MP3 Degradation, an experiment.
Forum rules
By using this "Production" sub-forum, you acknowledge that you have read, understood and agreed with our terms of use for this site. Click HERE to read them. If you do not agree to our terms of use, you must exit this site immediately. We do not accept any responsibility for the content, submissions, information or links contained herein. Users posting content here, do so completely at their own risk.
Quick Link to Feedback Forum
By using this "Production" sub-forum, you acknowledge that you have read, understood and agreed with our terms of use for this site. Click HERE to read them. If you do not agree to our terms of use, you must exit this site immediately. We do not accept any responsibility for the content, submissions, information or links contained herein. Users posting content here, do so completely at their own risk.
Quick Link to Feedback Forum
-
VirtualMark
- Posts: 1821
- Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 12:15 am
- Location: UK
Re: MP3 Degradation, an experiment.
The last two don't have the same sample rate, so they would lose the higher frequencies. And some codecs low pass the lower settings automatically, as most people can't hear that high anyway. Did you check this before you posted?
A good way to actually hear whats missing from your audio is to subtract one file from another, then you get a track just made of the artifacts. But i personally can't tell the difference between a 320mp3 and a wav, and i'd like to meet someone that can. All this 24bit 96khz stuff on blu ray seems a bit overkill, i can't really tell the difference there either.
A good way to actually hear whats missing from your audio is to subtract one file from another, then you get a track just made of the artifacts. But i personally can't tell the difference between a 320mp3 and a wav, and i'd like to meet someone that can. All this 24bit 96khz stuff on blu ray seems a bit overkill, i can't really tell the difference there either.
Re: MP3 Degradation, an experiment.
Wow this was a good read, pretty crazy to actually see some results graph wise. I'm not sure if this was mentioned but I find it interesting, MP3's are compressed as shit I believe its an 11:1 ratio. Figured I would get that out haha commit my 2cents to the post.
Re: MP3 Degradation, an experiment.
I have no idea why that is, i used the same export settings etc, just changing the mp3 rate...VirtualMark wrote:The last two don't have the same sample rate, so they would lose the higher frequencies. And some codecs low pass the lower settings automatically, as most people can't hear that high anyway. Did you check this before you posted?
A good way to actually hear whats missing from your audio is to subtract one file from another, then you get a track just made of the artifacts. But i personally can't tell the difference between a 320mp3 and a wav, and i'd like to meet someone that can. All this 24bit 96khz stuff on blu ray seems a bit overkill, i can't really tell the difference there either.
- like spinning plates
- Posts: 54
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 4:14 pm
Re: MP3 Degradation, an experiment.
What does this mean with regard to VBR?
Re: MP3 Degradation, an experiment.
Variable Bit rate.like spinning plates wrote:What does this mean with regard to VBR?
It means that the quality of the mp3 will change during the most complex and simplest parts of the mp3. increasing the kbits when theres lots of complex sounds, and it lowers when its simple. Its another way of making an mp3 smaller. for max quality, stick to cbr (constant bit rate)
-
staticcast
- Posts: 908
- Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 12:08 pm
- Location: Berlin
Re: MP3 Degradation, an experiment.
actually, for a given compression ratio (ie 'kb/s' value), all other factors being equal, VBR will offer better perceived quality.Depone wrote:for max quality, stick to cbr (constant bit rate)
o b j e k t
Re: MP3 Degradation, an experiment.
It wont as 320kb/s is the maximum for mp3's constant or vbr.static_cast wrote:actually, for a given compression ratio (ie 'kb/s' value), all other factors being equal, VBR will offer better perceived quality.Depone wrote:for max quality, stick to cbr (constant bit rate)
Re: MP3 Degradation, an experiment.
Great Post! 
But im curious on the comparison on different bit rate mp3 from the source and ones that are ripped from sites
to show people who get there "320's" off youtube and feel the need to loop them and play them out.
But im curious on the comparison on different bit rate mp3 from the source and ones that are ripped from sites
to show people who get there "320's" off youtube and feel the need to loop them and play them out.
Re: MP3 Degradation, an experiment.
Cool thread. I'm having audio engineering class flashbacks
Check the snare on this tune, sounds like mp3 compression being used creatively.
Also, doesn't mp3 compression mess with the stereo field aswell?
Check the snare on this tune, sounds like mp3 compression being used creatively.
Also, doesn't mp3 compression mess with the stereo field aswell?
jrkhnds wrote:- dubstepforum, 2014.and I've never really rated dubstep..
Re: MP3 Degradation, an experiment.
Yeah we have endless threads on bit crushing on this forum and people can't understand how someone could like a lo-fi mp3 over lossless? Think about it.nowaysj wrote:Anything to do with "nice" is always subjective. Just heard for the nth time that in a blind test, younger people prefer the sound of mp3 (and mp3 compression) over other media, ie vinyl, cassette, and cd.static_cast wrote:Again, the point is that these artifacts sound "nice", whereas mp3 artifacts don't.![]()
Sounds crazy right? But whatever you get used to, that's what you like. I've been there.
There was a time early in mp3 when I was exclusively listening to 128 -192, and did develop a taste for the high freq crunch.
==
Side note, congrats on the vinyl release, 110% about time.
Re: MP3 Degradation, an experiment.
Forgot i made this thread and wanted to bump it because I was recently sent a 92kbits mp3 from a producer... he didn't realise the damage he was doing.
so BUMP
so BUMP
- sunny_b_uk
- Posts: 899
- Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:48 am
- Location: Wolverhampton
Re: MP3 Degradation, an experiment.
was it a good beatDepone wrote:Forgot i made this thread and wanted to bump it because I was recently sent a 92kbits mp3 from a producer... he didn't realise the damage he was doing.
so BUMP
also i wouldn't mind seeing a comparison of a 350 kbps or a 450kbps mp3 since those two higher options are in FL Studio to export at that rate.
-
VirtualMark
- Posts: 1821
- Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 12:15 am
- Location: UK
Re: MP3 Degradation, an experiment.
92kbps?? what was he thinking.sunny_b_uk wrote:was it a good beatDepone wrote:Forgot i made this thread and wanted to bump it because I was recently sent a 92kbits mp3 from a producer... he didn't realise the damage he was doing.
so BUMP![]()
also i wouldn't mind seeing a comparison of a 350 kbps or a 450kbps mp3 since those two higher options are in FL Studio to export at that rate.
as for those higher settings, i'd leave them. there is a free format mp3 which goes past 600k but nobody uses it. best to stick to 320 as its a standard format. if you want higher quality just use wave files, not that many people can even tell the difference between 320mp3 and wave.
-
Artie_Fufkin
- Posts: 1072
- Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 9:04 pm
- Location: Missouri
Re: MP3 Degradation, an experiment.
I get that in audacity! I haven't figured out what it is but I'll put a sample of sub in audacity and it will play with this ringing harmonic, but when I just play it in windows media player or vlc it doesn't have it.graish wrote:Sometimes when I upload tracks to soundcloud I can hear a sort of ringing in the sub bass, anyone else know what I'm talking about?
The low end in these examples similar, even down to the lowest bitrate.
I just want to echo what someone said about encoders. They are not all equal. The encoder itunes uses is junk I've read.
Just wondering: what did you use to make the graphs and which encoder you used depone?
Re: MP3 Degradation, an experiment.
Very true!Artie Fufkin wrote:I get that in audacity! I haven't figured out what it is but I'll put a sample of sub in audacity and it will play with this ringing harmonic, but when I just play it in windows media player or vlc it doesn't have it.graish wrote:Sometimes when I upload tracks to soundcloud I can hear a sort of ringing in the sub bass, anyone else know what I'm talking about?
The low end in these examples similar, even down to the lowest bitrate.
I just want to echo what someone said about encoders. They are not all equal. The encoder itunes uses is junk I've read.
Just wondering: what did you use to make the graphs and which encoder you used depone?
I use LAME codec to code mp3s.
For this example, i wanted to use a pretty poor sounding mp3 encoder, so I went with adobe soundbooth (Thanks adobe for my month trial for this!)
Might try one with LAME and see how it stands up.
And then ill do an m4a one (the format itunes purchases are) because they have a better frequency range at smaller bitdepths. IE better encoding of compressed audio
-
Artie_Fufkin
- Posts: 1072
- Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 9:04 pm
- Location: Missouri
Re: MP3 Degradation, an experiment.
I think I tried this before, but mp3s have a very small little bit of "silence" added at the beginning so they didn't line up. Could try moving the wav to be in time with the mp3 though...-goes and does that-VirtualMark wrote:The last two don't have the same sample rate, so they would lose the higher frequencies. And some codecs low pass the lower settings automatically, as most people can't hear that high anyway. Did you check this before you posted?
A good way to actually hear whats missing from your audio is to subtract one file from another, then you get a track just made of the artifacts. But i personally can't tell the difference between a 320mp3 and a wav, and i'd like to meet someone that can. All this 24bit 96khz stuff on blu ray seems a bit overkill, i can't really tell the difference there either.
Edit: Alright, well when I had thought to do this before, I didn't really believe I'd be able to match the waveforms up, but I think I got it just now. After matching them up, inverting one of the tracks and then mixing them(doing this in Audacity), I was left with a track that was pretty quiet and just sounded like white noise. It was mainly the percussion sounds, so I'm guessing the artifacts are more present in drum/noisy sounds or is there dithering in mp3 encoding? It didn't even have that "glitchy"/watery sound, just noise. I encoded the mp3 at 320kbps. It was peaking around -27 dB for most of the song, except for at the very end; there was a peak at about -19 dB. Not sure why that was there because there wasn't a peak at the end of the wav or the mp3....
I'm finding myself really curious about this.... I'm going to try varying some things, like the bit depth/sample rate of the original wav, the bitrate of the mp3, and also just trying it with a sine sweep.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


