DMusic.com | for indie musicians and fans | Free MP3 music downloads - Forums: Complaints: Why MP3? (s/complaint/suggestion/)

Forums > Help: Complaints

Why MP3? (s/complaint/suggestion/)

gvy	Date: June 15, 2003 @ 9:44 AM I understand that there are non-upgradable hardware players out there, but hey CBR@128 is theirs :-) -- Michael Shigorin" id="49656">Hello, seeing "Hi-Fi" being 128kbps MP3, I decided to ask whether there are any plans of supporting Ogg Vorbis for Hi-Fi (thus moving MP3 to its Mi-Fi ? I understand that there are non-upgradable hardware players out there, but hey CBR@128 is theirs -- Michael Shigorin
ashleighj	Date: June 15, 2003 @ 10:14 AM an admin will have to answer the ogg vorbis question, but you can upload an mp3 of any bitrate you like.. 64, 128, 160, 192, even 320. (i suspect VBR would work also, but i haven't seen it tried.) the original file you upload should always be the "hi-fi" version, the servers only change it for the lo-fi version. hope that helps.
Expose	Date: June 15, 2003 @ 10:19 AM Kahvi.org was with vorbis from the start, and that's a good way to do it since you won't confuse returning users. Especially for the lo-fi people. 24k Ogg Vorbis sounds NOTHING like 24k MP3. 24k hurts to listen to. I was thinking, maybe REAL hi-fi MP3s(LAME 192k minimum) for download/streaming, since natrually someone's going to bitch VBR won't play on their stone age DVD player, :nod: and Ogg Vorbis for the lo-fi streams, since it'd be better sounding for that bitrate, AND I sincerely doubt someone'd try to put THAT on a hardware player." id="49658">Heh, true. Hi-Fi being 128k is crap, especially the Xing ones. I think it should at LEAST be --alt preset CBR 192 or --alt preset standard -Z with LAME, but that'll never happen. Ogg Vorbis, while being a good format, shouldn't be the main purpose of the site. You can't change from MP3 to Ogg Vorbis just like that. Kahvi.org was with vorbis from the start, and that's a good way to do it since you won't confuse returning users. Especially for the lo-fi people. 24k Ogg Vorbis sounds NOTHING like 24k MP3. 24k hurts to listen to. I was thinking, maybe REAL hi-fi MP3s(LAME 192k minimum) for download/streaming, since natrually someone's going to bitch VBR won't play on their stone age DVD player, and Ogg Vorbis for the lo-fi streams, since it'd be better sounding for that bitrate, AND I sincerely doubt someone'd try to put THAT on a hardware player.
Jagwac	Date: June 15, 2003 @ 1:58 PM Ok...time to wake up and smell the coffee a little regarding streaming MP3's online. 128K and 192K. NO DIFFERENCE!! None. If anyone tells me that they can hear the difference, they are full of sh*t or they have the hearing of a dog. Lets remember something here...these are computer speakers. Compared to ones home stereo, computer speakers are crap. The most expensive computer speakers are crap.
ashleighj	Date: June 15, 2003 @ 2:03 PM which is why you just take a 1/8"-to-RCA plug (easily found at radio shack) and hook the soundcard up to your home stereo speakers. if you have digital-out's, even better. NEXT!
Apertome	Date: June 15, 2003 @ 2:06 PM Jagwac, trust me there is a difference! Some of us have our computers hooked up to studio monitors ...
Jagwac	Date: June 15, 2003 @ 2:09 PM And you still wont hear the difference between 128k and 192k. Hey...how does a terrestrial radio sound on that gazillion dollar home stereo sound? Probably not as good as a CD. Right? Same goes for streaming music online. Try streaming at 320k to more than 1 listener. Not many have the bandwidth to do that.
Jagwac	Date: June 15, 2003 @ 2:10 PM Mux...the difference is SO minute that it is not worth the extra bandwidth that it requires.
ashleighj	Date: June 15, 2003 @ 2:26 PM my my, aren't we defensive! you've changed your argument, but it seems like you didn't want anyone to notice. you started out talking about the difference between 128k and 192k (and you're right, you won't notice without good speakers), but then you changed over to the difference between FM radio and a CD, both on good speakers. you make my point for me, but you fail to see it. you can tell the difference between AM, FM, and a CD. by your own analogy, shouldn't the same hold true for 128k, 192k, and a CD, then? (i agree, though, that the cost of extra bandwidth far outweighs the difference in sound when you're dealing with streaming to a large audience.)
Jagwac	Date: June 15, 2003 @ 2:47 PM Oh please. The talk was about streaming music. The difference between 128K and 192K is nothing in regards to streaming. The difference between 128K and CD quality, which is higher than 320K, is noticable.
ashleighj	Date: June 15, 2003 @ 3:07 PM "The difference between 128K and 192K is nothing in regards to streaming." okay, so which one do you choose? :shrug:" id="49684">"the difference is SO minute that it is not worth the extra bandwidth that it requires." "The difference between 128K and 192K is nothing in regards to streaming." okay, so which one do you choose?
Expose	Date: June 15, 2003 @ 3:15 PM I'm a dog. :D Seriously, there are tons of things like that. 128k is transparent on so little if you have good headphones and are "trained" on it. With speakers unless you're rich you won't afford something good enough to notice a difference. Just try this WAV out with headphones(zipped so I could upload it to zeropaid :p), 320k doesn't make it sound good, it's a clip from some song... 128k is NOT hifi or even close... the only thing I'd call hifi is a GOOD(not FhG xing, or blade) VBR or 256k CBR, and for streaming, 192k. " id="49685">Ok, how about an Ogg Vorbis radio station? 1) Patent/license free. And all that good crap. 2) -q3 Ogg Vorbis is a 112k VBR, that sounds better than 128k MP3s. "128K and 192K. NO DIFFERENCE!! None. If anyone tells me that they can hear the difference, they are full of sht or they have the hearing of a dog.* I'm a dog. Seriously, there are tons of things like that. 128k is transparent on so little if you have good headphones and are "trained" on it. With speakers unless you're rich you won't afford something good enough to notice a difference. Just try this WAV out with headphones(zipped so I could upload it to zeropaid ), 320k doesn't make it sound good, it's a clip from some song... 128k is NOT hifi or even close... the only thing I'd call hifi is a GOOD(not FhG xing, or blade) VBR or 256k CBR, and for streaming, 192k.
Apertome	Date: June 15, 2003 @ 3:26 PM Well, I can certainly tell the difference between mp3s at 128 and 192 kbps. But I don't claim to speak for everyone.
Jagwac	Date: June 15, 2003 @ 3:42 PM ashleigh: There is a difference. Are you so dense that you cant see that 128K is recorded at a lower bitrate than 192? Hence the minute difference. Streaming...there is no difference in sound. Tell you what...when you run an online streaming source...come talk to me. I dont know why I am even bothering with you. In fact...I am not going to bother any further. Go Jingle Jangle up someone elses tree. Expose: Yes...an Ogg stream would be nice. Since dmusic is running on a Linux server, Icecast does that rather nicely. BTW...You going to volunteer to convert all the mp3's here to ogg format and teach everyone here how to encode in ogg? chuckle ID3 tags arent even properly done. I'd like to see people learn the encoding. The whole problem here is, and try not to take this wrong, but how many here of you, if any, have experience with streaming music? With running a server that streams music? Seriously. All these suggestions are fine and wonderful, however, there are a multitude of limitations when it comes to online streaming. Bitrate. Concurrent listeners. Available bandwidth. Computer resources. The list goes on and on. Just to satisfy those that are wondering. A 128K stream to...oh..for sake of argument, 200 listeners. Upload bandwidth required = 28,161 kbps . Average DSL upload speed...256 kbps. Can you see the difference? I can see the difference. I dont know...lets ask Timmy if he can see the difference.
gvy	Date: June 15, 2003 @ 3:43 PM Expose, BTW -- I didn't mean "hey break it all down" but rather shift; still, kind of adding the ability to add Ogg and mark it as say "Ogg" could be even more friendly. Or it can be done conjuncting/intersecting available formats and personal preferences? Why bother, my side? :) Well I'm a bit concerned as ALT Linux Team (which I participate in) helped with OpenMusic project in Russia -- see http://om.lrn.ru; and another site I've seen to provide similar to DMusic kind of DIY -- oggmusic.de -- seems to be off (would like to buyout the traffic to get their collection to let it go further). On the other hand, we at osdn.org.ua provide fastest mirrors of free software in Ukraine, and possibly could act as a mirror for dmusic. (back to streaming, bandwidth and formats -- I do know the price of that, and that's why I've talked about Ogg, too) So hopefully some of the "site staff" will find the time to talk over working together. -- Michael Shigorin, stepping off the soapbox :)" id="49688">Jagwac, oh no, please don't. Do some listening tests on not-so-bad acoustic, you'll find for yourself (hopefully). I have Real Soviet Hi-Fi and do hear difference between 128k and 160k VBR lamed mp3s with other knobs tuned to the best of my knowledge. Don't with Ogg, but as Expose commented, "testing" it on a test-drive would be logical. Expose, BTW -- I didn't mean "hey break it all down" but rather shift; still, kind of adding the ability to add Ogg and mark it as say "Ogg" could be even more friendly. Or it can be done conjuncting/intersecting available formats and personal preferences? Why bother, my side? Well I'm a bit concerned as ALT Linux Team (which I participate in) helped with OpenMusic project in Russia -- see http://om.lrn.ru; and another site I've seen to provide similar to DMusic kind of DIY -- oggmusic.de -- seems to be off (would like to buyout the traffic to get their collection to let it go further). On the other hand, we at osdn.org.ua provide fastest mirrors of free software in Ukraine, and possibly could act as a mirror for dmusic. (back to streaming, bandwidth and formats -- I do know the price of that, and that's why I've talked about Ogg, too) So hopefully some of the "site staff" will find the time to talk over working together. -- Michael Shigorin, stepping off the soapbox
Expose	Date: June 15, 2003 @ 3:45 PM pcabx.com Make a WAV of one of your songs, then a 128k MP3, then make that into a WAV so it works in there. Blind tests with headphones is the only way to see if anything's true. You have no clue how much your mind warps the sound if you think it's CD quality or it shouldn't be." id="49689">pcabx.com Make a WAV of one of your songs, then a 128k MP3, then make that into a WAV so it works in there. Blind tests with headphones is the only way to see if anything's true. You have no clue how much your mind warps the sound if you think it's CD quality or it shouldn't be.
gvy	Date: June 15, 2003 @ 3:49 PM This has plain no sense, as even if streams would get thinner, they would degrade. The push is for the ability to have a decent archival format, and eventually use it for streaming so as to have better quality/bandwidth ratio. WRT experience... I have streamed music last summer (the same OpenMusic project), and done FM receivers/transmitters, custom Hi-Fi audio part, and zillion of other things, and can even tell you why terrestrial signal is no argument here. So relax and please keep on topic :-)" id="49690">Jagwac, re "You going to volunteer to convert all the mp3's here to ogg format and teach everyone here how to encode in ogg?" -- seems you don't get the question This has plain no sense, as even if streams would get thinner, they would degrade. The push is for the ability to have a decent archival format, and eventually use it for streaming so as to have better quality/bandwidth ratio. WRT experience... I have streamed music last summer (the same OpenMusic project), and done FM receivers/transmitters, custom Hi-Fi audio part, and zillion of other things, and can even tell you why terrestrial signal is no argument here. So relax and please keep on topic
Jagwac	Date: June 15, 2003 @ 3:52 PM Expose: I wont argue you on the point of the difference between bitrates and listening to music. Add the factor of online streaming in there and I will though I ran a survey on my site once asking how many people listen with headphones to the station, how many listen straight through their speakers, how many have their computer hooked up to their home stereo. I was interested in raising the bitrate of my station at the time and how it was sounding to the general public. I am approximating here, however, it came to something like 80% used computer speakers. 20% used headphones. 1 person had the home stereo setup.
Jagwac	Date: June 15, 2003 @ 3:59 PM gvy...FM receivers and transmitters are in no way comparable to streaming online music through mp3 or ogg. To stream in ogg...you must have ogg files. You cant stream mp3's in ogg format. That would require something that converts on the fly to the ogg format. Thus taxing the server more than it needs to be. According to you people, who apparently know so much about the internet streaming industry, it appears that I really havent a clue what I am talking about here. Rather than continue this until I drive myself crazy trying to explain it, I aint going to bother anymore. Best of luck running your radio station. So many cooks...so many cooks...
Apertome	Date: June 15, 2003 @ 4:07 PM Again, I can't speak for everyone, but don't tell me what I can or cannot hear." id="49694">Running an internet radio station does not make you an expert on audio compression. In fact, streaming has nothing to do with sound quality. The bitrate determines the quality, regardless of whether it's being streamed or not. And yes I do have experience in setting up icecast and the like, but that experience is not really relevant here. The main thing that tips me off to lower-bitrate mp3s is artifacts, not "sound quality" as such (frequency response, etc). But there can be some hefty mp3 artifacts, and the problem is much alleviated at 192 kbps, compared to 128. Again, I can't speak for everyone, but don't tell me what I can or cannot hear.
ashleighj	Date: June 15, 2003 @ 4:15 PM of _course_ i can see that. that's exactly what i've been talking about. when there is a lower bitrate, there is a difference in quality. whether or not that difference is perceptible depends largely on the quality of speakers or headphones. on cheapo computer speakers, who can tell? but on a good home stereo system (or otherwise better speakers), it can be noticable. many people connect their computer's soundcard output to something other than computer speakers, simply because computer speakers suck (as you said). "Streaming...there is no difference in sound." i'm confused by this. are you saying there's no difference between the sound of a 128k and 192k mp3 file if they are being streamed? but there is a difference if they aren't being streamed? that doesn't make any sense. the 1's and 0's are the same regardless of which computer they're stored on. or are you saying that because the difference between a 128k and 192k file is usually not _that_ significant, there isn't a good reason to pay for extra bandwidth to stream the larger file? that's what i was saying, too. or you could be saying something else entirely, and i'm completely missing it. perhaps you could clarify. "Tell you what...when you run an online streaming source...come talk to me. I dont know why I am even bothering with you. In fact...I am not going to bother any further. Go Jingle Jangle up someone elses tree." wow.. you sure told me.. do you feel better now? :)" id="49695">one last post, i suppose.. sigh "ashleigh: There is a difference. Are you so dense that you cant see that 128K is recorded at a lower bitrate than 192? Hence the minute difference." of _course_ i can see that. that's exactly what i've been talking about. when there is a lower bitrate, there is a difference in quality. whether or not that difference is perceptible depends largely on the quality of speakers or headphones. on cheapo computer speakers, who can tell? but on a good home stereo system (or otherwise better speakers), it can be noticable. many people connect their computer's soundcard output to something other than computer speakers, simply because computer speakers suck (as you said). "Streaming...there is no difference in sound." i'm confused by this. are you saying there's no difference between the sound of a 128k and 192k mp3 file if they are being streamed? but there is a difference if they aren't being streamed? that doesn't make any sense. the 1's and 0's are the same regardless of which computer they're stored on. or are you saying that because the difference between a 128k and 192k file is usually not _that_ significant, there isn't a good reason to pay for extra bandwidth to stream the larger file? that's what i was saying, too. or you could be saying something else entirely, and i'm completely missing it. perhaps you could clarify. "Tell you what...when you run an online streaming source...come talk to me. I dont know why I am even bothering with you. In fact...I am not going to bother any further. Go Jingle Jangle up someone elses tree." wow.. you sure told me.. do you feel better now?
Expose	Date: June 15, 2003 @ 6:30 PM This thread made me wanna try some stuff. Refer to my journal. It would've all been impossible, if it wasn't for the expensive awesome 'phones.
Psipher	Date: June 15, 2003 @ 6:44 PM and the chicken crossed the road because of what?
Expose	Date: June 15, 2003 @ 6:46 PM . :rofl: " id="49712">I invented the chicken.
thumbtack	Date: June 15, 2003 @ 9:08 PM I fried the chicken...
Jennae	Date: June 15, 2003 @ 10:30 PM I boiled an egg
sinai	Date: June 16, 2003 @ 1:03 AM paint the fucker and hide it and u got urself a national holiday...
gvy	Date: June 16, 2003 @ 3:33 AM Ugh. Summarizing in my journal (not heading home in haste this time
gvy	Date: June 16, 2003 @ 7:02 AM ...in short: no big difference at 24/22.05, as well as 128k-class with _average_ audio (better one is at home), BUT 64k ogg does like 128k lame mp3. That's it.
Expose	Date: June 16, 2003 @ 11:32 AM That's like saying 64k WMA is CD quality.... nowhere near. :p To be safe, I'd say -q1 or -q2 sound like 128k LAME. " id="49797">" BUT 64k ogg does like 128k lame mp3." That's like saying 64k WMA is CD quality.... nowhere near. To be safe, I'd say -q1 or -q2 sound like 128k LAME.
thumbtack	Date: June 16, 2003 @ 11:37 AM I just played a cd...sounds beter than all of them WMA, OGG, MP3...So there....
Expose	Date: June 16, 2003 @ 12:31 PM Now get that to stream on DM's servers.
thumbtack	Date: June 16, 2003 @ 1:44 PM the point was if quality is your thing then cd is the only way to go. You can build a VW beetle to run in daytona, but they go airborne at 184 mph...why not if quality is the thing use the original cd...nothing is going to sound as good period...until we start seeing users pay oh say $50 per month (and we all know that ain't gonna happen)then cd is out of the question...you'll just have to make do with what we offer..Ogg is the betamax of audio compression. sure its better, but mp3 is what 99% of all users use... currently ogg is a niche market..
Expose	Date: June 16, 2003 @ 1:59 PM This (for P4s) only goes down to 45k but you get the general idea. I think it'd be worth it for the lofi part of the station. It isn't worth it to lotsa people to learn a whole new format for the 1k range especially for a radio station, but for the 20k-70k range I don't think it'd be so bad for them to get the latest winamp if they could have such a quality improvement. Although I do see how that'd be almost impossible and not a realistic way to go about it. :shrug: :(" id="49811">I didn't mean for all DMusic, I just meant for the radio station at this point. I see it as around 160k-192k MP3 as hi-fi, and Vorbis for lo-fi. This (for P4s) only goes down to 45k but you get the general idea. I think it'd be worth it for the lofi part of the station. It isn't worth it to lotsa people to learn a whole new format for the 1k range especially for a radio station, but for the 20k-70k range I don't think it'd be so bad for them to get the latest winamp if they could have such a quality improvement. Although I do see how that'd be almost impossible and not a realistic way to go about it.
gvy	Date: June 17, 2003 @ 11:17 AM http://om.lrn.ru (where om stands for OpenMusic), but they're by a number of individual artists, and in Ogg format (~160k!) -- and that somehow lead me to the question at the head of the thread. Well, yesterday one of the persons accountable for that project just told me they were looking to do their own site engine, and I though whether it could be done so that the labour would be spent on one bicycle, not two. The thing is, they are interested in doing Russian (ogg-based, presumably) service for musicians in xSU, and I'd like to help out with that. So we could try to develop necessary parts and the translation, and possibly think of some mirroring features (e.g. we at osdn.org.ua can do fast mirroring, but only in Ukraine network boundaries). It would be better than reinvent the wheel, and could have some sense for DMusic team. If there's a sense here, I could get caught at mike#osdn org ua or ICQ#113344029 (actually runs over Jabber for me, regarding 'alternatives' ;-) -- Michael Shigorin" id="49912"> currently ogg is a niche market.. agreed. Still getting it doesn't cost you $$$$$ --- Expose, agreed totally. PS: could someone hint me whom to contact regarding site engine? (or show them this posting) the story: Having discovered DMusic, I thought of adding 10 hours of songs from http://om.lrn.ru (where om stands for OpenMusic), but they're by a number of individual artists, and in Ogg format (~160k!) -- and that somehow lead me to the question at the head of the thread. Well, yesterday one of the persons accountable for that project just told me they were looking to do their own site engine, and I though whether it could be done so that the labour would be spent on one bicycle, not two. The thing is, they are interested in doing Russian (ogg-based, presumably) service for musicians in xSU, and I'd like to help out with that. So we could try to develop necessary parts and the translation, and possibly think of some mirroring features (e.g. we at osdn.org.ua can do fast mirroring, but only in Ukraine network boundaries). It would be better than reinvent the wheel, and could have some sense for DMusic team. If there's a sense here, I could get caught at mike#osdn org ua or ICQ#113344029 (actually runs over Jabber for me, regarding 'alternatives' -- Michael Shigorin
gvy	Date: June 17, 2003 @ 11:23 AM http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/urltrurl?tt=url&url=http%3A %2F%2Fom.lrn.ru%2F&lp=ru_en group list (hmm.. broken?) http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/urltrurl?tt=url&url=http%3A %2F%2Fom.lrn.ru%2Flist.html&lp=ru_en sample song (on of my favourite of all the compilation): http://om.lrn.ru/om/Megus/Taet svet.ogg" id="49913">Ugh. I'd better supply Babelfish translation URLs at least: main page: http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/urltrurl?tt=url&url=http%3A">http://om.lrn.ru/&lp=ru_en">http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/urltrurl?tt=url&url=http%3A %2F%2Fom.lrn.ru%2F&lp=ru_en group list (hmm.. broken?) http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/urltrurl?tt=url&url=http%3A">http://om.lrn.ru/list.html&lp=ru_en">http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/urltrurl?tt=url&url=http%3A %2F%2Fom.lrn.ru%2Flist.html&lp=ru_en sample song (on of my favourite of all the compilation): http://om.lrn.ru/om/Megus/Taet svet.ogg

Post A Reply
From:	guest	(Icons - Linking)
Post: