i have a question, which one has better quality (it’s probably obvious but not to me thats why i’m asking =)
but!
it’s the same music, same length
but what i don’t get is that one takes less space (but lower bitrate) but uses a better encoder… while the other takes more space (higher bitrate) and uses a older version of the encoder…
and i cant hear the difference between the two
Higher bit rate = better quality, although if you can’t hear the difference it shouldn’t matter which one you use.
But if it’s for video then use the higher bit rate one other wise the video will have reduced quality and look like crap.
QUOTE (DiamondTalon @ Feb 15 2008, 09:43 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
it's the same music, same lengthbut what i don’t get is that one takes less space (but lower bitrate) but uses a better encoder… while the other takes more space (higher bitrate) and uses a older version of the encoder…
and i cant hear the difference between the two
I suppose the program itself just improved and there might be very small (unnoticeable) differences maybe. If it’s the same format then larger file sizes/bitrate would indicate better quality.
However, there are some formats that use less space/bitrate and achieve better results than MP3.
The quick answer is that the 256kbps version should be better than the 192kbps one. However, the difference should be small. So, depending on your playback setup, you may or may not be able to tell the difference. Especially if you are using a portable device with crap headphones. (I always re-encode stuff to lower quality for ipods and such).
I wouldn’t put much stock in lame 3.97 being much better than 3.96. It’s been around forever and is unlikey that there is anything new but bugfixes and tweaks.
Many things affect the quality of encoded audio and it’s not obvious which is better in many cases.
Codecs - Some codecs like AAC and MusePack are better quality than mp3 at the same bitrate.
Bitrate - Lossy codecs allow for different bitrates. Generally higher bitrate means higher quality, but with diminishing marginal returns.
Variable bitrate - this allows the bitrate to change mid-file and encode the parts of it that are complicated with more bits and use less on silence / less complicated sound. This allows for a good sounding file to be on average smaller than a constant bitrate one.
Encoding options - frequency filters, encoding quality options, stereo mode, and other advanced encoder options affect quality.
Source material - garbage in = garbage out. If the source is crap, no amount of encoding tricks will make it sound good. Quality on files can never increase; each encode into a lossy format takes away some quality.
Encoding program - This is likely to not be as big an issue these days. However, in the earlier days of mp3 most encoders really sucked. Files encoded with LAME were noticeably better than ones encoded by others.
Errors and file corruption - If the file is encoded with errors, like jitter errors when ripping CDs, then the file is crap. The same goes with files that have been corrupted after encoding (this is especially common on files that have been passed around a lot).
That being said, its best to just rip your own CDs to FLAC and get full quality. Then you can always convert to other formats you need later.
wow thanks a lot guys =]
too bad it’s not from my own cd (d/led it) =\ but would rip my own if i have it or can
but anyways thanks for ur help guys =]