Increase Quality Of Mp3

[99shassan]

I have a few 128kbps mp3 songs, is there a way to increase the quality of the file to something like 192kbps?

[sparsely]

umpossible

[FuNkY CaPrIcOrN]

Originally posted by Sparsely@1 January 2004 - 15:49
umpossible
:huh:


:P Did you hit the "U" by mistake instead of the "I"? :P

[muchspl2]

no I say that all the time, its how the cool people say it :D

BTW: happy B-day FC if you were closer I'd come over with some crown and a few blunts to celebrate
http://members.cox.net/my_web_pictures/newyears04.jpg
http://members.cox.net/my_web_pictures/newyears0407.jpg
http://members.cox.net/my_web_pictures/newyears0408.jpg
http://members.cox.net/my_web_pictures/newyears0409.jpg

[Jibbler]

Dude, I'm so there.... Let's burn!! :ghostface: At last, I'm not the only pothead on the forum. ;)


I especially liked the strawberry blunt. Flavors make them so much smoother. :D

[muchspl2]

well I like the chocolate ones also :)
doesn't really matter if you gotz da kind ;D

[Pitbul]

weed is good for the soul. and its impossible to make the quality higher, the rate is encoded in the song when it is mixed down and published then stamped. you can change the quality but their is not diffrence in sound or clearity. i have to learn some of this stuff, i started producing so it kinda came with the job.

[sparsely]

this isn't about production, it's about compression and data loss.

[Mïcrösöül°V³]

i encode using Mp3pro at 96k. it sounds as perfect as any at 128 or higher that ive heard :) also i use musicmatch jukebox to do all my mp3's.

[Spider_dude]

Originally posted by Mïcrösöül°V³@3 January 2004 - 01:13
i encode using Mp3pro at 96k. it sounds as perfect as any at 128 or higher that ive heard :) also i use musicmatch jukebox to do all my mp3's.
stop convincing the n00bs that they can make mp3's of shite quality that sound good. it is impossible.

[99shassan]

Suppose I was to change a track into a .wav file and then change it into an MP3. It wouldn't work if I convert it to a higher quality mp3?

[cwctv]

NO if its already 128 bitrate you have lost the quality to start with and they is no way back plus every time you convert (wav mp3) it will lose more quality , thats life.

[Afronaut]

No it would not work. Atleast that im aware of.

When you make a mp3, it will take away from the *.wav file.
When you make a mp3 out of wav that has been allready
done at 128, you would end up ripping the mp3 at first place,
even if you rip to 192k or so.
Its about taking away the things you would most likely not hear or miss in the Audio
and making files smaller that mp3's are about.

At least, i dont know of software that can Add to the song that's been ripped/reduced
to mp3 allready.

Software like Steinbergs WaveLab encodes the mp3 to wav when editing a song
probably because it is a wav-editor, for example.

Cheers:
-GS-

[junkyardking]

Originally posted by Mïcrösöül°V³@3 January 2004 - 01:13
i encode using Mp3pro at 96k. it sounds as perfect as any at 128 or higher that ive heard :) also i use musicmatch jukebox to do all my mp3's.
Omg 96kb
Ripping at 128k is crap
For the love of god why 96k :o :o :blink:

[cwctv]

Mp3pro at 96k
Not Mp3 "pro" is the newish boy on the block with better compression rate not sure but that's about 160 mp3 rate.

[Keikan]

empossible

[Afronaut]

mp3 pro?

No Thanks.

It is not really a new standard, been a round for some time now.
And i dont want to chance to mp3pro's, they are not as good as claimed
in my opinion.

Some time ago i downed Futurama-whole-season from Torrents,
it was in .ogm format.
I had to go through shitload of sites to learn about how to use 'em.
Fair to say i got Pissed Off too.
Im not against the format itself, im just a lazy guy who likes things more simple
and easy.
I should install this and that, move files there, make some registry entries perhaps etc. ,
not yet today i have seen those episodes.
Later i will look for better installer or some app that makes it possible
to see the movies without 1 hour setting up things.
MovieWorld is the first stop for me, im sure i get help in there. :)

I like also mp3's better than mp3pro's, not oanly for the "sound of it",
but mp3 is Teh Standard, period.
I dont wanna chanche my setting everyday in my PC to see or hear some new files,
but in the other hand, its cool to see someone is working to get Better Standards,
im not against that, im just lazy.

Cheers:
-GS-

[sparsely]

as far as alternative formats go, .mpc is really the best, with .ogg close behind.

[muchspl2]

basic rule of thumb nobody has really said
shit in = shit out
I don't see why it so hard for people to understand

[Mïcrösöül°V³]

like spl said, if you rip a shitty quality song , then its gunna sound like shit no matter what bit rate you use. i have compared mp3 pro to mp3 and wav, using the same song, and ill be damned if i can hear any difference. 96k on mp3 pro is just more compression, but you aint gunna notice any difference between 96k and 128 or higher. i know, cuz ive tried it. sides, when you have 4000 mp3's on your comp, its nice to have them be just a little smaller to save space :P

[sparsely]

I am the Anti-Moron, and I eat your stupidity.

sparsely gets full off Microsoul.

[muchspl2]

Originally posted by Mïcrösöül°V³@3 January 2004 - 17:53
like spl said, if you rip a shitty quality song , then its gunna sound like shit no matter what bit rate you use. i have compared mp3 pro to mp3 and wav, using the same song, and ill be damned if i can hear any difference. 96k on mp3 pro is just more compression, but you aint gunna notice any difference between 96k and 128 or higher. i know, cuz ive tried it. sides, when you have 4000 mp3's on your comp, its nice to have them be just a little smaller to save space :P
only because you have shitty speaker or your def maybe both

[Mïcrösöül°V³]

deaf is what i prolly am, i have a kickin rockford fosgate setup in my extended cab truck, which i use to punish my ear drums. :P as for speaker on my comp, i have creative 7.1 surround and a audigy 2 zs sound card.......so.............im prolly just deaf :P

[99shassan]

I downloaded an album of mirc, only to find the songs sounded SHIT. I downloaded of there because certain tracks could not be found on kazaa. I didn't rip it.

[S!X]

whatever the songs bitrate is is what it stays at ;)

[Sid Hartha]

Originally posted by 99shassan@1 January 2004 - 20:07
I have a few 128kbps mp3 songs, is there a way to increase the quality of the file to something like 192kbps?
Can you turn hamburger back into steak?

[Spider_dude]

Originally posted by Sid Hartha+15 January 2004 - 15:22--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Sid Hartha &#064; 15 January 2004 - 15:22)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-99shassan@1 January 2004 - 20:07
I have a few 128kbps mp3 songs, is there a way to increase the quality of the file to something like 192kbps?
Can you turn hamburger back into steak? [/b][/quote]
i once saw an episode of keenan and kel, where they tried toturn turkey slices back into a turkey. who loves orange soda?

[StyleWarz]

Really don&#39;t know how to increase quality... Sorry... :huh:

[99shassan]

ok, i get it. no need to make fun of me now ;) .

[Samurai]

I can&#39;t understand why people download mp3&#39;s at such a shit bitrate. I get even more pissed off when people try telling me about fixing/repairing mp3&#39;s with screeches and/or distortion in them.

If you download an mp3 at 96k bitrate, you deserve to have shit music.

if you download an mp3 at whatever bitrate and it does indeed contain screeches and/or distortion, for the love of god delete it. Don&#39;t attempt to repair or otherwise fix the mp3 in question. I want my music to be as pure and &#39;straight from cd&#39; as possible. It&#39;s like saying you can have a second hand car, or a second hand car which has 3 different models welded together.

Stop being lazy and download your music at a decent bitrate.

As for those that are downloading mp3&#39;s that are containing distortion or whatever, what the hell kind of client are you using? I&#39;ve been using WinMX since Napster fell to it&#39;s knees and I&#39;ve been lucky enough to find 3 files containing crap music and even then it was because I never followed the &#39;Rules&#39;.

Average Length Of File
If you see your song, for example, &#39;Tenacious D - Tribute&#39; shared by many sources with a file length of 4:07, why are you going to download one of the same title from 1 or 2 users with a length of 3:30? Think.

Bitrate&#39;s On File
If you see 76 users sharing &#39;Tenacious D - Tribute&#39; at 192k bitrate, and 6 users sharing the same file, same bitrate, which file do you think I&#39;m going to download? Again, think.

Hz Stereo
The vast majority of mp3&#39;s have the quality at 44100Hz Stereo. Think.

Stereo Or Mono
I knew what the difference between these two were when I was 6. if you do not, press the [x] in the top right corner, switch off PC, and put it in the free ads. Think.

CBR Vs VBR
Constant Bit Rate or Variable Bit Rate?? Well, if you want your music to have the very best in quality, I&#39;d choose CBR. If you want your music to sound like &#39;Mïcrösöül°V³&#39;s&#39;, choose VBR. He probably doesn&#39;t have a clue what this is either.


Hope this helps the less informed, although I&#39;m thinking they stopped reading after the first paragraph.

Samurai :ph34r:

[Sid Hartha]

Originally posted by Samurai+15 January 2004 - 19:27--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Samurai &#064; 15 January 2004 - 19:27)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> ...CBR Vs VBR
Constant Bit Rate or Variable Bit Rate?? Well, if you want your music to have the very best in quality, I&#39;d choose CBR. If you want your music to sound like &#39;Mïcrösöül°V³&#39;s&#39;, choose VBR. He probably doesn&#39;t have a clue what this is either.... [/b]
you were sounding very smart and superior until this one.
VBR is as good - or as crappy - as you set it up to be. If you encode as VBR at %70-80, you can get 192 quality at a 160 (or less) filesize. This doesn&#39;t amount to much if you&#39;re downloading just one file, but it really adds up if you&#39;re downloading that 5 CD box set. I&#39;ve had no complaints with any of my VBR rips, and will continue to encode that way.

<!--QuoteBegin-Samurai@15 January 2004 - 19:27
...Hope this helps the less informed, although I&#39;m thinking they stopped reading after the first paragraph...[/quote]
...probably because of the nasty, condescending tone of your post.

[99shassan]

Originally posted by Samurai@15 January 2004 - 19:27
I can&#39;t understand why people download mp3&#39;s at such a shit bitrate. I get even more pissed off when people try telling me about fixing/repairing mp3&#39;s with screeches and/or distortion in them.

If you download an mp3 at 96k bitrate, you deserve to have shit music.

if you download an mp3 at whatever bitrate and it does indeed contain screeches and/or distortion, for the love of god delete it. Don&#39;t attempt to repair or otherwise fix the mp3 in question. I want my music to be as pure and &#39;straight from cd&#39; as possible. It&#39;s like saying you can have a second hand car, or a second hand car which has 3 different models welded together.

Stop being lazy and download your music at a decent bitrate.

As for those that are downloading mp3&#39;s that are containing distortion or whatever, what the hell kind of client are you using? I&#39;ve been using WinMX since Napster fell to it&#39;s knees and I&#39;ve been lucky enough to find 3 files containing crap music and even then it was because I never followed the &#39;Rules&#39;.

Average Length Of File
If you see your song, for example, &#39;Tenacious D - Tribute&#39; shared by many sources with a file length of 4:07, why are you going to download one of the same title from 1 or 2 users with a length of 3:30? Think.

Bitrate&#39;s On File
If you see 76 users sharing &#39;Tenacious D - Tribute&#39; at 192k bitrate, and 6 users sharing the same file, same bitrate, which file do you think I&#39;m going to download? Again, think.

Hz Stereo
The vast majority of mp3&#39;s have the quality at 44100Hz Stereo. Think.

Stereo Or Mono
I knew what the difference between these two were when I was 6. if you do not, press the [x] in the top right corner, switch off PC, and put it in the free ads. Think.

CBR Vs VBR
Constant Bit Rate or Variable Bit Rate?? Well, if you want your music to have the very best in quality, I&#39;d choose CBR. If you want your music to sound like &#39;Mïcrösöül°V³&#39;s&#39;, choose VBR. He probably doesn&#39;t have a clue what this is either.


Hope this helps the less informed, although I&#39;m thinking they stopped reading after the first paragraph.

Samurai :ph34r:
I know that 128kbps is shitty, if I had known that it was that low i wouldn&#39;t have downloaded it&#33;

[FuNkY CaPrIcOrN]

Originally posted by 99shassan@15 January 2004 - 15:26
I know that 128kbps is shitty, if I had known that it was that low i wouldn&#39;t have downloaded it&#33;
;) Then why in the hell did you Download it?

[FuNkY CaPrIcOrN]

:P And let me just say one thing.....



























SoulSeek&#33; :P

[99shassan]

As I said before I didn&#39;t know what bitrate it was&#33; Maybe you didn&#39;t understand what I said, if I had known the songs had sucha low bitrate I wouldn&#39;t have downloaded it.

[FuNkY CaPrIcOrN]

Originally posted by 99shassan@15 January 2004 - 16:35
As I said before I didn&#39;t know what bitrate it was&#33; Maybe you didn&#39;t understand what I said, if I had known the songs had sucha low bitrate I wouldn&#39;t have downloaded it.
;) What Program does not show the Bitrate?Thank God for SoulSeek.


I mean what in the hell?Even shitty Kazaa Lite showed the Bitrate. :lol:

[Sid Hartha]

Originally posted by FuNkY CaPrIcOrN@15 January 2004 - 21:38
What Program does not show the Bitrate?Thank God for SoulSeek.
Slightly off the point:

Soulseek shows incorrect bitrate if the file is VBR.
I&#39;ve had to put a disclaimer in my user info. People thought I was sharing 32k mp3s. :o

[FuNkY CaPrIcOrN]

Originally posted by Sid Hartha+15 January 2004 - 17:37--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Sid Hartha @ 15 January 2004 - 17:37)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-FuNkY CaPrIcOrN@15 January 2004 - 21:38
What Program does not show the Bitrate?Thank God for SoulSeek.
Slightly off the point:

Soulseek shows incorrect bitrate if the file is VBR.
I&#39;ve had to put a disclaimer in my user info. People thought I was sharing 32k mp3s. :o [/b][/quote]
:P Ok ok.SoulSeek does not show the right Bitrate sometimes.Will admit. :P

[99shassan]

I used mirc ;)

[fkdup74]

Originally posted by Sid Hartha@15 January 2004 - 14:37
Soulseek shows incorrect bitrate if the file is VBR.
I&#39;ve had to put a disclaimer in my user info. People thought I was sharing 32k mp3s. :o
not just soulseek, even windows explorer can read em wrong
i started ripping at average bitrate, and it&#39;ll say the song is only,
like, 46 kb/s or so, and when you play it its more like 460 kb/s

B)

[fkdup74]

Originally posted by Samurai@15 January 2004 - 11:27
CBR Vs VBR
Constant Bit Rate or Variable Bit Rate?? Well, if you want your music to have the very best in quality, I&#39;d choose CBR. If you want your music to sound like &#39;Mïcrösöül°V³&#39;s&#39;, choose VBR. He probably doesn&#39;t have a clue what this is either.

dumb question, why would you choose a fixed bitrate over variable?
the music changes tempo, has peaks, theres all kinda sh*t going on,
why limit what your music sounds like?
try ripping the scorpions &#39;still loving you&#39; at, say,
192 kb/s CBR and see if it dont feck up
the only thing that saved it at a CBR was the good frequency conversion
that dbpoweramp&#39;s got
with &#39;professional frequency conversion&#39; off, the song sounded like shite
had to re-rip

not flaming ya or nothin bro, but someone misinformed ya
read paul&#39;s guide ;)

[sparsely]

Originally posted by FKDUP74@15 January 2004 - 18:50
read paul&#39;s guide ;)
*Chris Myden&#39;s guide ;)

[Adster]

It is NOT possible&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

OK let me encode all my stuff to 64 bit rate ;)

just to save space then you guys can dl it off me and improve the quality

[Adster]

Originally posted by FuNkY CaPrIcOrN+16 January 2004 - 07:38--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FuNkY CaPrIcOrN @ 16 January 2004 - 07:38)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-99shassan@15 January 2004 - 16:35
As I said before I didn&#39;t know what bitrate it was&#33; Maybe you didn&#39;t understand what I said, if I had known the songs had sucha low bitrate I wouldn&#39;t have downloaded it.
;) What Program does not show the Bitrate?Thank God for SoulSeek.


I mean what in the hell?Even shitty Kazaa Lite showed the Bitrate. :lol: [/b][/quote]
and even shitty kazaa reports the bit rate wrong

I was trying to Hunters and collators album kazaa had it as 64 bit rate but I knew something was wrong coz the file was bigger then 128

played it on WMP and it showed up as 518 bit rate

BTW CBR is better then VBR

[sparsely]

BTW: CBR is a waste of MegaBytes

[4th gen]

Originally posted by Sparsely@16 January 2004 - 02:03
BTW: CBR is a waste of MegaBytes
what&#39;s a few megs between friends? ;)

it&#39;s only a problem if you don&#39;t have much hdd space or a slow connection, and i&#39;d rather have cbr rips for greater quality than vbr to save a few hundred k per track :)

[Adster]

Originally posted by Sparsely@16 January 2004 - 13:03
BTW: CBR is a waste of MegaBytes
but is better quality

and will play on ANY Mp3 player

[sparsely]

explain how it is better quality.
it is not.

If you need me to explain it to you, I will.

[4th gen]

Originally posted by Sparsely@16 January 2004 - 02:10
explain how it is better quality.
it is not.

If you need me to explain it to you, I will.
you think you&#39;re the don on this issue, so you explain to me how a vbr rip up to 192k is the same quality as a 192k cbr rip, please

:)

[Adster]

Originally posted by Sparsely@16 January 2004 - 13:10
explain how it is better quality.
it is not.
You think you know everything Sparsely??

You post as if "I KNOW IT all and nothing else is better your all wrong tone"

Volume wise 192 bit is better VBR sounds too flat

Now thats to my ears

there is no right or wrong or better or worse way.

and I&#39;m not going to waste my time here posting anymore comparing apples to oranges its ridiculous

[Afronaut]

Interesting, i hope we could debate about the Good and Bad
sides of CBR and VBR files...

Atleast, do we agree that 192k is The Bottom Line when ripping?

Cheers:
-GS-

[4th gen]

Originally posted by Guitar&#045;Slinger@16 January 2004 - 02:18
Interesting, i hope we could debate about the Good and Bad
sides of CBR and VBR files...

Atleast, do we agree that 192k is The Bottom Line when ripping?

Cheers:
-GS-
actually, i love 64k wma if i can find them :-"

:)

[Afronaut]

WMA? Damn... :lol:

I was thinking maybe make a Poll about this,
like, what Bitrates is Cool.

There wouldnt be WMA there now would it? Or anything under 192k ,
why promote crappy sounding files...

Cheers:
-GS-

[Adster]

Originally posted by Guitar&#045;Slinger@16 January 2004 - 13:25
WMA? Damn... :lol:

I was thinking maybe make a Poll about this,
like, what Bitrates is Cool.

There wouldnt be WMA there now would it? Or anything under 192k ,
why promote crappy sounding files...

Cheers:
-GS-
i request that poll be made now&#33;&#33;&#33;

[FuNkY CaPrIcOrN]

:01: MusicWorld Poll&#33; :01:

[Afronaut]

Originally posted by Adster+16 January 2004 - 05:27--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Adster @ 16 January 2004 - 05:27)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Guitar&#045;Slinger@16 January 2004 - 13:25
WMA?&nbsp; Damn...&nbsp; &nbsp; :lol:

I was thinking maybe make a Poll about this,
like, what Bitrates is Cool.

There wouldnt be WMA there now would it? Or anything under 192k ,
why promote crappy sounding files...

Cheers:
-GS-
i request that poll be made now&#33;&#33;&#33; [/b][/quote]
So Be It.

[sparsely]

if you thought I was being cocky in my previous post, you misinterpreted it.

but it really is quite simple.
rip a song with the same ripper. encode it with the same encoder, but with one use VBR settings, & use CBR on the other.

if you encode @ 192 CBR you are losing all the audio data that would be present at a higher quality rip (say, 320).
You are also retaining audio data that would go completely unnoticed, thereby taking up more KB & MB to store what you&#39;ll never miss anyway.
This is what I meant by wasted space.

If, on the other hand, you encode @ ~192 VBR, the encoder keeps audio data that is above 192, and discards more of the data you don&#39;t need anyway.
So you get the quality of a 320 or wav rip without the cumbersome file size.

no, I don&#39;t think I know everything.
People certainly have the right to carry as many delusions as they choose.
Just don&#39;t try to pass off that misinformation as fact.

[4th gen]

Originally posted by Sparsely@16 January 2004 - 03:10
if you thought I was being cocky in my previous post, you misinterpreted it.

but it really is quite simple.
rip a song with the same ripper. encode it with the same encoder, but with one use VBR settings, & use CBR on the other.

if you encode @ 192 CBR you are losing all the audio data that would be present at a higher quality rip (say, 320).
You are also retaining audio data that would go completely unnoticed, thereby taking up more KB & MB to store what you&#39;ll never miss anyway.
This is what I meant by wasted space.

If, on the other hand, you encode @ ~192 VBR, the encoder keeps audio data that is above 192, and discards more of the data you don&#39;t need anyway.
So you get the quality of a 320 or wav rip without the cumbersome file size.

no, I don&#39;t think I know everything.
People certainly have the right to carry as many delusions as they choose.
Just don&#39;t try to pass off that misinformation as fact.
you must have taken some time to write that and i took the time to read it

doesn&#39;t mean i took anything from it now, does it? :)

the reason i said that you thought you were the don was because you seem to want that last and loudest word when people ask what to rip with

i don&#39;t care what you say, because until i decide to change, i&#39;ll continue to rip at 192 cbr, maybe i&#39;m just &#39;delusional&#39;

[FuNkY CaPrIcOrN]

Originally posted by 4th gen@15 January 2004 - 23:17
the reason i said that you thought you were the don was because you seem to want that last and loudest word when people ask what to rip with
;) You think he is bad.What about Jibbler and his Ripping kit?Its like anything else is no good. :lol:




:P Not to start anything.Keep up the work Jibbler.Just saying. :P

[Adster]

Originally posted by Sparsely@16 January 2004 - 14:10
if you thought I was being cocky in my previous post, you misinterpreted it.

but it really is quite simple.
rip a song with the same ripper. encode it with the same encoder, but with one use VBR settings, & use CBR on the other.

if you encode @ 192 CBR you are losing all the audio data that would be present at a higher quality rip (say, 320).
You are also retaining audio data that would go completely unnoticed, thereby taking up more KB & MB to store what you&#39;ll never miss anyway.
This is what I meant by wasted space.

If, on the other hand, you encode @ ~192 VBR, the encoder keeps audio data that is above 192, and discards more of the data you don&#39;t need anyway.
So you get the quality of a 320 or wav rip without the cumbersome file size.

no, I don&#39;t think I know everything.
People certainly have the right to carry as many delusions as they choose.
Just don&#39;t try to pass off that misinformation as fact.
sorry I apologies about my comment

that might explain why when i rip my bands stuff which is pretty shit quality bad recordings at VBR it is small file because the volume is crap and with CBR I get a big file to do with the time

[Samurai]

Originally posted by FKDUP74+15 January 2004 - 23:50--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FKDUP74 @ 15 January 2004 - 23:50)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Samurai@15 January 2004 - 11:27
CBR Vs VBR
Constant Bit Rate or Variable Bit Rate?? Well, if you want your music to have the very best in quality, I&#39;d choose CBR. If you want your music to sound like &#39;Mïcrösöül°V³&#39;s&#39;, choose VBR. He probably doesn&#39;t have a clue what this is either.

dumb question, why would you choose a fixed bitrate over variable?
the music changes tempo, has peaks, theres all kinda sh*t going on,
why limit what your music sounds like?
try ripping the scorpions &#39;still loving you&#39; at, say,
192 kb/s CBR and see if it dont feck up
the only thing that saved it at a CBR was the good frequency conversion
that dbpoweramp&#39;s got
with &#39;professional frequency conversion&#39; off, the song sounded like shite
had to re-rip

not flaming ya or nothin bro, but someone misinformed ya
read paul&#39;s guide ;) [/b][/quote]
Just thought I&#39;d let you know that when I played a VBR mp3 I downloaded, the &#39;bits you can&#39;t hear&#39; (like so many people have ranted about) are the pauses and areas in songs where there is no music. You can hear &#39;squelching&#39; and all sorts and you can physically tell when the mp3 is using a higher bitrate in some parts of the song than in others.

I don&#39;t pretend to know the be all and end all of mp3&#39;s, but I do hear quality when I hear it. If you ever turn your speakers up during a VBR test you&#39;ll see what I&#39;m talking about.

Besides, why must a VBR mp3 have cause to higher the bitrate and lower it at certain points during the song? I would pretty much like my music to continually sound like it was meant to be, not altered.

[sparsely]

what you are describing is a rip/encode that someone highly fucked up.

[fkdup74]

Originally posted by Samurai@15 January 2004 - 21:37
I would pretty much like my music to continually sound like it was meant to be, not altered.
thats the whole point of VBR and ABR
again, read paul&#39;s post

i&#39;ll even give ya the link
http://filesharingtalk.com/index.php?showtopic=22763

i cant be arsed to explain something to someone who&#39;s already made up their mind