Attention all members!
Have a cool ride? Then show it off on our website! All vehicles welcome!

kps quality

Post a reply

Confirmation code
Enter the code exactly as it appears. All letters are case insensitive.
Smilies
:awesome: :argh :ditto :inout :words :bow :cheers: :bigwink: :fing02: :sad017: :scorp: :o :D ;) :p :unwell028 :tongue017 :thumbsup :surprised :sm29: :angry011: :angry015: :angry012: :nono: :angry010: :nono :banghead :mad: :dif :angry :CRZ_13: :eek: :confused: :confused0 :confused :( :sad: :cool: :dance :mecry: :jesterlol :embarrass :flame: :doh :evil019: :evil001: :rolleyes: :sub:
View more smilies
BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON
Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: kps quality

by William from NOLA » Tue Apr 25, 2006 2:26 pm

GlassWolf wrote:"CD quality" at 128kbps is BS.
no MP3 is going to be true CD quality. plain and simple.
MP3 is a lossy compression.
Absolutely true. MP3's are the worst for SQ. Normal cd's don't usually cut it for me either. Most are recorded like crap. I prefer raw 196 KHz 32 bit audio myself :)

192Kbps is actually what they call "CD quality" these days, but in reality they say this because using anything over 192 shouldn't yield a noticeable improvement in audible quality.
...heh, shouldn't. I personally notice it. 192 Kbps is the bare minimum in my book.


Since this subject is in the bounds of my bachelor's, I must nitpick. MP3's are measured in bitrate. K = kilo = 1,000. M = mega = 1,000,000. m = milli = .01, so the K must always be capitalized. There are bits and bytes. Bits are represented with a lowercase b. Bytes are represented by a capital B. KBps is not the same as Kbps. Those are two radically different numbers.
In actual fact, a cd has 44,100 samples per second, and each one is 16 bits, and two chanels, for a total of around 1400Kps!
1411.2 Kbps or 176.4 KBps to be exact.

by GlassWolf » Tue Apr 25, 2006 8:56 am

"CD quality" at 128kbps is BS.
no MP3 is going to be true CD quality. plain and simple.

MP3 is a lossy compression.
every time you compress a file with MP3, you're losing actual data that produces the details in your audio.
In fact you're compressing around 12:1 so you're really losing quite a bit of data.

If you want to test this, take an original audio CD and compress one track to MP3. Any bitrate you like.. but I suggest 128 to prove the point.
Then reconvert that MP3 back to a WAV or CDA file like on an audio CD, uncompressed.
Take that WAV file, and recompress it into an MP3 again.
repeat this process about 6 times.
afterward, play back the resulting MP3 that's been expanded and recompressed numerous times, and listen to the audio quality compared to the original CD.

every time you compress to MP3, you lose more data. eventually, you end up hearing the difference quite plainly.

192Kbps is actually what they call "CD quality" these days, but in reality they say this because using anything over 192 shouldn't yield a noticeable improvement in audible quality.

by _gonz_ » Tue Apr 25, 2006 3:02 am

sevenasterisks wrote: Personally, I don't ever want to have to wonder if it would sound better if I had only used a higher sampling rate, so I just use lossless encoding.
You raise good points on the pros vs. cons, but I feel you missed the key factor... space!

For example, take a CD and extract the audio into a lossless WAV format. To burn another CD, it's pretty much the same size.

Now try extracting to a variable bitrate MP3, and when you burn a CD, you can fit about 9 albums to one. Thats the big advantage of MP3. The sound quality is not different enough to worry about.

If you ARE worried about SQ, then the sensible thing is either;
Play only original CDs
Copy on a 1 to 1 basis, in other words, simply duplicate the original.

by _gonz_ » Tue Apr 25, 2006 2:56 am

First, if the CD you're ripping from is lousy to begin with, you really can't make it any better.

Second, the higher the compression (lower the bitrate) the more data is removed from the track. Compression removes some high and some low frequency stuff. Certain processing can actually "replace" it, but by way of guesswork, not perfect.

VBR gives me generally the best result.

by frankiebones » Tue Apr 25, 2006 2:53 am

Darthness wrote:he just answsered that.. yes, an mp3 ripped at 320kbps will be a higher quality than a cd of 128kbps, although you may i doubt you'll really be able to notice a huge difference.
i got that, i thought cd's topped out at 128 (misinformed by someone and i didnt take his word for it, i asked u guys)

by Darthness » Tue Apr 25, 2006 2:49 am

he just answsered that.. yes, an mp3 ripped at 320kbps will be a higher quality than a cd of 128kbps, although you may i doubt you'll really be able to notice a huge difference.

by sevenasterisks » Tue Apr 25, 2006 2:49 am

frankiebones wrote:what i dont get is that, supposedly, CD quality is 128. so if u rip a CD to ur computer at 320 kps, its generating more quality than it is, right?
what they mean by "CD quality" is that most people probably won't notice the difference on their lousy systems, so it doesn't really matter. Most authouritative sources claim it si near cd quality. In actual fact, a cd has 44,100 samples per second, and each one is 16 bits, and two chanels, for a total of around 1400Kps! There are really two ways of compressing (reducing in size) this information, one is lossless, which involves things like finding patterns that occur commonly, and replacing them with something smaller, the other consists of getting rid of some of the "unnecessary" information, in order to make the file size smaller. To those who care about sound quality, all the information is important. Mp3 is an algorithm of the second type.

depending on who you ask, people say anywhere from 64kps to 512kps is "good enough" (some would even say ANY compression hurts the sound quality). Personally, I don't ever want to have to wonder if it would sound better if I had only used a higher sampling rate, so I just use lossless encoding.

by frankiebones » Tue Apr 25, 2006 2:31 am

sevenasterisks wrote:yes, definately. (okay, it may not be noticed when driving at 70 mph on a noisy road) having more kps (1000 bits per second) gives more information, allowing a more accurate reproduction of the original sound. I remember first encountering this when I was listening to a song I liked encoded at 128k. While I couldn't point out what was wrong, it sounded awful. Ever since then, I use lossless encoding for my ipod (with 60gb, it can still hold an awful lot) If you care enough about sound to spend time and money installing and tweaking your system, you owe it to yourself to use the best quality material you can.
what i dont get is that, supposedly, CD quality is 128. so if u rip a CD to ur computer at 320 kps, its generating more quality than it is, right?

by sevenasterisks » Tue Apr 25, 2006 2:11 am

yes, definately. (okay, it may not be noticed when driving at 70 mph on a noisy road) having more kps (1000 bits per second) gives more information, allowing a more accurate reproduction of the original sound. I remember first encountering this when I was listening to a song I liked encoded at 128k. While I couldn't point out what was wrong, it sounded awful. Ever since then, I use lossless encoding for my ipod (with 60gb, it can still hold an awful lot) If you care enough about sound to spend time and money installing and tweaking your system, you owe it to yourself to use the best quality material you can.

kps quality

by frankiebones » Tue Apr 25, 2006 1:16 am

this may be a stupid question, but when either burning an mp3 CD or using a direct ipod link (like in an alpine CDA-9856), do higher quality mp3's (i.e., 320 kps v. 120 kps) translate to better quality sound in a car system?

Top