MP3 quality_Windows vs Linux

[Mr_Nagato]

Ripped a song from a cd.
First with Linux second with Windows.
Results...
Linux(7.43mb----187kbps)
Windows(7.51mb---192kbps)

(Default Settings)
Linux_A program called "Asunder"
Windows_a program called "gold wave"


I can't hear a difference.
Is one better than the other? (Other than size)

Is there an ideal "kbps" that i should use?

[English Invader]

I've always been happy enough with Banshee or Sound Juicer myself. I haven't bothered to check the kbps rate because I don't think it matters that much with MP3s or even FLAC unless you've got a good sound set-up

The speakers and amplifier (if any) will have a much greater influence on the sound you get than the format you use. If you're using a laptop or a pair of £7 USB speakers, FLAC is just a storage hog with no impact on sound quality.

[xenopeek]

Back when I still bought music on CD (I buy it digitally at Qobuz these days) I didn't care for Banshee or Sound Juicer as I didn't know what they were doing. I used cdparanoia and lame from the terminal to rip my CDs to WAV files and then and encode those to MP3. I used the extreme preset which is 240 Kbps VBR.

Code: Select all

cdparanoia -B
ls *.wav | xargs -L 1 lame --preset extreme

I spent some time doing double-blind tests with various tracks to find out if I could hear the difference. I had no trouble distinguishing 120 Kbps from 240 Kbps for example, but between 240 Kpbs VBR and 320 Kpbs CBR I couldn't hear difference correctly. Lower bitrate means cutting higher frequences from the audio. See lowpass column on http://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?ti ... nformation. 190 Kpbs VBR may be enough for me these days as I can no longer hear above 15 KHz anyway.

I very much doubt you can hear the difference between 187 Kbps and 192 Kbps in a double-blind test. That's just too close. If your hearing is still good (e.g., you're younger than 25...) you might want a much higher bitrate, especially if you listen to classical music, to not cut off the high frequencies. That's assuming you have headphone or speakers that can produce those frequencies in the first place Most people can't hear above 15 KHz.

[lsemmens]

Technically 192kps is a better sample rate than 187kps, but, the average noddy won't tell the difference. Especially on their home computer system. I've read all sorts of silly arguments about gold plated, audio cables too. Truth be known you'll not notice the difference outside of a laboratory, and even then it could be debatable. If you like the sound, that is is your benchmark. Forget the rest.

[Pierre]

so you got virtually the same file size & bit rate on both operating systems.
- no surprise there . . .

back when I've been recording with WPA & WAV & MP3,
- it was those WAV files that were the largest & the MP3 files that were the smallest.
even when you used a MP3 bit rate modifier, that also changed the file size too.
- - when copied from a Digital Recorder,, not from some CD.

when changing the Default Bit rate for that Digital Recorder, you really can't tell the difference,
between Studio / Theatre / Lounge room,, unless you have the proper analyzing equipment.
- except for the changing File Size.

if you wish to eMail that MP3 to someone - - then it's your ISP that dictates the File Size,
and thus the Bit Rate that you can now use.

if you are just ripping a CD to some file,, then you probably don't need much above 32bit anyway.
& 128bit is overkill,, as your ears will simply hear less of those higher frequencies.
- I've found that 64 bit was more than enough, for my requirements.

so, since you got basically the same bit rate & file size from both system,
then you could just leave the settings as-is,, rather than messing around with lower bit rates.

[Flemur]

Ripped a song from a cd.
First with Linux second with Windows.
Results...
Linux(7.43mb----187kbps)
Windows(7.51mb---192kbps)

Those values aren't dependent on the OS, it's just a setting in the programs.

Is there an ideal "kbps" that i should use?

Not really. Usually people like 160-190kbps for music, speech could be 32kbps and sound OK.

More info then you'd ever want:
https://hydrogenaud.io/

Good article about what people can actually hear:
https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

[BigEasy]

Ripping the music is better to lossless format such as FLAC. Any audio compression make the music worse. Ok, if we told about mp3 then 360kb/sec is minimum for misic.

[vansloneker]

Good article about what people can actually hear:
https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

Sorry, that article is complete BS. You can't hear better than your ears are. You need very good equipment to have the benefits of high resolution recordings exposed. Much better than you probably can imagine or your local electro-market has on sale. Most people probably never heard true high-end audio, and have no imagination what's it about. It's not just about frequencies someone can hear or not. Only very young people will hear very high frequencies. We're talking about timing, differentiating between sounds, the ability to follow that one particular sound or voice in a recording, the musical image that is created for you. It's an experience. But, if you're not into it and don't want to: there's no obligation to appreciate what others do.

And by they way: studio-recordings generally are in 24-bit or DSD. Not in MP3.

MP3 is a great conversion format for saving audio signals in a small file. But they are lossy. They are great to have on your phone and playback on your PC. If MP3's give you total musical satisfaction, be very happy about that. It saves you a lot of filespace and expensive gear.

The same nonsense discussion now is often appearing about 4K television. The majority of people will with or without glasses or contacts see way less of what opticians consider as 100%. So if you don't see it, does it mean it's not there?

All these topics and threats are basically nothing but trolling. Nobody should decide for others what they can see or hear. It's a complete and utter disrespect.

This is my point, take it or leave it but I am not going to waste any more time to it.

[MintBean]

I would consider Opus or AAC if your device supports it as they perform better at a given bit rate. Personally I rip everything to FLAC and can always re-encode from this master for devices when the quality/bit rate balance favours higher compression. If you ever re-encode from mp3 to another format, you're compounding the compression artefacts.

[MintBean]

P.S. People who spent a lot of time ripping their entire collection to low quality mp3s might have a bee in their bonnet with regards to the technology they invested in (possibly without due consideration). Go with what works for you.

[Flemur]

Sorry, that article is complete BS.

No its not. It's standard audio science, reproduced time after time, year after year.

Most people probably never heard true high-end audio, and have no imagination what's it about.

Funny you should state it that way, because, as actual ABX testing shows, "high-end" audio is almost entirely imaginary. They do these comparisons with the fanciest audio equipment available, so that's not an issue.

Above a pretty low price level which would include most WalMart stuff, amps, DACS, cables, etc, all sound the same, and the only piece of equipment that people can actually tell is different - is the speakers (headphones).

Audio is like wine tasting; they like the expensive bottles and labels, but when they can't see them ... "little correlation has been found between price and preference, even among wine experts, in tasting settings in which labels and prices have been concealed".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_win ... al_results

[mike acker]

Ripped a song from a cd.
First with Linux second with Windows.
Results...
Linux(7.43mb----187kbps)
Windows(7.51mb---192kbps)

(Default Settings)
Linux_A program called "Asunder"
Windows_a program called "gold wave"


I can't hear a difference.
Is one better than the other? (Other than size)

Is there an ideal "kbps" that i should use?

I really like the video presentations offered by Monti Here:
XIPF

you'll run into a lot of folklore on this topic; you might like to see how digital sound actually works: On the Scope

[Arch_Enemy]

Back when I still bought music on CD (I buy it digitally at Qobuz these days) I didn't care for Banshee or Sound Juicer as I didn't know what they were doing. I used cdparanoia and lame from the terminal to rip my CDs to WAV files and then and encode those to MP3. I used the extreme preset which is 240 Kbps VBR.

Code: Select all

cdparanoia -B
ls *.wav | xargs -L 1 lame --preset extreme

I spent some time doing double-blind tests with various tracks to find out if I could hear the difference. I had no trouble distinguishing 120 Kbps from 240 Kbps for example, but between 240 Kpbs VBR and 320 Kpbs CBR I couldn't hear difference correctly. Lower bitrate means cutting higher frequences from the audio. See lowpass column on http://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?ti ... nformation. 190 Kpbs VBR may be enough for me these days as I can no longer hear above 15 KHz anyway.

I very much doubt you can hear the difference between 187 Kbps and 192 Kbps in a double-blind test. That's just too close. If your hearing is still good (e.g., you're younger than 25...) you might want a much higher bitrate, especially if you listen to classical music, to not cut off the high frequencies. That's assuming you have headphone or speakers that can produce those frequencies in the first place Most people can't hear above 15 KHz.

That's what you get for going right up to the front of the crowd at Golden Earring shows...

Funny thing, I've been playing in loud long-hair rock and roll bands on and off for 45 years, with volume levels that make your ears ring, and can still hear up to 22K.

Also funny...can't hear my wife at all...

[Arch_Enemy]

Ripped a song from a cd.
First with Linux second with Windows.
Results...
Linux(7.43mb----187kbps)
Windows(7.51mb---192kbps)

(Default Settings)
Linux_A program called "Asunder"
Windows_a program called "gold wave"


I can't hear a difference.
Is one better than the other? (Other than size)

Is there an ideal "kbps" that i should use?

I never ripped a CD before. I play the song and record it in Audacity while it's playing. Then I save it as an MP3 at 320kbps. You WILL hear a difference at that rate, but it will also be a larger file (almost double what you have). Back in the days when a 256k USB stick cost $65 it was a big deal. These days, not so much.

[phd21]

Hi Mr_Nagato,

I just read your post and the good replies to it. Here are my thoughts on this as well.

In addition to Asunder, there are other CD disc rippers that can easily rip your CD into various formats with various bitrates and formats. Like "SoundKonverter", "Freac", some music applications like Amarok, etc...

I agree with others that to create a digital archive of your Music and Audio CD's that it is best to use a lossless format like ".Flac". You can easily convert "flac" files into mp3 formats or other audio formats later for various reasons if you want. some MP3 player will only play certain bitrates.

There are many posts on this topic already in this forum regarding this topic.

Hope this helps ...

[Portreve]

For ripping a CD, I just drag the placeholder track files from the CD to a folder on my desktop. This results in digital extraction without the need for any other specialized software. The finished files are WAVs.

At that point, I use SoundConverter to transcode them into FLAC, then I use EasyTAG to add album art and enter all the metadata. I don't care for the available automated systems to perform this task.

If I need any of my music in some other format, I then use SoundConverter to transcode the fully fleshed-out FLACs into either OGG or, if absolutely necessary, MP3. Generally, I transcode them as 256 bit. For situations where there are storage capacity restraints, I'll go down to 192. OGG is VBR pretty much by definition. I always use CBR in MP3.

This is not a specific answer to the question asked at the top of this thread because I don't do this kind of task the way you do, Mr_Nagato, but at least you can get a sense of how I do it.

[Arch_Enemy]

I know Hyundai installs stereos that can play FLAC files, and OGG too, IIRC. More are coming.

[trytip]

if it's done correct there should not be much difference in spectrogram which is the most important. in linux i always use k3b to rip CD into FLAC then i use soundconverter to convert into MP3 VBR0 which is the most logical solution.

[Arch_Enemy]

Just curious; is it topping out at 20K, or is it clipping at 20K? Granted, humans can't hear much above that...but I can (24K..audiologist said "You can HEAR that?!?!?!")

[trytip]

it is topping out at 20k i could get a few more Hz by using constant 320 but for portable players and phones vbr320 is enough. anything more is just excess for people that have bat ears