DMusic.com | for indie musicians and fans | Free MP3 music downloads - Forums: Recording: mp3 bitrate for FM radio recordings?

Electric guitars, Classical guitars, Guitar amps and more.

zZounds.com offers recording equipment for starting and experienced musicians. Find the best prices on electric guitars, acoustic guitars, classical guitars and more.

Forums > Music: Recording

mp3 bitrate for FM radio recordings?

quartzz	Date: August 22, 2004 @ 8:01 PM 128? tanx!
pog	Date: August 22, 2004 @ 11:38 PM no... I think it's a legit question for this forum. there's so many variables in this that can be considered. It really depends what you wish to do with the tracks. 128k is about half cd quality.... most people can't tell the difference between 128k and 320k..... and even if they could, they would have to be using some pretty expensive stereo equipment/monitors to notice it, and it would still only be slight. because it was recorded from a radio station, then the signal would most probably be compressed slightly, so it would be a strong signal, yet not quite as clear as the original cd anyways. Another advantage of 128k is that it tends to stream better than higher bitrates. I guess I'd go with 128k because it's technically the most compression possible yet is still good enough quality to enjoy. The other way you could consider is to go the other direction in quality, and simply burn it to a cd (or even a dvd) as an uncompressed wave.... I think this would be the best approach because it's the least lossy, and a more versatile format. Hope this helps
RyanS	Date: August 23, 2004 @ 12:09 AM It's always a bad idea to transcode from one lossy format to another, even mp3-mp3. You will be sure to lose quality. The exception is lossy to lossless, but nothing is gained except the larger filesize. One way to look at it is that FM radio is a lossy mp3 (let's say 128kbps) format. It's far from CD quality with it's heavy compression, filtering, and equalizations. Then it's encoded at 192kbps mp3. Then again, it would be converted once again, but to 128kpbs mp3. By then, I would assume with average or slightly below average listening equipment, won't notice much difference, unless a very poor encoder is used (or even a good encoder improperly configured). Fire up the good headphones, and you're guaranteed to hear the difference. You can test it yourself and see if there is it will be of acceptable quality. Of course, my best bet is to leave them at 192kbps and sacrifice a little diskspace. Hell, diskspace nowadays is a dime-a-dozen
quartzz	Date: August 23, 2004 @ 2:11 AM cheers 4 replies. one main reason for converting is to make CD backup discs go further i also need to test whether lower bitrates will result in faster ff/rw, when playing on my kenwood car head unit (apparently ff/rw only goes as fast as the head unit can decode the mp3) i would use DB PowerAmp to convert if i did. i believe that this converting purely takes away bits, and does not actually re-encode the mp3....can anyone confirm this as true/not ? cheers again
quartzz	Date: August 23, 2004 @ 2:17 AM ps - using DB PowerAmp us purely because so far that's the only prog i've found that can convert bitrates! if anyone knows a better one, or one that definitely does only take away bits rather than re encode, pls shout
robbydadrummer	Date: August 23, 2004 @ 9:51 PM dB PowerAmp is used my many of us here, and it's the best free encoder/converter I have come across. (Thanks pog for that hook-up!)
quartzz	Date: August 25, 2004 @ 7:06 PM 160 is a bad idea?
Mp3PRO	Date: September 18, 2004 @ 7:08 PM "...128k is about half cd quality..." Thats not true. 128kbps is CD-Quality accoriding to the company who invented MP3.

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

© DMusic LLC - Advertising | Employment | TOS | Subscribe