Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.misc,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
recording mp3s and bitrate
Hi,
I have a question. I like to record internet radio to playback when I'm not working. If I am recording to mp3 format, is there any reason to record at a higher bitrate or even at the same bitrate as the original stream. I know there is the trial and error method, but I tend to be obsessive-compulsive so that is like asking for an infinite loop. Thanks Josh |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.misc,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
recording mp3s and bitrate
I would say that for the best quality, you should record it at the bit
rate that the original stream is in. I can't imagine you will gain anything by recording at a higher bit rate, it is not like you can make the quality better than the original signal, so if the original is at 128, why record at 320? -Andrew |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.misc,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
recording mp3s and bitrate
Thanks for the confirmation. I will record in peace now.
wrote in message oups.com... I would say that for the best quality, you should record it at the bit rate that the original stream is in. I can't imagine you will gain anything by recording at a higher bit rate, it is not like you can make the quality better than the original signal, so if the original is at 128, why record at 320? -Andrew |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.misc,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
recording mp3s and bitrate
In article ,
Josh wrote: I would say that for the best quality, you should record it at the bit rate that the original stream is in. I can't imagine you will gain anything by recording at a higher bit rate, it is not like you can make the quality better than the original signal, so if the original is at 128, why record at 320? Thanks for the confirmation. I will record in peace now. Well, I'd suggest that some experimentation would be in order before you make this decision. The problem is this: every time you take a linear-PCM signal and encode it into MP3, you're likely to lose some fidelity. Your encoder is going to look at the PCM signal, and make its own set of decisions as to how to encode it - i.e. which frequency components are relevant or irrelevant. The lower the bit rate you choose, the more "approximate" the resulting encoding becomes - you lose more frequency components, and those which are encoded are quantized more coarsely. It's generally agreed that an MP3 at 128 kbits/second is not an audibly-transparent encoding of CD-quality audio. I tend to think of 128k MP3s as being roughly analogous to a good-quality audiocassette recording... acceptable for casual listening, but of distinctly lower fidelity than a high-quality original. If you take a 128k MP3, decode it, and then re-encode it at the same data rate, it's likely that further audio degradation will occur... quite possibly enough to hear. This will depend on the original quality of the source material, on the quality of the first-pass 128k-bit encoding, and on the quality of the encoder that you use and the way that you configure it. Whether this additional degradation is enough to displease you will be a personal decision. If you do your secondary encoding at a higher bit rate - high enough to get a audibly-transparent encoding - then you'll avoid this, and your capture will sound as good as the 128k stream you originally received. You won't be able to un-do whatever loss of fidelity occurred in the original 128k encoding - what's gone is gone - but you can prevent a further loss of fidelity from occurring. I don't think you need to go all the way up to 320 - but I'd suggest trying 160 and 192 kbit/second encodings to see if they result in better audio quality. Then, choose whatever bit rate gives you what you consider the best tradeoff between file size and audio quality. -- Dave Platt AE6EO Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads! |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.misc,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
recording mp3s and bitrate
wrote in message oups.com... I would say that for the best quality, you should record it at the bit rate that the original stream is in. I can't imagine you will gain anything by recording at a higher bit rate, it is not like you can make the quality better than the original signal, so if the original is at 128, why record at 320? Sorry, that argument may sound logical but it's fundamentally flawed. Every time you re-encode to MP3, the recording quality drops a bit. The higher the bitrate, the less it drops. A 128kbps signal re-encoded at 320kbps is *worse* than the 128kbps original. Re-encoding at 128kbps would be worse still. |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.misc,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
recording mp3s and bitrate
And the most proper way is to save the incoming stream as mp3 without
decoding to PCM and encoding back to mp3. |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.misc,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
recording mp3s and bitrate
"Dave Platt" wrote in message ... In article , Josh wrote: I would say that for the best quality, you should record it at the bit rate that the original stream is in. I can't imagine you will gain anything by recording at a higher bit rate, it is not like you can make the quality better than the original signal, so if the original is at 128, why record at 320? Thanks for the confirmation. I will record in peace now. Well, I'd suggest that some experimentation would be in order before you make this decision. The problem is this: every time you take a linear-PCM signal and encode it into MP3, you're likely to lose some fidelity. Your encoder is going to look at the PCM signal, and make its own set of decisions as to how to encode it - i.e. which frequency components are relevant or irrelevant. The lower the bit rate you choose, the more "approximate" the resulting encoding becomes - you lose more frequency components, and those which are encoded are quantized more coarsely. It's generally agreed that an MP3 at 128 kbits/second is not an audibly-transparent encoding of CD-quality audio. I tend to think of 128k MP3s as being roughly analogous to a good-quality audiocassette recording... acceptable for casual listening, but of distinctly lower fidelity than a high-quality original. If you take a 128k MP3, decode it, and then re-encode it at the same data rate, it's likely that further audio degradation will occur... quite possibly enough to hear. This will depend on the original quality of the source material, on the quality of the first-pass 128k-bit encoding, and on the quality of the encoder that you use and the way that you configure it. Whether this additional degradation is enough to displease you will be a personal decision. If you do your secondary encoding at a higher bit rate - high enough to get a audibly-transparent encoding - then you'll avoid this, and your capture will sound as good as the 128k stream you originally received. You won't be able to un-do whatever loss of fidelity occurred in the original 128k encoding - what's gone is gone - but you can prevent a further loss of fidelity from occurring. I don't think you need to go all the way up to 320 - but I'd suggest trying 160 and 192 kbit/second encodings to see if they result in better audio quality. Then, choose whatever bit rate gives you what you consider the best tradeoff between file size and audio quality. -- Dave Platt AE6EO Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads! Great post - and applies to some streaming recording I've been doing lately. I've been recording 128K streams to 44/16 WAV files - hadn't decided yet how to reduce them. On a completely differant subject ;-) check Wolfgangs Vault for 128K streams of individual songs and jams from Janis Joplin, Hendrix, Jefferson Airplane, Quicksilver, James Taylor, and others, recordings from the Fillmore West and other Bill Graham venues back in the day. http://www.wolfgangsvault.com/static...o/RadioNav.htm Mark Z. |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.misc,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
recording mp3s and bitrate
|
#9
Posted to rec.audio.misc,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
recording mp3s and bitrate
"Pawel Kusmierek" wrote in message oups.com... And the most proper way is to save the incoming stream as mp3 without decoding to PCM and encoding back to mp3. Agreed! |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.misc,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
recording mp3s and bitrate
Pawel Kusmierek wrote:
And the most proper way is to save the incoming stream as mp3 without decoding to PCM and encoding back to mp3. Absolutely, but what software actually lets you do that? CD |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.misc,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
recording mp3s and bitrate
"Codifus" wrote in message... Pawel Kusmierek wrote: And the most proper way is to save the incoming stream as mp3 without decoding to PCM and encoding back to mp3. Absolutely, but what software actually lets you do that? CD I beg to differ with that, depending on how much processing and editing needs to be done to the file before creating an MP3. The more data-rich the original file, the more accuracy in processing. If the purpose is to simply make MP3 copies of other material that needs no editing or manipulation, NERO MP3-Pro will record the incoming audio, converting to MP3 on the fly. -- David Morgan (MAMS) http://www.m-a-m-s DOT com Morgan Audio Media Service Dallas, Texas (214) 662-9901 _______________________________________ http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
recording mp3s and bitrate | General | |||
recording mp3s and bitrate | Pro Audio | |||
CD+MP3 Player Not Playing Certain MP3s | Audio Opinions | |||
Should I buy a Nomad Jukebox 3? Questions.... | General | |||
192kbps MP3s on a big sound system? | Tech |