Archiving to MP3... 128k or 192k ?

Please post only reggae discussions here
Ranking BC
Posts: 114
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 1:13 am

Archiving to MP3... 128k or 192k ?

Post by Ranking BC »

Greetings,

My guess is that archiving vinyl to mp3 at 128k would be sufficient quality for most people. Does anybody feel the need to convert to a higher rate, such as 192k? Is there a noticeable difference in quality between the two, even when archiving from an analog source such as a turntable? Or do you need an advanced playback system to distinguish the difference? Thanks for sharing your input.

Respects, BC
Jah Chicken
Posts: 314
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 11:10 am

Re: Archiving to MP3... 128k or 192k ?

Post by Jah Chicken »

Greetings Ranking BC,
You probably would need an advanced playback system to really distinguish the difference, but the purists would still argue for usage of lossless audio formats (such as FLAC). Although the compression rate is not as high as MP3, FLAC can still compress a WAV file to about 30-50% of its original size. Unless your (or the person on the receiving ends) bandwidth is very low, it would be much better to share in a lossless format so that those with more sophisticated playback systems can enjoy the full potential of the audio file. With FLAC and other lossless compression formats introduced, sharing WAV files are generally considered a waste of bandwidth and MP3s are considered tainted.

Roots,
Jah Chicken
Deliver us from obeah...
James
Posts: 256
Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2006 5:46 pm

Re: Archiving to MP3... 128k or 192k ?

Post by James »

I agree that for lossless compression, you can't beat FLAC. Ideally, that's all we'd ever use.

For lossy compression I go 192 kbps for mp3. If you can play AAC, I find 160 kbps in that format sounds better to me than 192 kbps mp3 and takes up about 17% less disk space. This is from tests I've done myself, not some marketing spec.

I should mention that I'm a bassist, so when I say one thing sounds better than another to me, it's usually in the bass part.
Peace,

James

Check the Reggae / Ska section of
http://web.mac.com/feathers/
for current podcast.
leggo rocker
Posts: 4071
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 4:40 pm

Re: Archiving to MP3... 128k or 192k ?

Post by leggo rocker »

All MP3s sound awful compared to analogue sources, even at 360k the difference is VERY noticable. The bass is flabby, the highs are hissy and the atmosphere is completely missing.

But if you are listening via a PC or iPod or cheap headphones, 128 will do.

However, when I play ANY MP3 file via my middle of the road Hi Fi they sound noticeably inferior to vinyl.

With the price of storage being so low nowadays, ie: 250GB hard drives at about 50 pounds or less, why not store the stuff at the highest possible bitrate?

I think listening to music on any MP3 format is akin to passing razor blades through your ears.

But then I am an old analogue fart so don't pay too much attention to my rantings!
James
Posts: 256
Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2006 5:46 pm

Re: Archiving to MP3... 128k or 192k ?

Post by James »

The part lossy compression like mp3 or AAC really messes up for me is the cymbals. I'd go with Leggo's razor blade comment there. Those are also the same frequencies where most of my hearing damage is (way too much punk in my musical past), which only makes it worse.

Analogue rules, fi true!
Peace,

James

Check the Reggae / Ska section of
http://web.mac.com/feathers/
for current podcast.
leggo rocker
Posts: 4071
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 4:40 pm

Re: Archiving to MP3... 128k or 192k ?

Post by leggo rocker »

Agreed James.

I have the same problem with the hi-hats etc. And mine is partly due to fronting a Punk band in the 70s, too many 70s gigs standing too near to the 'wall of death' speakers and doing 1,000,000 miles on motorcycles (it's not the noise of the bike but the wind noise inside a crash helmet is a real ear killer)

Nowadays certain sounds, particularly high pitched ones, actually do physically hurt my ears! :(

I've a stack of CDs and an iPod on my shelf now that are all gathering dust, and I ONLY do MP3s of my vinyl for my radio show.

Analogue sound is Ital sound...
kookahman
Posts: 24
Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 7:47 pm

Re: Archiving to MP3... 128k or 192k ?

Post by kookahman »

i think .ape is nice format, because it can be losless, so when i rip my vinyl, i use it.

analogue sound rules, but we must remember, that real analogue sound is on original press vinyl, not on reissues)
ites
leggo rocker
Posts: 4071
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 4:40 pm

Re: Archiving to MP3... 128k or 192k ?

Post by leggo rocker »

Yes Kookahman, I am all for original press analogue sound. I do have some represings in my boxes. But whenever I get the chance, I 'upgrade' to the original press and sell off the repress.

But live365 force me to upload tracks at mp3 x 64k for the leggo rockers radio station - and then they have the cheek to call it 'CD quality'. They must have some pretty bad CDs int heir collection!
reggaemusicman
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 10:55 pm

Re: Archiving to MP3... 128k or 192k ?

Post by reggaemusicman »

For me streight wav 1536 kbps........
kookahman
Posts: 24
Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 7:47 pm

Re: Archiving to MP3... 128k or 192k ?

Post by kookahman »

leggo rocker

nice that you have way to get original press, sometimes price can not bite, but eat you at all)

i'm also trying to get original press vinyl, but i'm still happy when new nice reissue is released - for example Keith Hudson (& The Soul Syndicate) - "Nuh Skin Up" [Pressure Sounds PS53 - CD/LP]

ps is identifying of dj from david isaacs still actual?
Post Reply