File encoding question...Your Opinions Or?

[JPzBeenjamin]

If I upload an MP3 file at 192...does it make a difference how it sounds at the LO_FI encoding at the site? Aside from downloading faster....is the transition better sounding if I use the 128 format?

[bbchris]

That's a really good question! I don't know! Where's Mike Burn?!?! Calling Mike!

|Blah Blah|Thinking Out Loud|Jane Eliz||Talk Soup |

[droolymutt]

I seriously doubt if it makes a difference, Jay, because the final bit-rate of the lo-fi file is the same (40 kbps), whether you upload at 192 or 128.......

[4teetoo]

wouldn't it improve the actual quality of the original, which would trickle down to the lower-bitrate?

kinda like if you made a gif from another gif, it would look extra-crappy, but a gif from a jpg looks a bit sharper?

or am i insane?

probably the insane thing.

[MIKE BURN]

I'm not a "know-it-all".... BUT.... in this case I can help out )



Let's go away from music files... think about images in J-PEG format.



It makes a huge difference if you save a already compressed *.jpg picture again in *.jpg format, or if you save it from the original uncompressed file.



With every encoding process, you lose quality, especially if you compress from a already compressed format.

The same is true for MP3-Music files.



If you do a 40kbit encoding from a 128K compressed music file, the result will be slightly worse, than performing the same down calculation from a less compressed 192K music file. You simply have more information and less artefacts in a 192K file.



BUT...... the difference is really a small one, much smaller than in the example with the *.jpg pictures.



It is because our ears are less sensitive for artefacts than our eyes. Human ears (rather the information processing brain-region) uses some sort of psychological selection. You hear crap, but your ears "de-error" the crap. The underlying principle of the rather giant compression factor achievable with MP3-algorhythm

s is based on just this "self-error-correction" of the human ears. The eyes work more direct.



In other words..... it is NO big difference if you encode a Lo-Fi from a 128K or a 192K MP3-file. Really not worth the effort to do something to keep this little Lo-Fi-encoding-"quality" advantage.

[4teetoo]

wow, thanks mike. now i know something very helpful, and brain-numbing!

[JPzBeenjamin]

Thanx Mike

That about sums it up.

[droolymutt]

Quote:

---

wow, thanks mike. now i know something very helpful, and brain-numbing!

---

hahahahahaha!!!!!!





.smeck. - you should try an intellectual or technical discussion with Mike in Person...!!!!



Your brain will do back-flips naked in the Public Square......











(How ya doin' with your broccoli problem, btw...?)

[Galmin]

Yup. Mike is right on target.



Is there any possibility that you can encode to LoFi yourself for that page? Using the original wav/aif file to create the LoFi with the MP3enc (still the best choise to make LoFi, IMHO) will give you the best result.

[MIKE BURN]

Galmin.... you know where they have this kinda songs and Lo-Fi's?



Good, not good?



The MP3enc thingy is really good, that's true.... and I always feel uncomfortable being celebrated too much in public.

REALLY!



Creating sound is my profession. There's nothing magical about it

MIKE


10 free song uploads||1 free video upload

[Galmin]

Hey Mike, that link doesn't seem to work for me.



Do you have a direct link to the m3u or the mp3 file?