Hi,

I have a question. I like to record internet radio to playback when I'm not
working. If I am recording to mp3 format, is there any reason to record at a
higher bitrate or even at the same bitrate as the original stream. I know
there is the trial and error method, but I tend to be obsessive-compulsive
so that is like asking for an infinite loop.

Thanks

Josh

I would say that for the best quality, you should record it at the bit
rate that the original stream is in. I can't imagine you will gain
anything by recording at a higher bit rate, it is not like you can make
the quality better than the original signal, so if the original is at
128, why record at 320?

-Andrew

Thanks for the confirmation. I will record in peace now.

wrote in message
oups.com...
I would say that for the best quality, you should record it at the bit
rate that the original stream is in. I can't imagine you will gain
anything by recording at a higher bit rate, it is not like you can make
the quality better than the original signal, so if the original is at
128, why record at 320?

-Andrew

In article ,
Josh wrote:

I would say that for the best quality, you should record it at the bit
rate that the original stream is in. I can't imagine you will gain
anything by recording at a higher bit rate, it is not like you can make
the quality better than the original signal, so if the original is at
128, why record at 320?

Thanks for the confirmation. I will record in peace now.

Well, I'd suggest that some experimentation would be in order before
you make this decision.

The problem is this: every time you take a linear-PCM signal and
encode it into MP3, you're likely to lose some fidelity. Your encoder
is going to look at the PCM signal, and make its own set of decisions
as to how to encode it - i.e. which frequency components are relevant
or irrelevant. The lower the bit rate you choose, the more
"approximate" the resulting encoding becomes - you lose more frequency
components, and those which are encoded are quantized more coarsely.

It's generally agreed that an MP3 at 128 kbits/second is not an
audibly-transparent encoding of CD-quality audio. I tend to think of
128k MP3s as being roughly analogous to a good-quality audiocassette
recording... acceptable for casual listening, but of distinctly lower
fidelity than a high-quality original.

If you take a 128k MP3, decode it, and then re-encode it at the same
data rate, it's likely that further audio degradation will occur...
quite possibly enough to hear. This will depend on the original
quality of the source material, on the quality of the first-pass
128k-bit encoding, and on the quality of the encoder that you use and
the way that you configure it.

Whether this additional degradation is enough to displease you will be
a personal decision.

If you do your secondary encoding at a higher bit rate - high enough
to get a audibly-transparent encoding - then you'll avoid this, and
your capture will sound as good as the 128k stream you originally
received.

You won't be able to un-do whatever loss of fidelity occurred in the
original 128k encoding - what's gone is gone - but you can prevent a
further loss of fidelity from occurring.

I don't think you need to go all the way up to 320 - but I'd suggest
trying 160 and 192 kbit/second encodings to see if they result in
better audio quality. Then, choose whatever bit rate gives you what
you consider the best tradeoff between file size and audio quality.

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

wrote in message
oups.com...
I would say that for the best quality, you should record it at the bit
rate that the original stream is in. I can't imagine you will gain
anything by recording at a higher bit rate, it is not like you can make
the quality better than the original signal, so if the original is at
128, why record at 320?

Sorry, that argument may sound logical but it's fundamentally flawed. Every
time you re-encode to MP3, the recording quality drops a bit. The higher the
bitrate, the less it drops. A 128kbps signal re-encoded at 320kbps is
*worse* than the 128kbps original. Re-encoding at 128kbps would be worse
still.

And the most proper way is to save the incoming stream as mp3 without
decoding to PCM and encoding back to mp3.

"Dave Platt" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Josh wrote:

I would say that for the best quality, you should record it at the bit
rate that the original stream is in. I can't imagine you will gain
anything by recording at a higher bit rate, it is not like you can make
the quality better than the original signal, so if the original is at
128, why record at 320?

Thanks for the confirmation. I will record in peace now.

Well, I'd suggest that some experimentation would be in order before
you make this decision.

The problem is this: every time you take a linear-PCM signal and
encode it into MP3, you're likely to lose some fidelity. Your encoder
is going to look at the PCM signal, and make its own set of decisions
as to how to encode it - i.e. which frequency components are relevant
or irrelevant. The lower the bit rate you choose, the more
"approximate" the resulting encoding becomes - you lose more frequency
components, and those which are encoded are quantized more coarsely.

It's generally agreed that an MP3 at 128 kbits/second is not an
audibly-transparent encoding of CD-quality audio. I tend to think of
128k MP3s as being roughly analogous to a good-quality audiocassette
recording... acceptable for casual listening, but of distinctly lower
fidelity than a high-quality original.

If you take a 128k MP3, decode it, and then re-encode it at the same
data rate, it's likely that further audio degradation will occur...
quite possibly enough to hear. This will depend on the original
quality of the source material, on the quality of the first-pass
128k-bit encoding, and on the quality of the encoder that you use and
the way that you configure it.

Whether this additional degradation is enough to displease you will be
a personal decision.

If you do your secondary encoding at a higher bit rate - high enough
to get a audibly-transparent encoding - then you'll avoid this, and
your capture will sound as good as the 128k stream you originally
received.

You won't be able to un-do whatever loss of fidelity occurred in the
original 128k encoding - what's gone is gone - but you can prevent a
further loss of fidelity from occurring.

I don't think you need to go all the way up to 320 - but I'd suggest
trying 160 and 192 kbit/second encodings to see if they result in
better audio quality. Then, choose whatever bit rate gives you what
you consider the best tradeoff between file size and audio quality.

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

Great post - and applies to some streaming recording I've been doing lately.
I've been recording 128K streams to 44/16 WAV files - hadn't decided yet how
to reduce them.

On a completely differant subject ;-) check Wolfgangs Vault for 128K
streams of individual songs and jams from Janis Joplin, Hendrix, Jefferson
Airplane, Quicksilver, James Taylor, and others, recordings from the
Fillmore West and other Bill Graham venues back in the day.

http://www.wolfgangsvault.com/static...o/RadioNav.htm

Mark Z.

said the following on 16/02/2006 05:27 pm:
I would say that for the best quality, you should record it at the bit
rate that the original stream is in. I can't imagine you will gain
anything by recording at a higher bit rate, it is not like you can make
the quality better than the original signal, so if the original is at
128, why record at 320?

-Andrew


There's no ideal way to do it. Recording at the same bitrate without
knowing the original encoding model could still degrade the quality a lot.
Andy

"Pawel Kusmierek" wrote in message
oups.com...
And the most proper way is to save the incoming stream as mp3 without
decoding to PCM and encoding back to mp3.

Agreed!

Pawel Kusmierek wrote:
And the most proper way is to save the incoming stream as mp3 without
decoding to PCM and encoding back to mp3.

Absolutely, but what software actually lets you do that?

CD

"Codifus" wrote in message...

Pawel Kusmierek wrote:
And the most proper way is to save the incoming stream as mp3 without
decoding to PCM and encoding back to mp3.

Absolutely, but what software actually lets you do that?

CD

I beg to differ with that, depending on how much processing and
editing needs to be done to the file before creating an MP3. The
more data-rich the original file, the more accuracy in processing.

If the purpose is to simply make MP3 copies of other material that
needs no editing or manipulation, NERO MP3-Pro will record the
incoming audio, converting to MP3 on the fly.

--
David Morgan (MAMS)
http://www.m-a-m-s DOT com
Morgan Audio Media Service
Dallas, Texas (214) 662-9901
_______________________________________
http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com