QUESTION about bitrates

johnboy01 · Post by **johnboy01** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 5:40 pm

hey yall.

so from what i understand, if you're dealing with MP3s, you want to have the bitrate be 320. i get that.

my question is: if im dealing with a wav, it says the bitrate is 1536 kbps. then when i convert it to an mp3, the bitrate drops to 160 kbps.

what's the deal with this?

so....

a) how can the wav be higher than 320 if 320 is supposed to be the best?

and

b) does converting a 1536 kbps wav to mp3 (using itunes in this case) always mean a drop in sound quality?

my assumption is that the wav can't be 320 like an MP3 because it's too big... but does that mean it's better for me to hold on to these bulky wav files and spin them instead of converting them to mp3?

any help much appreciated.

john

madmax · Post by **madmax** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 5:47 pm

Mp3 is a lossy format, compressed audio, put simply smaller file as certain sounds are removed.

Wav is uncompressed.

Uncompressed is better than compressed for obvious reasons.

If your converting your wav's to 160kbps then they are not 320kbps!

Try converting your wav's to 320kpbs instead.

Use this: http://download.cnet.com/Free-WAV-to-MP ... 51477.html

Read more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_file_format

The End...

johnboy01 · Post by **johnboy01** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 5:58 pm

hey thanks man!

just converted a 1536 kbps wav into a 320 MP3 using that program you linked me to.

you da man, btw.

but here's another question... why would itunes assume that i would want to reduce the quality to 160 kbps every time i convert to mp3? could i have toggled that if i knew what i was doing?

also... you still haven't answered my question about the wav being 1536 kbps. is that the highest quality a wav can be?

__________ · Post by **__________** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 6:08 pm

johnboy01 wrote:does converting a 1536 kbps wav to mp3 (using itunes in this case) always mean a drop in sound quality?

yeah, always.
.wav is lossless, meaning you're getting the fullest representation of the tune possible
.mp3 is lossy. EVERY mp3 removes supposedly inaudible frequencies from the file to reduce the size of it. the higher bitrate of the mp3, the better the sound quality will be.

johnboy01 wrote:does that mean it's better for me to hold on to these bulky wav files and spin them instead of converting them to mp3?

people will tell you all sorts of different things.
you'd be better sticking with the .wavs for the above reasons, but if you can't afford more hard drive space, convert them into 320kbps mp3 because its the highest quality mp3 possible, and there's not THAT much audible difference between a 320 and a .wav

.wav bitrates can go up a lot more than 1536kbps as far as i remember

i'd stick to .wav if i was you. especially if you ever burn CDs

Pada · Post by **Pada** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 6:10 pm

johnboy01 wrote:hey thanks man!

just converted a 1536 kbps wav into a 320 MP3 using that program you linked me to.

you da man, btw.

but here's another question... why would itunes assume that i would want to reduce the quality to 160 kbps every time i convert to mp3? could i have toggled that if i knew what i was doing?

also... you still haven't answered my question about the wav being 1536 kbps. is that the highest quality a wav can be?

iTunes assumes everybody is going to be playing tunes on their iPod on iPod headphones and for that 160 will be ok.

320s are only really needed when being played on good quality equipment by someone who cares. Yes i think there is an option in iTunes to change it to 320 default.

WAV is lossless so i think the bit rate is what come out of the sequencer usually?

johnboy01 · Post by **johnboy01** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 7:36 pm

hey thanks guys.

really appreciate it.

yong · Post by **yong** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 9:35 pm

adisize wrote:
johnboy01 wrote:hey thanks man!

just converted a 1536 kbps wav into a 320 MP3 using that program you linked me to.

you da man, btw.

but here's another question... why would itunes assume that i would want to reduce the quality to 160 kbps every time i convert to mp3? could i have toggled that if i knew what i was doing?

also... you still haven't answered my question about the wav being 1536 kbps. is that the highest quality a wav can be?
iTunes assumes everybody is going to be playing tunes on their iPod on iPod headphones and for that 160 will be ok.

320s are only really needed when being played on good quality equipment by someone who cares. Yes i think there is an option in iTunes to change it to 320 default.

That's not true.

iTunes doesn't "assume" anything. That's just the default. Right in the middle of the mp3 bitrate spectrum.

It's easy enough to change, it's just in the preferences.

rawali · Post by **rawali** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 9:47 pm

either way, the bitrate is just the quantity of information in a second...

mp3 bitrates are always quite lower than wavs because they are compressed and lossy, keep the wavs, dont convert them

what you have to understand though is that your 1536 kpbs isnt necessarily 5 (1536/320) times better than your mp3...

if you must save space, I'd suggest converting them to flac or ogg which are lossless compression formats... they are a bigger than 320 kbps but you will still save space compared to the wav and you wont lose any quality

overcast radio · Post by **overcast radio** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 10:17 pm

Madmax wrote:Mp3 is a lossy format, compressed audio, put simply smaller file as certain sounds are removed.

Wav is uncompressed.

Uncompressed is better than compressed for obvious reasons.

If your converting your wav's to 160kbps then they are not 320kbps!

Try converting your wav's to 320kpbs instead.

Use this: http://download.cnet.com/Free-WAV-to-MP ... 51477.html

Read more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_file_format

The End...

This.

"Bit-rate" between mp3 and wav aren't the same since they are not the same type of file (compressed v. uncompressed). Bitrate concerning mp3 iis kilobits to use per second to represent the recording whereas bit-rate for uncompressed PCM files is how long/deep the sample is...like CD's are 44.1K 16-bit.

timmyyabas · Post by **timmyyabas** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 10:23 pm

johnboy01 wrote:also... you still haven't answered my question about the wav being 1536 kbps. is that the highest quality a wav can be?

1536 or wotever it is isnt the highest, but it is the same as what cds are and is the most commonly used. to increase this you would have to either increase frequency which is at 44.1khz, you can go up to 96 and beyond or increase bit depth (i think thats wots its called) which is 16bit, this could be increased to 24 or wotever.

as has been mentioned, mp3s are lossy formats and so any mp3 is going to lose sound quality from the original wav. for storage i use flac which is about 50-60% the size of a wav file but with no loss of quality. you could play these without decoding back to wav in most players but it involves more processing power so for mixing and stuff i tend to just use the wavs.

hope this helps.

johnboy01 · Post by **johnboy01** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 10:35 pm

adisize wrote:
johnboy01 wrote:hey thanks man!

just converted a 1536 kbps wav into a 320 MP3 using that program you linked me to.

you da man, btw.

but here's another question... why would itunes assume that i would want to reduce the quality to 160 kbps every time i convert to mp3? could i have toggled that if i knew what i was doing?

also... you still haven't answered my question about the wav being 1536 kbps. is that the highest quality a wav can be?
WAV is lossless so i think the bit rate is what come out of the sequencer usually?

sequencer...? pls explain. need more knowledge.

overcast radio · Post by **overcast radio** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 11:17 pm

johnboy01 wrote:
adisize wrote:
johnboy01 wrote:hey thanks man!

just converted a 1536 kbps wav into a 320 MP3 using that program you linked me to.

you da man, btw.

but here's another question... why would itunes assume that i would want to reduce the quality to 160 kbps every time i convert to mp3? could i have toggled that if i knew what i was doing?

also... you still haven't answered my question about the wav being 1536 kbps. is that the highest quality a wav can be?
WAV is lossless so i think the bit rate is what come out of the sequencer usually?
sequencer...? pls explain. need more knowledge.

Sequencer i.e. what DAW you use to record your material with like Logic, DP, Pro Tools, etc...where you edit and arrange. Usu. 44.1K 24-bit but yeah some people do 96K 24-bit...also bear in mind converting from 88.2 is cleaner to 44.1 than from 96k bc you are dividing in half evenly. Maybe that's too much...I use uncompressed wavs bc I want better quality but I am running into space issues...whatever its worth it, drives are cheap.

***and using 24-bit is way more important than using a higher SR. 16-bit tracking is bad.

***I just re-read. Don't confuse kbps with bit-depth they're different. One deals with compressed audio and the other doesn't.

johnboy01 · Post by **johnboy01** » Wed Apr 08, 2009 6:33 pm

thanks buddy.

appreciate the 411.

johnboy01 · Post by **johnboy01** » Fri Apr 10, 2009 9:08 pm

NEW QUESTION:

So let's say I make a mix using only 320 kbps MP3s and record it on to my PC..... when im done, it's sitting there in my little recording program (in this case, im using audacity cuz i have a PC). When i export it from the program, the whole mix is sitting on my desktop in the form of a wav file.... i should be able to convert that mix from wav form to a 320 kbps MP3 form without losing too much sound quality, right? OK, no problem.

BUT...

What if, say, half the MP3s i used were of a shittier quality (let's say 160 kbps)...
The program im using to convert my wav mix to MP3 form still gives me the option of converting the wav mix to a 320 kbps MP3... BUT HOW CAN THIS BE IF THE ORIGINAL QUALITY OF HALF THE MP3s WERE ONLY 160 kbps????

does this mean that my little conversion program is lying when it says it's converted the mix from a wav form to a 320 MP3???

or is it that when it gives me the option of converting the whole mix to 320 MP3, what it means is that it's as high a quality as possible, given the quality of the tracks used?

it can't be possible to create higher quality after the fact if the original quality wasn't there to begin with, right?

but now, when i click the properties of the MP3 file, it says the mix has a bitrate of 320. LIES!! ALL LIES!!

HELP!

madmax · Post by **madmax** » Fri Apr 10, 2009 9:48 pm

...talk to frank

reptilian · Post by **reptilian** » Fri Apr 10, 2009 10:04 pm

johnboy01 wrote:
What if, say, half the MP3s i used were of a shittier quality (let's say 160 kbps)...
The program im using to convert my wav mix to MP3 form still gives me the option of converting the wav mix to a 320 kbps MP3... BUT HOW CAN THIS BE IF THE ORIGINAL QUALITY OF HALF THE MP3s WERE ONLY 160 kbps????

does this mean that my little conversion program is lying when it says it's converted the mix from a wav form to a 320 MP3???

or is it that when it gives me the option of converting the whole mix to 320 MP3, what it means is that it's as high a quality as possible, given the quality of the tracks used?

it can't be possible to create higher quality after the fact if the original quality wasn't there to begin with, right?

but now, when i click the properties of the MP3 file, it says the mix has a bitrate of 320. LIES!! ALL LIES!!

HELP!

Not lies - the recording that is in 320 is a pretty decent quality recording which will sound variously better or shittier depending on the original quality/bitrate of the tunes included in the mix

a 320 recording of a low bitrate tune will sound almost as good as the not very good sounding original if you get me

overcast radio · Post by **overcast radio** » Fri Apr 10, 2009 10:33 pm

If you are using MP3's of all sizes/kbps just convert to highest rate when the mix is done.

Mixed size MP3's/mix +

Audacity recording wav 24-(or 16-) bit stereo file +

conversion to 320 MP3 = done.

(I'd use 24-bit all the time.)

johnboy01 · Post by **johnboy01** » Fri Apr 10, 2009 10:59 pm

10-4!

thanks guys.

constrobuz · Post by **constrobuz** » Fri Apr 10, 2009 11:08 pm

on most equipment you wont hear the difference between 320 and 160 kbps, so if you have an +1 hour long mix, might as well export to 160, or better yet v0!!! save some disk space.

johnboy01 · Post by **johnboy01** » Sat Apr 11, 2009 3:02 am

I've been listening to this mix I made using my beefy MDR-V7000 headphones...

here it is:
http://www.divshare.com/download/7072248-538

I can easily tell which are 320s and which aren't. The difference is subtle but it's definitely there. Listen to the difference in quality between the first track and the second track. The first one is a 320, the second one isn't.

The 320s are just deeper sounding and punchier and crisper. You can hear the sound getting smaller and smaller and it's a nice smooth, full sounding fade out of each sound. Also the silent parts are really crazy and sharp. So much cleaner. I think if you're rocking decent headphones, you should be able to hear the difference btwn a 320 and, say, a 160. I totally think I can.

QUESTION about bitrates

QUESTION about bitrates

Re: QUESTION about bitrates

Re: QUESTION about bitrates

Re: QUESTION about bitrates

Who is online