Stereo or Joint Stereo? 44100 or 48000?

Good to see that's settled.

About the sampling rate (kHz). It's best to keep the same sampling rate when encoding. Meaning, if your source is 32kHz, then encode to 32kHz. If it's 48kHz, then encode to 48kHz.

Or you can take compatibility into consideration. In that case you would want to indiscriminately encode everything at 44.1kHz. That way old/crappy MP3 players can play the MP3's.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Trench

And since most everything is 44100 KHz anyway, I guess I don't have to worry about that too much. Although come to think of it, Unreal Tournament is, for some strange reason, in 48000 KHz, now that I look at Winamp.

Hmm, well, to be honest, I'd expect a lot of VGM to be at 48kHz these days. And older VGM could be anything. The only thing I'd ever really count on being 44.1kHz is CD-audio.

Looks like you're doing good for yourself.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by arch_slayer

I use vbr-new with a forced stereo. First, joint-stereo uses a single channel. Have it at you will, but the other channel only "echo's" the single original one.

Wrong.

Quote:

Thus, stereo remains higher quality in this case. Also, the truth is, if you use any mixing or effects on your sound card (usually higher quality ones), stereo will end up sounding better because it keeps the original CD's data the same (except compression).

Also wrong.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by garthvadr3

Hey you are ripping Ephemeral Fantasia too????? I ripped it a while ago. Glad to see someone else likes the music as much as I do because virtually noone knows about the game. If you can make a rip in joint stereo I would be interested in checking it out to hear the difference since mine is just in regular stereo.

This forum has a Private Message system. Use it.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Iceboy

Moguta,

Great avatar by the way!

I hear what you say, but the basic fact is 192 still cuts off a lot of frequencies, whatever encoder you use.

When you encode to 192kbps with LAME, it uses a lowpass filter of 19.5kHz. Most CD's are mastered with a lowpass at 20.0kHz. I wouldn't call a measly 500Hz a lot. Besides, you can choose to raise the lowpass if you want to - you will probably only be slightly diminishing the quality of the MP3.

Originally Posted by Iceboy

As for the psychological effects, sure, I guess it happens. But when I did that 320k rip of that score, I knew it sounded better without hearing the old 192k rip. Instantly, I was impressed by its quality. It wasnt until I had played a few tracks that I went back to compare a couple and the differences were apparent.

Did you make the "old 192k rip" yourself?

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Iceboy

But you are assuming all 192k rips have data up to 20Khz. They dont. A lot of dance music I ripped in 192k that was complex with a lot of varying frequencies was cut off at 16khz. It varies, depending on the complexity of the material.



Yes, I did. Again, there wasnt much high-end above 16khz or so.

You're right. The more complex the material, the more distortion and less frequency content you will get at the same bitrate.

Bitrate needs vary depending on the complexity of the material. Which is why VBR should be used rather than CBR.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

And most of the time, it's a waste.

If you want perfection, don't even use MP3.

If you want the best tradeoff between compression and quality, use VBR.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Iceboy

Most? Not all?

Most. Some frames need 320kbps. Some need even more but 320kbps is the most they can be given.

Originally Posted by Iceboy

VBR takes longer to rip and encode and you get VERY SLIGHTLY better sound with 320k. Its quicker for me to rip in that. Thats the main reason I do it, actually.

You only have to encode once.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Iceboy

It stands to reason a complex piece of 320k orchestral/electronic music will sound better than a 192k rip, because there is more data to play with! For one, the 192k cut off everything above 16Khz or so, whilst the 320k kept everything up to 20khz. The added high end was noticable to me right away!

But that's not always the case.

Originally Posted by Iceboy

You know, it is possible for some people to hear differences. Going from what you have said, you dont seem to believe that anything above 192k sounds better.

When VBR is used, 192k is great as an average. When higher bitrates like 320 are needed, they're used.

Originally Posted by Iceboy

Not being funny but how do you mean? Ive never used FLAC, thats all.

When using VBR, high bitrates are used when they're needed and lower bitrates are used when they're not. So you can tell that a certain piece of music "compresses well" if the average bitrate comes out pretty low.

Jam it back in, in the dark.