Date
1 - 8 of 8
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,
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
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@...> 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.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
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
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
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.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
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!
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
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
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
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,
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
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 |
|
|