
|
|
Post by jq on Nov 19, 2007 19:48:59 GMT -5
If it's a song that I need to share with others online, particularly if I need to put a new song up on MySpace or something, I specially make a 192 version, otherwise I've been using 320 for everything lately. I used to use 192 all the time, but it really started to get on my nerves. I've been using CBR most of the time--the variable type I've read that it can both have issues with some players, and also that there will be points where one can hear the quality switch to lower at times and then back up. I recommend CBR. Of course, not all formats are created equal....do you do AAC or MP3? (From what I understand AAC at 192 is significantly better than MP3 at 192. Comparable to WMA PRO.) Somewhere out there there was a really badass study and they found the following to be true. WMA is slightly better than MP3, but AAC or WMA PRO are significantly better than WMA. (I would do WMA pro but the thing is, my mp3 player does not support that format, nor does it support AAC.) Also, what was it specifically that was bothering you about the 192? You could hear that is was crappier? (And if you want to get even MORE specific, what specific element was crappier? Were their background noises/ layers that you couldn't hear, was the music less dynamic, or was the high end treble slightly more powerful than the lower elements?)
|
|
|
Post by Kizzume on Nov 19, 2007 19:54:08 GMT -5
The problem is, barely any mp3 players can handle AAC files. They sound GREAT. I prefer OGG format even more, but you run into the same problem--OGG I really think is superior, but I don't know of any programs that easily convert to that format automatically just from sticking in a CD. A 96kbps OGG sounds like a 192kbps mp3--but, again, the format isn't very popular.
|
|
|
Post by Kizzume on Nov 19, 2007 19:55:18 GMT -5
As far as what bothers me about 192--I can hear the compression at 192 and with 320 I can't.
A great example of when you can hear it is when you hear something that's supposed to sound like white noise, or a live audience from a live concert--that's the best example I can think of to where you can hear that weird compression sound.
|
|
|
Post by jq on Nov 19, 2007 20:04:16 GMT -5
As far as what bothers me about 192--I can hear the compression at 192 and with 320 I can't. A great example of when you can hear it is when you hear something that's supposed to sound like white noise, or a live audience from a live concert--that's the best example I can think of to where you can hear that weird compression sound. For me there is one specific NIN track that I use as the rule to test out compression. "The Warning" has a highly digitalized, bassy, drum-track intro that has enough complexity, (uses enough bass, med and treble along with being very dynamic) that it is the ultimate tester track for quality. I honestly wasn't aware of a major difference on YZ until I got to that track. That was when I went "SHIT, this is less quality than my old WMA version!" Yeah, I am frustrated that my MP3 player doesn't have a wider tolerance of other formats. If I could just do AAC or WMA pro at 192 RATHER than wma or mp3 at 192, I would be totally unconcerned with this. It would be a non-issue for me. The quality compression at 192 as is is only slight to my ear (for the most part, I would say it is a good quality compression) but it is still there. I believe that if I was able to use a superior format, like AAC or WMA pro, then I wouldn't be able to hear that difference at all and it would sound like a full quality file to me.
|
|
|
Post by Kizzume on Nov 19, 2007 20:08:10 GMT -5
Just doing an mp3 at higher should take care of it. 224 and 256 should be fine too.
|
|
|
Post by jq on Nov 19, 2007 20:13:16 GMT -5
Yeah, I know. THe thing is though, my disc space is running out . I have 10 GB left on my computer. 52 gb so far have gone to my music. If I had done all of those at a higher rate, I would be out of space by now and unable to continue to add to my collection. On the other hand, I sort of feel like I have a worthless collection anyway. I feel like the guy who spent a couple years dedicating all his time to collecting 8 tracks to have the ultimate music collection, only to realize that his format is obsolete and worthless.......
|
|
|
Post by jq on Nov 19, 2007 20:33:31 GMT -5
Okay, one other question....when I upload a cd through itunes, where does the album go on my hard drive? I am looking for TDS which I just compressed at 320 mp3, and I don't know where it is!
|
|
|
Post by Kizzume on Nov 19, 2007 20:33:55 GMT -5
I've got about 70gb left on mine. It's a 300gb drive....
|
|
|
Post by jq on Nov 19, 2007 20:36:32 GMT -5
I've got about 70gb left on mine. It's a 300gb drive.... So how much music do you have on yours? My song total is 10,104 songs or something that like. Found it!: A litlte search on the computer found that itunes is in a separate folder inside "my music." Yeah, I hear a difference. The 320 kbps version kicks total ass.
|
|