|
|
Post by matt on Nov 17, 2011 13:17:28 GMT -5
OK, I found it - once I select Export, I click Options at the dialog box that asks me to save the file. It gives me the choice to go as high as 320! Does higher bit rates increase the file size? I ran into needing the plug-in yesterday, so I downloaded it earlier today. You have to remember, the smaller the file, the more "lossy" it will sound. Here is a good article on the subject: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CDIt's been my opinion that around 196kbps is a good balance between sound quality and filesize. You have to consider your source, however. If you are getting your music from a stream, a higher bitrate like 196 may be overkill. The stream is broadcasting at 32-128 depending on the station you get it from. You may not notice a difference in quality if you go with 96. If you are getting your source over the air, it may be best to go with something lossless. WAV is lossless, but it's a pretty big file. ACC, WMA, OGG, APE and FLAC all have a lossless codec, and would cut the size of your WAV file 40-50%. Of those, I would look into FLAC. I agree--I am a fan of 192kbps MP3 to save the recorded files. My buddy atfanmpls saves at 160kbps and it sounds practically the same, so 160 is probably good too (I tend to be more conservative that way). I wouldn't go lower than that though--otherwise you do begin to notice the compression, particularly during speech (i.e. Casey's intros/outros, etc.). Of course, as paxman says, you can choose a more efficient codec that compresses the file sizes further before incurring noticeable loss (one of these days I might try AAC or one of the others). |
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Nov 17, 2011 13:28:26 GMT -5
Different question. I downloaded a show that I discovered had been saved in 64 (!) kbps, and several songs skip. Once I fix it up by patching the skips, I want to export it back in at least 128 because I don't like it being down that far (I'd go higher, but I'm leery of going straight from 64 to something even as high as 192). But...will that cause audio problems? Or, would it not really matter if I exported it back in 64 again?
|
|
|
|
Post by 80sfan on Nov 17, 2011 19:57:08 GMT -5
You're probably better off staying with 64kbps. Since the original was only 64kbps, you won't get any improvement in sound quality by going to a higher bitrate. You'll just be using more disk space with the same quality.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Nov 17, 2011 20:11:23 GMT -5
Oh..OK. Thanks for the tip!
|
|
|
|
Post by matt on Nov 18, 2011 0:57:46 GMT -5
You're probably better off staying with 64kbps. Since the original was only 64kbps, you won't get any improvement in sound quality by going to a higher bitrate. You'll just be using more disk space with the same quality. Yes--80sfan is exactly correct. Once a show is compressed down to a certain bit rate, it is not possible to increase the quality of the audio by saving it to a higher bitrate. When the audio is compressed down, the codec has to remove a certain range of bits within the audio file/stream to get it down to the bitrate you specify. Once those bits are removed, there is no way to get them back without re-recording from the original source. So just as 80sfan said, converting a 64kbps file to 128k or higher does nothing to improve sound quality--it only makes for a larger file. |
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Nov 18, 2011 2:46:02 GMT -5
Gotcha. One last question (should be the last question I have...I promise!  ). The first few shows I recorded, they pretty much sound exactly as they did over the stream. My recent ones, though, have an extra "stereo" kind of effect layered over the sound (the effect is similar to how KKLI's stream sounds all by itself). I know that at one point I think I changed something in the preferences, but I don't remember what it was. What I'm trying to figure out is how to get back to where I was before the extra "stereo" layer. I haven't been able to figure it out through the manual at all. I tried changing the recording setting from stereo to mono, but I don't think I ever had it in mono to begin with. All of the ones I've recorded myself, I've also had my headphones plugged in while recording. That was also not the case before. Would that make any difference? |
|
|
|
Post by PapaVanTwee on Nov 18, 2011 12:20:17 GMT -5
Different question. I downloaded a show that I discovered had been saved in 64 (!) kbps, and several songs skip. Once I fix it up by patching the skips, I want to export it back in at least 128 because I don't like it being down that far (I'd go higher, but I'm leery of going straight from 64 to something even as high as 192). But...will that cause audio problems? Or, would it not really matter if I exported it back in 64 again? Only one thing to consider here. Taking encoded audio, and encoding it again, will result in some sound loss. Encoding 64 to 64 will not sound as good as encoding it in something better. That said, like wahoo said you won't make it sound better, either. So go with your gut on this one. Gotcha. One last question (should be the last question I have...I promise! ). The first few shows I recorded, they pretty much sound exactly as they did over the stream. My recent ones, though, have an extra "stereo" kind of effect layered over the sound (the effect is similar to how KKLI's stream sounds all by itself). I know that at one point I think I changed something in the preferences, but I don't remember what it was. What I'm trying to figure out is how to get back to where I was before the extra "stereo" layer. I haven't been able to figure it out through the manual at all. I tried changing the recording setting from stereo to mono, but I don't think I ever had it in mono to begin with. All of the ones I've recorded myself, I've also had my headphones plugged in while recording. That was also not the case before. Would that make any difference? I wish I had an answer for this. I'm stumped. |
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Nov 18, 2011 13:30:00 GMT -5
Different question. I downloaded a show that I discovered had been saved in 64 (!) kbps, and several songs skip. Once I fix it up by patching the skips, I want to export it back in at least 128 because I don't like it being down that far (I'd go higher, but I'm leery of going straight from 64 to something even as high as 192). But...will that cause audio problems? Or, would it not really matter if I exported it back in 64 again? Only one thing to consider here. Taking encoded audio, and encoding it again, will result in some sound loss. Encoding 64 to 64 will not sound as good as encoding it in something better. That said, like wahoo said you won't make it sound better, either. So go with your gut on this one. Now...I'm a little confused, because it sounds like I'm getting two opposite opinions here. The show that has skips in it is 12-22-84. The one (well, the ones) I'm using the fix most of those are the two parts of the Top 100 of 1985. The real reason I'm using the Top 100 to fix 12-22 is because both had indicated that they were recorded off WRIP; I figure it's best to use the same source. It's like having as close to identical audio as I can get. If I can't make it sound any better than it already is, then I won't go up (frankly, the only real sound complaints I have are the very problem I intend to fix: the skips in the 12-22 show). |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Nov 18, 2011 15:43:01 GMT -5
Well...both statements are correct. The point paxman appears to be making (and I would agree) is that by decoding the song to edit it, then re-saving/encoding it back to the same bit rate, you do incur some loss.
That said, it probably won't be noticeable if you re-encode once or twice, but if you do it several times to the same file, you will eventually start to notice a dip in sound quality. This is why I keep a .wav copy of my shows until I am done editing. I wouldn't worry too much if you are only going to re-encode once though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Nov 18, 2011 15:54:44 GMT -5
Well...both statements are correct. The point paxman appears to be making (and I would agree) is that by decoding the song to edit it, then re-saving/encoding it back to the same bit rate, you do incur some loss. That said, it probably won't be noticeable if you re-encode once or twice, but if you do it several times to the same file, you will eventually start to notice a dip in sound quality. This is why I keep a .wav copy of my shows until I am done editing. I wouldn't worry too much if you are only going to re-encode once though. Yeah, once I patch it up, I shouldn't have to edit it again. |
|
|
|
Post by 80sfan on Nov 19, 2011 12:07:27 GMT -5
I use mp3DirectCut available at www.mpesch3.de to edit my mp3. The program is freeware and edits mp3 with no re-encoding. You can also adjust the volume of recordings too. |
|
|
|
Post by snarfdude on Dec 11, 2011 10:10:55 GMT -5
Depends on your source. I won't rip any CD tracks under 320kbps. my weekly radio show goes out at 192kbps. Most FM off air broadcasts can easily go to 128kbps as FM doesn't have a great quality to start with. Premiere mp3's that stations download seem to settle at 256kbps and their encoder leaves a bit to be desired to my ears. It could be better, though funny enough, depending on the encoder involved, even 128 can sound impressive.
Good rule of thumb, the higher the encoding rate, the easier it is to keep the quality high over a variety of encoders/codecs. They're not all the same for quality. You'll never go wrong using 320kbps no matter what software encoder you use, and these days, hard drive and DVDR's are cheap compared to the past. There's really few reasons to worry about going lower encoding rates when the audio quality can significantly different.
|
|
|
|
Post by snarfdude on Dec 11, 2011 10:20:48 GMT -5
Well...both statements are correct. The point paxman appears to be making (and I would agree) is that by decoding the song to edit it, then re-saving/encoding it back to the same bit rate, you do incur some loss. That said, it probably won't be noticeable if you re-encode once or twice, but if you do it several times to the same file, you will eventually start to notice a dip in sound quality. This is why I keep a .wav copy of my shows until I am done editing. I wouldn't worry too much if you are only going to re-encode once though. Oh you're right. "digital" is not perfect. It's perceived as, but it really isn't. It's more convenient, and easier to make a near perfect recording, but analog still rules in a lot of aspects in the recording studio. When you start playing with mp3 encoding over a number of reedits and "generations" it's the same as tape, you get added noise, artifacts and significant quality loss, more with mp3's then mp2's which still have a hold in broadcast automation for that reason. That's very subjective in my mind, but it's good to keep source wavs if at all possible. easier to go from a higher quality source then a mp3 then the opposite. FM radio can hide a lot of the "shortcomings" of mp3 quality loss. I'm probably one of the few that can hear groove distortion in the original AT 40 program discs on air as it gets closer to the innergrooves as my local station is so loud and brickwalled limited, the distortions comes out as excessive "fuzziness" on the high end frequencies. Not much you can do about that and most people won't care anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by canat40fan on Dec 11, 2011 17:47:45 GMT -5
When doing audio capture of Internet Radio broadcasts with browser tools such as Freecorder, there is a definite difference in sound quality by going with a higher bit rate. 128k does not sound as good to me as 192k, so I do any recording in 192k mp3.
In my estimation, 128k does a 80% job of recording an original source, 192k does about a 95% job.
The better your sound card and speakers, the more you will notice this. If one is using a typical onboard soundcard built into the motherboard(except for higher end MoBos) and cheap speakers, you may not hear much difference.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Dec 31, 2011 15:12:37 GMT -5
Gotcha. One last question (should be the last question I have...I promise! ). The first few shows I recorded, they pretty much sound exactly as they did over the stream. My recent ones, though, have an extra "stereo" kind of effect layered over the sound (the effect is similar to how KKLI's stream sounds all by itself). I know that at one point I think I changed something in the preferences, but I don't remember what it was. What I'm trying to figure out is how to get back to where I was before the extra "stereo" layer. I haven't been able to figure it out through the manual at all. I tried changing the recording setting from stereo to mono, but I don't think I ever had it in mono to begin with. All of the ones I've recorded myself, I've also had my headphones plugged in while recording. That was also not the case before. Would that make any difference? I wish I had an answer for this. I'm stumped. Well...I finally figured this one out. Basically...having my headphones plugged in while recording does make a difference, that's really what's creating that extra stereo effect. Recording without having them plugged in...the result sounds the same as though I was just listening to the original sound. When they're plugged in...the recording has a difference and doesn't sound quite the same from when I was listening to the original stream. |
|
).