My PCM-501 that I used to record overnight radio programs has finally
died totally. I'm not sure I'll ever be able to fix it, but while
waiting for a service manual, I invested $11.95 in the often
recommended Total Recorder program. It's probably the best small money
I've spent on software. Does what it's supposed to do (in this case,
start up at a preset time, record from the radio to my computer, and
shut off at a preset time) and doesn't seem to cause any harm to
anything else running on the computer. (Small disclaimer - this is the
"office" computer, not used for critical audio work)

Anyway, just to conserve disk space, I decided to go the MP3 route
rather than the full glorious CD quality that the built-in sound card
in my four year old Dell Optiplex is capable of. I have Total Recorder
set up to use the LAME encoder (that's the one that seems to come up
often around here) rather than its built-in encoder, and I started out
with it set for 128 kbps.

Now I guess it's no surprise to those of you who have been living with
MP3 for a while, but this was my first experience actually comparing
the real thing (the radio) with an MP3 recording, on the same
speakers, in the same room. I wasn't surprised that I could hear a
difference, but even for casual listening (speakers are Minimum 7s)
it's a bit mushy. Program material is bluegrass, a lot of it from old
recordings, even some 78s, broadcast over FM radio (so fidelity going
in is pretty low, but with noises that perceptual encoders don't usually
have to deal with).

So, for those of you who have dealt with "MP3 sucks" can you give me
any advice as to minimum decent encoding rates, or option that I
shoudl be aware of? I've just used fixed rate so far. I don't want to
make a big research project out of this, as basically I'm doing it for
time shifting, I'll listen during the week when I'm barely paying
attention, sitting at the computer doing something else, and then I'll
delete the files and record the next week's show. Alternately, I might
move the files over to the Jukebox 3 to listen to on an airplane. So
there's no real high fidelity requirement here, just somethign that
doesn't make me wish I could "tune in the station a little better"
like we did in the old days when radios had tuning knobs.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Mike Rivers wrote:

My PCM-501 that I used to record overnight radio programs has finally
died totally. I'm not sure I'll ever be able to fix it, but while
waiting for a service manual, I invested $11.95 in the often
recommended Total Recorder program. It's probably the best small money
I've spent on software. Does what it's supposed to do (in this case,
start up at a preset time, record from the radio to my computer, and
shut off at a preset time) and doesn't seem to cause any harm to
anything else running on the computer. (Small disclaimer - this is the
"office" computer, not used for critical audio work)

Anyway, just to conserve disk space, I decided to go the MP3 route
rather than the full glorious CD quality that the built-in sound card
in my four year old Dell Optiplex is capable of. I have Total Recorder
set up to use the LAME encoder (that's the one that seems to come up
often around here) rather than its built-in encoder, and I started out
with it set for 128 kbps.

Now I guess it's no surprise to those of you who have been living with
MP3 for a while, but this was my first experience actually comparing
the real thing (the radio) with an MP3 recording, on the same
speakers, in the same room. I wasn't surprised that I could hear a
difference, but even for casual listening (speakers are Minimum 7s)
it's a bit mushy. Program material is bluegrass, a lot of it from old
recordings, even some 78s, broadcast over FM radio (so fidelity going
in is pretty low, but with noises that perceptual encoders don't usually
have to deal with).

So, for those of you who have dealt with "MP3 sucks" can you give me
any advice as to minimum decent encoding rates, or option that I
shoudl be aware of? I've just used fixed rate so far. I don't want to
make a big research project out of this, as basically I'm doing it for
time shifting, I'll listen during the week when I'm barely paying
attention, sitting at the computer doing something else, and then I'll
delete the files and record the next week's show. Alternately, I might
move the files over to the Jukebox 3 to listen to on an airplane. So
there's no real high fidelity requirement here, just somethign that
doesn't make me wish I could "tune in the station a little better"
like we did in the old days when radios had tuning knobs.

I'd use the highest bit rate possible ( usually 320k ).

I was intruiged to note when I bought a certain CD that I had auditioned
certain tracks in mp3 format that there were quiet vocals where I hadn't
noticed them before ! I guess the encoder considered they were 'masked' by
the rest of the music.

Graham

I'd stick with at least a 256k bitrate.

Al

On 28 Nov 2004 12:27:07 -0500, (Mike Rivers)
wrote:


My PCM-501 that I used to record overnight radio programs has finally
died totally. I'm not sure I'll ever be able to fix it, but while
waiting for a service manual, I invested $11.95 in the often
recommended Total Recorder program. It's probably the best small money
I've spent on software. Does what it's supposed to do (in this case,
start up at a preset time, record from the radio to my computer, and
shut off at a preset time) and doesn't seem to cause any harm to
anything else running on the computer. (Small disclaimer - this is the
"office" computer, not used for critical audio work)

Anyway, just to conserve disk space, I decided to go the MP3 route
rather than the full glorious CD quality that the built-in sound card
in my four year old Dell Optiplex is capable of. I have Total Recorder
set up to use the LAME encoder (that's the one that seems to come up
often around here) rather than its built-in encoder, and I started out
with it set for 128 kbps.

Now I guess it's no surprise to those of you who have been living with
MP3 for a while, but this was my first experience actually comparing
the real thing (the radio) with an MP3 recording, on the same
speakers, in the same room. I wasn't surprised that I could hear a
difference, but even for casual listening (speakers are Minimum 7s)
it's a bit mushy. Program material is bluegrass, a lot of it from old
recordings, even some 78s, broadcast over FM radio (so fidelity going
in is pretty low, but with noises that perceptual encoders don't usually
have to deal with).

So, for those of you who have dealt with "MP3 sucks" can you give me
any advice as to minimum decent encoding rates, or option that I
shoudl be aware of? I've just used fixed rate so far. I don't want to
make a big research project out of this, as basically I'm doing it for
time shifting, I'll listen during the week when I'm barely paying
attention, sitting at the computer doing something else, and then I'll
delete the files and record the next week's show. Alternately, I might
move the files over to the Jukebox 3 to listen to on an airplane. So
there's no real high fidelity requirement here, just somethign that
doesn't make me wish I could "tune in the station a little better"
like we did in the old days when radios had tuning knobs.

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1101652586k@trad...

So, for those of you who have dealt with "MP3 sucks" can you give me
any advice as to minimum decent encoding rates, or option that I
shoudl be aware of? I've just used fixed rate so far.

Use the highest bit rate available and enable variable bit rate encoding.
That should minimize the damage.

bobs

Bob Smith
BS Studios
we organize chaos
http://www.bsstudios.com

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1101652586k@trad...


Using this: http://users.pandora.be/satcp/cd2mp3-en.htm#contents I was able
to get a setup that gives me MP3's that are practically impossible to tell
in blind listening tests (for most music) from the original CD with
resultant files that were anywhere from 1/5 to 1/10 their original size.

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...

I'd use the highest bit rate possible ( usually 320k ).

I was intruiged to note when I bought a certain CD that I had auditioned
certain tracks in mp3 format that there were quiet vocals where I hadn't
noticed them before ! I guess the encoder considered they were 'masked' by
the rest of the music.

The lower rates really while shift stuff around as far as perceivability. I
use the highest rates from home listening but actually prefer 128k for the
car as it helps "get above" the ambient noise.

"Bob Smith" wrote in message
...

Use the highest bit rate available and enable variable bit rate encoding.
That should minimize the damage.

Those two are a must and will produce output practically indiscernible from
the CD (in most cases).

I posted a couple of 256Kbps samples on my website using Fraunhofer
encoding. It's licensed (not free) but makes excellent recordings without
resorting to variable bit rate (which a few players can't reproduce).

Hear it he

http://ccarlan.home.mindspring.com/B6.html

I've used Lame before and I think it's good, but I believe (with no real
side by side comparisons) that Fraunhofer is better.

In article writes:

Use the highest bit rate available and enable variable bit rate encoding.
That should minimize the damage.

I'll have to check the Jukebox to see what it will (or won't) play. It
records up to 320 kbps, so I guess it will play that. When I copied
PCM tapes to the Jukebox, I usually used 192 kbps and that sounded OK
on headphones on the airplane.

Does the decoder need to be smart enough to play a variable bit rate
encoded file?

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1101677588k@trad...

In article
writes:

Use the highest bit rate available and enable variable bit rate
encoding.
That should minimize the damage.

I'll have to check the Jukebox to see what it will (or won't) play. It
records up to 320 kbps, so I guess it will play that. When I copied
PCM tapes to the Jukebox, I usually used 192 kbps and that sounded OK
on headphones on the airplane.

Does the decoder need to be smart enough to play a variable bit rate
encoded file?


Yes it does. If the decoder can't play VBR then you must restrict yourself
to CBR encoding.

bobs

Bob Smith
BS Studios
we organize chaos
http://www.bsstudios.com

"Carey Carlan" wrote in message
. 191...

I've used Lame before and I think it's good, but I believe (with no real
side by side comparisons) that Fraunhofer is better.

I agree with Carey on this. Fraunhofer has the encoding best algorithms at
this time in my opinion.

bobs

Bob Smith
BS Studios
we organize chaos
http://www.bsstudios.com

Mike, I've found that 128Kbps is pretty good for my middle of the
road Cambridge Soundworks speakers for casual listening. Give the
"joint stereo" option a try on the encoding and see if you can hear a
difference vs. true stereo encoding. (It's supposed to put more
detail into the channel that needs it most) and experiment with
average or variable bitrate options. I've found 128Kbps average
bitrate with joint stereo to be pretty good for general web
distribution.

You may try a different converter at 128Kbps on a normal wav file to
see if it's really the 128Kbps that sucks, or whether it's the
conversion of radio source that sucks.

Shane
(btw, the files on my artist page in the link in the sig file are
128Kbps from 16bit wav for reference)
=========================
Visit my artist page at Unsignedbandweb.com
http://www.unsignedbandweb.com/music/bands/1424/
or visit my mp3 streaming radio stations he
http://www.unsignedbandweb.com/music...1424/radio.php



On 28 Nov 2004 12:27:07 -0500, (Mike Rivers)
wrote:



So, for those of you who have dealt with "MP3 sucks" can you give me
any advice as to minimum decent encoding rates, or option that I
shoudl be aware of? I've just used fixed rate so far. I don't want to
make a big research project out of this, as basically I'm doing it for
time shifting, I'll listen during the week when I'm barely paying
attention, sitting at the computer doing something else, and then I'll
delete the files and record the next week's show. Alternately, I might
move the files over to the Jukebox 3 to listen to on an airplane. So
there's no real high fidelity requirement here, just somethign that
doesn't make me wish I could "tune in the station a little better"
like we did in the old days when radios had tuning knobs.

=========================
Visit me at my artist page at Unsignedbandweb.com
http://www.unsignedbandweb.com/music/bands/1424/
and visit my streaming mp3 radio stations he
http://www.unsignedbandweb.com/music...1424/radio.php

Carey Carlan wrote:
I posted a couple of 256Kbps samples on my website using Fraunhofer
encoding. It's licensed (not free) but makes excellent recordings without
resorting to variable bit rate (which a few players can't reproduce).

Hear it he

http://ccarlan.home.mindspring.com/B6.html

I've used Lame before and I think it's good, but I believe (with no real
side by side comparisons) that Fraunhofer is better.

I agree (at lower bitrates.) LAME sounds better to me at higher bitrates.

Mike Rivers wrote:

Does the decoder need to be smart enough to play a variable bit rate
encoded file?

Yes, and the JB3 will handle VBR files.

Mike Rivers wrote:

In article writes:

Use the highest bit rate available and enable variable bit rate encoding.
That should minimize the damage.

I'll have to check the Jukebox to see what it will (or won't) play. It
records up to 320 kbps, so I guess it will play that. When I copied
PCM tapes to the Jukebox, I usually used 192 kbps and that sounded OK
on headphones on the airplane.

Does the decoder need to be smart enough to play a variable bit rate
encoded file?

Yes but haven't found one in years that didn't.

The ancient Fraunhofer codec I have on my old W3.1 pc doesn't decode vbr IIRC.

Incidentally - heard many claims about the relative accuracy of *encoders* but are all
*decoders* created equal ?


Graham

Carey Carlan wrote:
I posted a couple of 256Kbps samples on my website using Fraunhofer
encoding. It's licensed (not free) but makes excellent recordings without
resorting to variable bit rate (which a few players can't reproduce).

Hear it he

http://ccarlan.home.mindspring.com/B6.html

I've used Lame before and I think it's good, but I believe (with no real
side by side comparisons) that Fraunhofer is better.

There are online tests that have been done, some harder to find than
others. FhG in this test below is Fraunhofer. Mind you this is the
general public (nevertheless one that cares enough to complete a
listening test) and a fairly small sample size.

http://www.rjamorim.com/test/mp3-128/results.html

As a side note, I always liked WinAmp 2.92 with the MAD mp3 decoder
plugin under Windows, and tried to get 192 Kbps mp3's or better.

http://www.mars.org/home/rob/proj/mpeg/mad-plugin/

There are better formats than mp3 for encoding if you can be bothered,
notably Ogg Vorbis:

http://www.rjamorim.com/test/multifo...8/results.html

Finally, you might be interested in FLAC if you have diskspace:

http://flac.sourceforge.net/index.html

Chris

Mike Rivers wrote:

So, for those of you who have dealt with "MP3 sucks" can you give me
any advice as to minimum decent encoding rates, or option that I
shoudl be aware of? I've just used fixed rate so far.

www.hydrogenaudio.org , where codec developers anmd others discuss and test
compression formats, recommends this version of LAME:

LAME 3.90.3
(download from:
http://www.rarewares.org/dancer/dancer.php?f=1
)

and recommends using this preset setting for LAME 3.90.3:

--alt-preset standard


This is a variable bit-rate setting, ~190 kbit/s typically 180..22

I've used LAME 3.90.3 + --alt-preset standard and the results using
music have been subjectively indistinguishable from originals.
It's a good trade-off between file size and sound quality.

other good options for LAME a


--alt-preset fast standard (~190 kbit/s, faster but potentially lower quality)

--alt-preset extreme (~250 kbit/s, typical 220 ... 270)

--alt-preset fast extreme (~250 kbit/s, faster but potentially lower quality)

--alt-preset insane (320 kbit/s CBR, highest possible quality)

In article writes:

I agree with Carey on this. Fraunhofer has the encoding best algorithms at
this time in my opinion.

I put my card in for a drawing of a free Fraunhofer encoder at AES but
I didn't win. This project is well worth the $11.95 for Total
Recorder, but any further money I put into it will be to fix the
PCM-501 adapter.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Pooh Bear wrote:

Mike Rivers wrote:

Does the decoder need to be smart enough to play a variable bit rate
encoded file?

Yes but haven't found one in years that didn't.


Our DVD player doesn't play variable bit rate files and some cheaper mp3
CD players don't so I stick with 160 or 192kb/s CBR files.

Cheers.

James.

"Bob Smith" wrote in message
...
"Carey Carlan" wrote in message
. 191...

I've used Lame before and I think it's good, but I believe (with no real
side by side comparisons) that Fraunhofer is better.

I agree with Carey on this. Fraunhofer has the encoding best algorithms at
this time in my opinion.

And it came free with CoolEdit 2000. I'm embarrassed to report that the new
box of Audition is still sitting on the bench waiting to be loaded.

Peace,
Paul

"Paul Stamler" wrote in
:

And it came free with CoolEdit 2000. I'm embarrassed to report that
the new box of Audition is still sitting on the bench waiting to be
loaded.

It's in Audition as well, all versions to 1.5

Carey Carlan wrote:

"Paul Stamler" wrote in
:

And it came free with CoolEdit 2000. I'm embarrassed to report that
the new box of Audition is still sitting on the bench waiting to be
loaded.

It's in Audition as well, all versions to 1.5

I had this nagging feeling that you were only allowed to save a certain
number of files before you were asked to pay extra for the mp3 encoding
but I can't find anything about this in the Audition documentation or
help files. Maybe it was a limitation of the older Cool Edit Pro or
maybe I'm thinking of some entirely different software. Despite having
the Fraunhofer encoder in Audition I still tend to use Lame.

Cheers.

James.

Pooh Bear wrote:

Incidentally - heard many claims about the relative accuracy of *encoders*
but are all *decoders* created equal ?

The MPEG standard defines the interpretation of the stored data. So it
defines what a compliant decoder must do. Once in the analog domain
there may be differences and of course there are non compliant (buggy)
decoders to...

The MPEG standard says nothing at all about how to create the digital
data or the quality of the said data (how (or even if) that data
corresponds to an original analogue signal). Only how to interpret the
bit patterns.

So encoding is a black art and something encodermanufacturers try to
keep to them self. Encoders differ greatly in quality. Decoders are all
equal, at least for interepretation of MPEG data and assuming that they
comply to the standard.

The idea is that there will be many decoders so they must be well
defined and cheap end easy to create. There will be (comparativelly) few
encoders so they can be a tricky and expensive to do. Remember that MPEG
is primarilly a video format (Moving PICTURES Expert Group...) This is
digital TV first and foremost. Even if they usually use MPEG 1 layer 2
rather then MPEG 1 layer 3 (aka MP3)

Lars


--
lars farm // http://www.farm.se
lars is also a mail-account on the server farm.se

James Perrett wrote in
:

I had this nagging feeling that you were only allowed to save a certain
number of files before you were asked to pay extra for the mp3 encoding
but I can't find anything about this in the Audition documentation or
help files. Maybe it was a limitation of the older Cool Edit Pro or
maybe I'm thinking of some entirely different software. Despite having
the Fraunhofer encoder in Audition I still tend to use Lame.

It was an extra cost option in CEP 1.x. I guess they rolled the royalties
into the price of Audition.

"Carey Carlan" wrote in message
91
James Perrett wrote in
:

I had this nagging feeling that you were only allowed to save a
certain number of files before you were asked to pay extra for the
mp3 encoding but I can't find anything about this in the Audition
documentation or help files. Maybe it was a limitation of the older
Cool Edit Pro or maybe I'm thinking of some entirely different
software. Despite having the Fraunhofer encoder in Audition I still
tend to use Lame.

It was an extra cost option in CEP 1.x. I guess they rolled the
royalties into the price of Audition.

My recollection is that the MP3 encoder was rolled into the product in CEP
2.x, prior to the Adobe acquisition.