Topics

Seeking a Rough Quality Comparison

Darran Ross
 

Hi List.

Can anyone in the know provide me with a rough idea of what the equivalent kbs would be for a m4a file when compared to a 160 mp3 version?

I probably haven't explained that very well.

If I have a file saved at 96kbs m4a, what would a rough approximation to this be for an mp3 file? Would it be 128kbs or 160 kbs for example?

I've tried finding some kind of guide on the web, but haven't been able to turn up anything that I can readily see as a comparison.

Thanks to anyone with any knowledge who can help me out with this one!

Darran

Colin Howard
 

Greetings,

I would say you and I and most of us are armed with an ideal means to
compare quality, they normally reside as pieces of strangely shaped
cartilage on the sides of our heads and direct the sound waves into the
grey-white mush held in the bony case.

Nout so good as one's own ears!

Figures and stats cannot ever replace what the Lord has given us!

On Thu, 9 Jan 2020 17:44:11 -0000, "Darran Ross via Groups.Io"
<darran.ross=talktalk.net@groups.io> wrote:

-Hi List.
-
-Can anyone in the know provide me with a rough idea of what the equivalent
kbs would be for a m4a file when compared to a 160 mp3 version?
-
-I probably haven't explained that very well.
-
-If I have a file saved at 96kbs m4a, what would a rough approximation to
this be for an mp3 file? Would it be 128kbs or 160 kbs for example?
-
-I've tried finding some kind of guide on the web, but haven't been able to
turn up anything that I can readily see as a comparison.
-
-Thanks to anyone with any knowledge who can help me out with this one!
-
-Darran
-
-
-
-
-

JM Casey
 

Hey.

I think your best bet might be to use a *slightly* higher bitrate than the
original. This will in theory mean that you will lose less quality when
transcoding from lossy to lossy format. This is up for some debate, I
believe. You could also use the same bitrate (160 in this case) and see if
you notice a difference. But as space probably isnt' a huge consideration at
this point -- my choice would probably be to use 192. I don't think there
would be much point in going higher as you won't be able to improve on
what's already in the .m4a.

-----Original Message-----
From: all-audio@groups.io <all-audio@groups.io> On Behalf Of Darran Ross via
Groups.Io
Sent: January 9, 2020 12:44 PM
To: all-audio@groups.io
Subject: [all-audio] Seeking a Rough Quality Comparison

Hi List.

Can anyone in the know provide me with a rough idea of what the equivalent
kbs would be for a m4a file when compared to a 160 mp3 version?

I probably haven't explained that very well.

If I have a file saved at 96kbs m4a, what would a rough approximation to
this be for an mp3 file? Would it be 128kbs or 160 kbs for example?

I've tried finding some kind of guide on the web, but haven't been able to
turn up anything that I can readily see as a comparison.

Thanks to anyone with any knowledge who can help me out with this one!

Darran

Smiling?
 

This question is very subjective. This particular question is actually
entirely dependent upon you, the one who is actually going to be the one
doing the listening because as you already know, how it sounds to one is not
going to necessarily sound the same to the next. Sound, taste, feel, smell,
etc etc etc.

We all have separate senses which I know you are well aware of. What can be
a perfect amount to one, may be a little too much for the next or maybe a
little too little so on and so forth. So it's up to you the actual listener
to determine these specifics because you are never going to hear anything in
this world through anybody else's ears. No different than you are not ever
going to eat anything with anybody else's mouth and as you know, we can go
on and on and on with the various examples, but it is literally up to each
of us to determine this, that, and the other for our various likes and
dislikes.

-----Original Message-----
From: all-audio@groups.io [mailto:all-audio@groups.io] On Behalf Of Darran
Ross via Groups.Io
Sent: Thursday, January 9, 2020 9:44 AM
To: all-audio@groups.io
Subject: [all-audio] Seeking a Rough Quality Comparison

Hi List.

Can anyone in the know provide me with a rough idea of what the equivalent
kbs would be for a m4a file when compared to a 160 mp3 version?

I probably haven't explained that very well.

If I have a file saved at 96kbs m4a, what would a rough approximation to
this be for an mp3 file? Would it be 128kbs or 160 kbs for example?

I've tried finding some kind of guide on the web, but haven't been able to
turn up anything that I can readily see as a comparison.

Thanks to anyone with any knowledge who can help me out with this one!

Darran

Steve Jacobson
 

While what you say makes sense, I'm not sure that is really what is being asked but I could be wrong. We know that a 128KBPS MP3 is said to be approximately CD quality, so 160KBPS would presumably be a little better. We might disagree whether that is truly better than a CD, but I think we would all agree that 160KBPS is better sounding that 32 or 64KBPS stereo. So where does 160KBPS MP3 settings fit into M4A settings to get approximately the same quality? There may not be an answer we could absolutely agree on, but one would think there would be some approximate corresponding setting.

Best regards,

Steve

-----Original Message-----
From: all-audio@groups.io <all-audio@groups.io> On Behalf Of Smiling?
Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2020 8:27 AM
To: all-audio@groups.io
Subject: Re: [all-audio] Seeking a Rough Quality Comparison

This question is very subjective. This particular question is actually
entirely dependent upon you, the one who is actually going to be the one
doing the listening because as you already know, how it sounds to one is not
going to necessarily sound the same to the next. Sound, taste, feel, smell,
etc etc etc.

We all have separate senses which I know you are well aware of. What can be
a perfect amount to one, may be a little too much for the next or maybe a
little too little so on and so forth. So it's up to you the actual listener
to determine these specifics because you are never going to hear anything in
this world through anybody else's ears. No different than you are not ever
going to eat anything with anybody else's mouth and as you know, we can go
on and on and on with the various examples, but it is literally up to each
of us to determine this, that, and the other for our various likes and
dislikes.

-----Original Message-----
From: all-audio@groups.io [mailto:all-audio@groups.io] On Behalf Of Darran
Ross via Groups.Io
Sent: Thursday, January 9, 2020 9:44 AM
To: all-audio@groups.io
Subject: [all-audio] Seeking a Rough Quality Comparison

Hi List.

Can anyone in the know provide me with a rough idea of what the equivalent
kbs would be for a m4a file when compared to a 160 mp3 version?

I probably haven't explained that very well.

If I have a file saved at 96kbs m4a, what would a rough approximation to
this be for an mp3 file? Would it be 128kbs or 160 kbs for example?

I've tried finding some kind of guide on the web, but haven't been able to
turn up anything that I can readily see as a comparison.

Thanks to anyone with any knowledge who can help me out with this one!

Darran

Darran Ross
 

Thanks to those offering thoughts, but its Steve who's hit the point of my original query square on!

I was indeed wondering what a 96kbs m4a file would roughly translate too as an mp3.

Darran

----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Jacobson" <steve.jacobson@...>
To: <all-audio@groups.io>
Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2020 3:14 PM
Subject: Re: [all-audio] Seeking a Rough Quality Comparison


While what you say makes sense, I'm not sure that is really what is being asked but I could be wrong. We know that a 128KBPS MP3 is said to be approximately CD quality, so 160KBPS would presumably be a little better. We might disagree whether that is truly better than a CD, but I think we would all agree that 160KBPS is better sounding that 32 or 64KBPS stereo. So where does 160KBPS MP3 settings fit into M4A settings to get approximately the same quality? There may not be an answer we could absolutely agree on, but one would think there would be some approximate corresponding setting.

Best regards,

Steve

-----Original Message-----
From: all-audio@groups.io <all-audio@groups.io> On Behalf Of Smiling?
Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2020 8:27 AM
To: all-audio@groups.io
Subject: Re: [all-audio] Seeking a Rough Quality Comparison

This question is very subjective. This particular question is actually
entirely dependent upon you, the one who is actually going to be the one
doing the listening because as you already know, how it sounds to one is not
going to necessarily sound the same to the next. Sound, taste, feel, smell,
etc etc etc.

We all have separate senses which I know you are well aware of. What can be
a perfect amount to one, may be a little too much for the next or maybe a
little too little so on and so forth. So it's up to you the actual listener
to determine these specifics because you are never going to hear anything in
this world through anybody else's ears. No different than you are not ever
going to eat anything with anybody else's mouth and as you know, we can go
on and on and on with the various examples, but it is literally up to each
of us to determine this, that, and the other for our various likes and
dislikes.

-----Original Message-----
From: all-audio@groups.io [mailto:all-audio@groups.io] On Behalf Of Darran
Ross via Groups.Io
Sent: Thursday, January 9, 2020 9:44 AM
To: all-audio@groups.io
Subject: [all-audio] Seeking a Rough Quality Comparison

Hi List.

Can anyone in the know provide me with a rough idea of what the equivalent
kbs would be for a m4a file when compared to a 160 mp3 version?

I probably haven't explained that very well.

If I have a file saved at 96kbs m4a, what would a rough approximation to
this be for an mp3 file? Would it be 128kbs or 160 kbs for example?

I've tried finding some kind of guide on the web, but haven't been able to
turn up anything that I can readily see as a comparison.

Thanks to anyone with any knowledge who can help me out with this one!

Darran













__________ ESET Internet Security __________

This email was scanned, no threats were found.



Detection engine version: 20655 (20200111)

https://www.eset.com

Smiling?
 

Saying that 44.1KHz at 128kbps is CD quality is extensively inaccurate, but
I too hear this from many who think it actually has validity. 44.1KHz at
128kbps is just the default settings to a lot of rippers, nothing more and
nothing less.

What .CDA quality actually is is very similar to 100% uncompressed wave
files which are created at 16bit 44.1KHz. what you the user selectively
chooses to rip these tracks at is the actual question.

What truly seemed to be being asked in that question (at least with my
limited perspective anyway), is how certain bitrates of .M4A files how
they'd compare to .MP3 files and which bitrate would be recommended which
again, is always a matter of perspective. Which is why I explained it the
way that I did, because always, it's a matter of perspective as is
everything and best for the individual with the actual ears to hear to
determine.

-----Original Message-----
From: all-audio@groups.io [mailto:all-audio@groups.io] On Behalf Of Steve
Jacobson
Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2020 7:14 AM
To: all-audio@groups.io
Subject: Re: [all-audio] Seeking a Rough Quality Comparison

While what you say makes sense, I'm not sure that is really what is being
asked but I could be wrong. We know that a 128KBPS MP3 is said to be
approximately CD quality, so 160KBPS would presumably be a little better.
We might disagree whether that is truly better than a CD, but I think we
would all agree that 160KBPS is better sounding that 32 or 64KBPS stereo.
So where does 160KBPS MP3 settings fit into M4A settings to get
approximately the same quality? There may not be an answer we could
absolutely agree on, but one would think there would be some approximate
corresponding setting.

Best regards,

Steve

-----Original Message-----
From: all-audio@groups.io <all-audio@groups.io> On Behalf Of Smiling?
Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2020 8:27 AM
To: all-audio@groups.io
Subject: Re: [all-audio] Seeking a Rough Quality Comparison

This question is very subjective. This particular question is actually
entirely dependent upon you, the one who is actually going to be the one
doing the listening because as you already know, how it sounds to one is not
going to necessarily sound the same to the next. Sound, taste, feel, smell,
etc etc etc.

We all have separate senses which I know you are well aware of. What can be
a perfect amount to one, may be a little too much for the next or maybe a
little too little so on and so forth. So it's up to you the actual listener
to determine these specifics because you are never going to hear anything in
this world through anybody else's ears. No different than you are not ever
going to eat anything with anybody else's mouth and as you know, we can go
on and on and on with the various examples, but it is literally up to each
of us to determine this, that, and the other for our various likes and
dislikes.

-----Original Message-----
From: all-audio@groups.io [mailto:all-audio@groups.io] On Behalf Of Darran
Ross via Groups.Io
Sent: Thursday, January 9, 2020 9:44 AM
To: all-audio@groups.io
Subject: [all-audio] Seeking a Rough Quality Comparison

Hi List.

Can anyone in the know provide me with a rough idea of what the equivalent
kbs would be for a m4a file when compared to a 160 mp3 version?

I probably haven't explained that very well.

If I have a file saved at 96kbs m4a, what would a rough approximation to
this be for an mp3 file? Would it be 128kbs or 160 kbs for example?

I've tried finding some kind of guide on the web, but haven't been able to
turn up anything that I can readily see as a comparison.

Thanks to anyone with any knowledge who can help me out with this one!

Darran

JM Casey
 

I believe that my answer is the most objective one .. not to sound pompous,
but while I hardly use .m4a files and don't know a lot about them
specifically, I have done research on stuff like this and I believe using a
slightly higher bitrate than the original will get you best possible results
(not an improvement though mind you, you'll never get that).
128kBPS is not at all CD quality by the way, as has already been said. It's
actually quite a poor transfer. 256k is *close* to CD quality; 320 would be
best if you really want things to sound as close to original as possible. I
sometimes wonder though if at that point you may as well just use lossless.

-----Original Message-----
From: all-audio@groups.io <all-audio@groups.io> On Behalf Of Steve Jacobson
Sent: January 11, 2020 10:14 AM
To: all-audio@groups.io
Subject: Re: [all-audio] Seeking a Rough Quality Comparison

While what you say makes sense, I'm not sure that is really what is being
asked but I could be wrong. We know that a 128KBPS MP3 is said to be
approximately CD quality, so 160KBPS would presumably be a little better.
We might disagree whether that is truly better than a CD, but I think we
would all agree that 160KBPS is better sounding that 32 or 64KBPS stereo.
So where does 160KBPS MP3 settings fit into M4A settings to get
approximately the same quality? There may not be an answer we could
absolutely agree on, but one would think there would be some approximate
corresponding setting.

Best regards,

Steve

-----Original Message-----
From: all-audio@groups.io <all-audio@groups.io> On Behalf Of Smiling?
Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2020 8:27 AM
To: all-audio@groups.io
Subject: Re: [all-audio] Seeking a Rough Quality Comparison

This question is very subjective. This particular question is actually
entirely dependent upon you, the one who is actually going to be the one
doing the listening because as you already know, how it sounds to one is not
going to necessarily sound the same to the next. Sound, taste, feel, smell,
etc etc etc.

We all have separate senses which I know you are well aware of. What can be
a perfect amount to one, may be a little too much for the next or maybe a
little too little so on and so forth. So it's up to you the actual listener
to determine these specifics because you are never going to hear anything in
this world through anybody else's ears. No different than you are not ever
going to eat anything with anybody else's mouth and as you know, we can go
on and on and on with the various examples, but it is literally up to each
of us to determine this, that, and the other for our various likes and
dislikes.

-----Original Message-----
From: all-audio@groups.io [mailto:all-audio@groups.io] On Behalf Of Darran
Ross via Groups.Io
Sent: Thursday, January 9, 2020 9:44 AM
To: all-audio@groups.io
Subject: [all-audio] Seeking a Rough Quality Comparison

Hi List.

Can anyone in the know provide me with a rough idea of what the equivalent
kbs would be for a m4a file when compared to a 160 mp3 version?

I probably haven't explained that very well.

If I have a file saved at 96kbs m4a, what would a rough approximation to
this be for an mp3 file? Would it be 128kbs or 160 kbs for example?

I've tried finding some kind of guide on the web, but haven't been able to
turn up anything that I can readily see as a comparison.

Thanks to anyone with any knowledge who can help me out with this one!

Darran