[Table of Contents]


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [ARSCLIST] Listening Copy



Don:

Absolutely. I find that encoders are even more different. They make different sounding and different sized files, at the same bitrate. I prefer real-deal German-licensed MP3 encoders. Have never liked the slow speed or bad sound results I've gotten from LAME with various front ends. I find that Sony Soundforge, since they licensed the German CODEC, makes fine-sounding MP3's but they are bloated compared to what Apple or MusicMatch turns out. As for decoders, the worst-sounding MP3 player is by far the Real software. MusicMatch and Apple both play fine-sounding MP3 but are both bloated programs that use a lot of overhead. If you want a very low-resource program that sounds just fine, check out the AudioActive player from Telos Systems. I just noticed there's no obvious link to download it from their website anymore. Pity.

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- From: "Don Cox" <doncox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 2:58 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Listening Copy



On 12/02/07, Richard L. Hess wrote:
Hello, Farris,

If you have 44.1/16 WAV files on a server already, and your listening
"dumb terminal" can connect to that server over 100 Mb/s Ethernet,
then there may be no need to go to the trouble of making MP3 files
from the WAV files.

The WAV file is only running at 1.4 Mb/s, much less than the capacity
of a 100 Mb/s of the Ethernet connection. I can run 44.1/16 WAV files
reliably over a wireless 802.11g network (one file is all I've ever
tested).

There is significant variability between MP3 encoders. When I run the
one that comes with Samplitude (and I'm not sure which one it is any
more, since I didn't have to execute a separate license as I did in
the past) there is an option for highest quality that takes about 5x
as long to encode as the lowest quality. The highest quality at 128
kb/s and above (I like doing music at 192 kb/s) sounds very much like
the original WAV files.

I recently received a 160 kb/s MP3 of a song to audition done by a
recording engineer that sounded substantially worse than the 128 kb/s
Windows Media file ripped by the artist for my convenience. When I
finally got the CD, neither sounded as close as the MP3s I make. For
larger projects, I usually batch convert MP3s overnight as I cannot
take the time during the work day to run them.

I was totally amazed at the difference in quality between various
lossy encoders and don't want to repeat the experiment with the song
noted above.

I have also found clearly audible differences between different
decoders.

Regards
--
Don Cox
doncox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx



[Subject index] [Index for current month] [Table of Contents]