# mp3's



## pete? (Jul 6, 2004)

how do you make mp3's and does anyone have any good software suggestions? i just remembered my hu can play them and im sick of having a bagillion cd's in my car having just 5 or 8 would be awsome. and my cd's are starting to skip from the scratches so i need to copy them anyway, so i might as well do the mp3 thing thanks :cheers:


----------



## Matt93SE (Sep 17, 2003)

I use an old school program called MusicMatch jukebox. I'm sure they have a newer version out as well, but the old one was simple.. plug a CD in, it reads it, looks up the song titles, then starts ripping mp3s to the hard drive. I did my 200 CD collection in about 3 nights.

now, just about any audio program will make them, even Winamp.


----------



## monkey (Nov 24, 2004)

I use audio grabber with the blaze patch, its brilliant, it's quick no hastle and it has no fancy graphics, and when you install it it dosnt load anything in to your registry so when you delete the folder its in its all gone


----------



## pete? (Jul 6, 2004)

about how many cd's can you put on an mp3? and the sq? is it good/bad / dont notice.


----------



## Bumpin (Feb 18, 2003)

Do you mean how many mp3's can you put on a cd? If that *IS* what you meant, that you can put roughly 150 mp3's on a cd given the length and size of each song.

As far as SQ, I think mp3 is the best sounding format of a song you can use to put on cd. I also use audiograbber to take songs off a cd and put them on my hard drive.


----------



## pete? (Jul 6, 2004)

Bumpin said:


> Do you mean how many mp3's can you put on a cd? If that *IS* what you meant, that you can put roughly 150 mp3's on a cd given the length and size of each song.


yup thats what i ment. and thank you



Bumpin said:


> As far as SQ, I think mp3 is the best sounding format of a song you can use to put on cd. I also use audiograbber to take songs off a cd and put them on my hard drive.


very good :thumbup: ill be buying some type of software today. i think ill be ok if i just go to best buy and wing it. think $30 should cover it?


----------



## Punkrocka436 (Jul 8, 2003)

Bumpin said:


> As far as SQ, I think mp3 is the best sounding format of a song you can use to put on cd.


mp3's have shitty sound quality. The files are compressed and you lose a lot of the low end, and a lot of the high end. If you want sound quality, you do NOT want mp3's. Music recorded in a studio and put on CD has a bitrate of close to 700, and the highest MP3's i have seen have been ~320. Thats less than half of the CD quality bitrate.


----------



## captain_shrapnel (Sep 10, 2004)

Punkrocka436 said:


> Bumpin said:
> 
> 
> > As far as SQ, I think mp3 is the best sounding format of a song you can use to put on cd.QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## B11sleeper (Oct 15, 2003)

Itunes works pretty well for ripping/storing/burning. Works on macs + pc's and is free and doesn't infest your computer with additional software.


----------



## Punkrocka436 (Jul 8, 2003)

captain_shrapnel said:


> Negative, just like everything else, you get what you pay for. Mp3's do not have to be shitty as long as the codec being used is good. People like using LAME, but the best codec out there is the Fraunhoeffer. It usually costs around $100 for an honest copy but is worth it. Also, a solid codec running 256 k/bits is IMHO is so close to the original sq of a .wav as to be indistinguishable. I have 14,000 ripped tracks on my computer, none less than 256 bit with the Fraun. Nobody can tell the difference. To boot, there is software that will take a .wav file, analyze it, then encode to whatever format you like. After that, it will extract the compressed file back out to a .wav again and analyze that. Comparing the two reveals a 98% accuracy using Fraun.
> 
> As far as software goes for ripping, I use the freeware program called CDex. Has good features for the technoweenie, along with the ability to use any flavor of codec you choose. Simple, powerful, free.


Break out a RTA and tell me what that reads, I guarantee it wont like the mp3 very much, no matter how well its ripped. A compressed file is a compressed file and no matter how good the quality of the rip, it wont ever be as good as CD quality



> MP3 can be recorded at whatever bit rate is appropriate, and available MP3 tracks vary widely. Some MP3 followers assert that its perceptual coding techniques allow you to compress at an 11:1 ratio with no audible difference, and at 18:1 with differences that most people would never notice. That’s the claim of MusicMatch JukeBox, one of the highest-rated MP3 encoding and playback programs, using compression software developed by Xing. When used to record tracks from audio CDs (called "ripping" by MP3 folk), the two "CD-quality" options are 128Kbps and 160Kbps. Audio CDs use 1.4Mbps; thus, the 128Kbps rate requires roughly 11:1 compression—throwing away more than 90% of the original. (The highest quality offering, 160Kbps, represents a bit less than 9:1 compression.) Their "near-CD quality" option compresses at 18:1. (There’s a lower "FM-quality" rate as well.)


256 kbps is NO WHERE NEAR 1.4 mbps

*edit for source* http://home.att.net/~wcc.techx/MP3.htm


----------



## captain_shrapnel (Sep 10, 2004)

Punkrocka, if you lived closer I would beg you to come over and listen to any track encoded and played back against the original cd on my system. I would easily bet money that you could not tell the difference in an ABX test. Unfortunately, an RTA wouldn't really reveal any minute details in compression format vs. original. If your MP3 is not decoded to the correct dynamic range, the codec is crap. What formats/encoders have you used? What was the output source? Did it have a high quality sound card?


----------



## Punkrocka436 (Jul 8, 2003)

just because you cannot hear a difference, does not mean a difference isnt there. A difference is there. I will agree that using a better codec will yield better quality out of an mp3. The bottom line is, when a file is compressed, it loses parts of the file that CANNOT BE GAINED BACK. An mp3 will never sound as good as a good quality recorded CD. Even if you cannot hear the difference, machines can.

I will also agree that if you cant hear the difference, then by all means use mp3's in your car audio. If it suits you, go for it. Have you taken your car to an SQ competition and used an mp3 disk? The judges would have a blast taking off points


----------



## Jasper (Apr 2, 2004)

mp3's dont come CLOSE to CD quality. the only format thats ever come close is AppleLossless, but thats a barely noticeable audible difference. there are STILL measurable differences in quality. besides....if MP3s were so perfect...then why do recording studios still record on DAT's, and why are there regular CDs? why wouldnt an artist just put all the music they ever wrote on one CD and sell it for like $100.
there IS a noticeable difference. you wouldnt notice it on you average crackerjack components and sony xplode amps...which may explain why you dont hear a difference. pop an MP3 CD into a HIGH end system, im talking Dynaudio, CDT ES series, DLS Iridium series...run on top end eclipse / alpine decks, with class A / AB amps. there IS a difference.

adam will pipe in soon enough and end this discussion. no one seems to believe anyone but him


----------



## captain_shrapnel (Sep 10, 2004)

In the article you took your info from, the guy admits that his mp3's encoded at 128 and 160 sounded "pretty close". I can distinctly hear the difference in a 160 bit encoding, but a QUALITY 256 is incredibly hard to detect. Now let me explain to you that although I do not compete in sq competitions, I have been a sound engineer for the last 13 years. I have worked in the studio, on tours, done church installs and as an in house FOH operator for the Raleigh Symphony. I am not telling you this to impress or belittle you, I tell you so that you understand that I do know what sq is. 

I agree, when you compress audio in a lossy format somethings got to give. But to say it's just shitty... that's just not true. MP3 can be exceeding close to cd quality if properly executed, and the test environment that that article described was awful. That guy had admittedly failing hearing, shitty plastic speakers, and MM Jukebox (ICK!). He was quoting marketing hype from the maker as his input for what cd quality sound should be (definetly not 128 or 160 bit).

Addressing what you said about me not being able to hear the difference, but a machine could. Your right, if myself and everyone else around me cannot tell the difference, but a waveform analyzer detects a slight discrepancy, what do I care? Do I really need some guy with an IASCA badge telling me that my system is good? Nah, if an auditorium full of people think my idea of sq is good enough for the symphony, then I think I did alright.

My point is just that although MP3 is not as good as cd, it can be very, very good. Just out of curiosity, do you prefer the sound of vinyl or cd?


----------



## captain_shrapnel (Sep 10, 2004)

Jasper said:


> mp3's dont come CLOSE to CD quality. the only format thats ever come close is AppleLossless, but thats a barely noticeable audible difference. there are STILL measurable differences in quality. besides....if MP3s were so perfect...then why do recording studios still record on DAT's, and why are there regular CDs? why wouldnt an artist just put all the music they ever wrote on one CD and sell it for like $100.
> there IS a noticeable difference. you wouldnt notice it on you average crackerjack components and sony xplode amps...which may explain why you dont hear a difference. pop an MP3 CD into a HIGH end system, im talking Dynaudio, CDT ES series, DLS Iridium series...run on top end eclipse / alpine decks, with class A / AB amps. there IS a difference.
> 
> adam will pipe in soon enough and end this discussion. no one seems to believe anyone but him


the system I was talking about is this: Behringer 16 channel console, Rane ME30 eq's (x2), dbx subhamonic synthesizer with butterworth 2nd order x-over, Crown PT 1, QSC MX1500, Sonic DJX215 full range (x2), Carvin SW1501 (x2). I am running 500 watts top end, with 1500 watts sub. Whole system is connected with balanced xlr's. Would you call that a cracker jack system?


----------



## Punkrocka436 (Jul 8, 2003)

Its great that you have been a sound engineer for 13 years. Cars and Symphony theatres have completely different sounds. Its much much harder to set a car up for SQ than a big open space. There are more angles, different materials for the sound to bounce off of, more interference between speaker and ear (legs etc), etc etc



Punkrocka436 said:


> I will also agree that if you cant hear the difference, then by all means use mp3's in your car audio. If it suits you, go for it.


As you can see I already said that if you cannot hear the difference, by all means use mp3's.

Another point, most people that use mp3's download them from places that have been recorded very very badly, and these mp3's you CAN tell the difference on a properly set up sound system. I believe the "cracker jack" sound system that jasper was talking about was referring to car audio, because this is a car audio forum. 

Home audio and car audio are much much different. You could spend 1000 dollars for amazing sound quality in a home system, but need to spend close to 3000 dollars to make a car sound system just as good. 

As for the difference not being very big, 1400-256=1144. 1144 is the difference in bitrates. I quote jasper for emphasis of my point



Jasper said:


> besides....if MP3s were so perfect...then why do recording studios still record on DAT's, and why are there regular CDs? why wouldnt an artist just put all the music they ever wrote on one CD and sell it for like $100.
> there IS a noticeable difference.


Please enlighten me


----------



## captain_shrapnel (Sep 10, 2004)

Punkrocka436 said:


> Its great that you have been a sound engineer for 13 years. Cars and Symphony theatres have completely different sounds. Its much much harder to set a car up for SQ than a big open space. There are more angles, different materials for the sound to bounce off of, more interference between speaker and ear (legs etc), etc etc


Sure and a concert hall needs delays accounted for, reverb to overcome, standing waves to deal with, etc... I guess it looks easy to you, but believe it our not, making 10,000 people all hear the same sound is hard. Then making it sound right is a trick. What do you recommend to make sure people in the back have the same spl as the people in the front row? Please enlighten ME.



Punkrocka436 said:


> As you can see I already said that if you cannot hear the difference, by all means use mp3's.


 I think the original poster feels the way I do. Sometimes, it is better to give up a miniscule amount of sound quality for a lot of convenience. This thread wasn't originally about mp3 quality, it was about the best program to use for encoding.



Punkrocka436 said:


> Another point, most people that use mp3's download them from places that have been recorded very very badly, and these mp3's you CAN tell the difference on a properly set up sound system. I believe the "cracker jack" sound system that jasper was talking about was referring to car audio, because this is a car audio forum.


Yes, many people can have bad experiences with downloading bad recordings. That has nothing to do with those of us who do it the right way, with the right tools. 
Car audio or home audio it doesn't matter. I'm explaining that the reference system I use is no piece of shit, as Jasper said my problem was. I use the home system as an example to let you know that I appreciate good sq, and I still think that a decently encoded mp3 approaches cd quality. Even on a system that reveals any flaw.



Punkrocka436 said:


> Home audio and car audio are much much different. You could spend 1000 dollars for amazing sound quality in a home system, but need to spend close to 3000 dollars to make a car sound system just as good.


So what does that have to do with sq? Really, the only thing that matters is that we have something good to base a comparison on. I do. You probably do too, but you have not heard the Fraun codec (I guess, you never answered). I use it daily.



Punkrocka436 said:


> As for the difference not being very big, 1400-256=1144. 1144 is the difference in bitrates. I quote jasper for emphasis of my point


And what is the difference between cd bit rate (1400) and analog bit rate (infinite, if it had bits)? Yet somehow we tolerate this crude reconstruction of music, despite the terrible lack of accuracy of the original. It is a compromise of sound quality for convenience and the ability to make copies that don't degrade each time we clone them. 




Jasper said:


> mp3's dont come CLOSE to CD quality. the only format thats ever come close is AppleLossless, but thats a barely noticeable audible difference. there are STILL measurable differences in quality. besides....if MP3s were so perfect...then why do recording studios still record on DAT's, and why are there regular CDs? why wouldnt an artist just put all the music they ever wrote on one CD and sell it for like $100.


No one is arguing that there is a "measurable difference". In fact, in one of my previous posts, I described the measurable difference, using a tool to do exactly that. Obviously, the studio is using the best means available to them to record albums. And actually, you can buy albums from the artists in mp3 format. 

Hope you guys had a good Thanksgiving.


----------



## Punkrocka436 (Jul 8, 2003)

your just repeating the same stuff man. I have not heard the fraun codec, but a bitrate is a bitrate, and 1400 is a lot more than 256, plain and simple. You even admitted that a machine could tell the difference. Most people just dont have ears trained enough to hear the difference. I bet the codec will sound really close to CD quality, but its not an everyday thing to hear a good mp3

I dont encode my own mp3's, and i dont see a point on encoding them because the reason for me having mp3's is to have music that I did not buy. When people think mp3, they think kazaa, limewire, etc etc. Those mp3's soudn shitty, and that is MY point


----------



## Matt93SE (Sep 17, 2003)

Woohoo! Finally someone else here that understands music from the _other_ end of the mic cables!!

*Disclaimer.... *_Unless you're ready to take that chip off your shoulder and listen to me ramble for a looong time about this; I suggest you just ignore this post.. and move on._

This is coming from the point of view of someone who has recorded, mixed, produced, and reproduced sound. If you've never worked in the industry behind a sound board or as a sound engineer and only played CDs, then you have only experienced *re*production of music. You have NO CLUE what that music sounded like before it was put on the CD, and you have no ability to qualify your comments on true vs. compressed audio.. anything you have heard on CD has already been compressed dramatically since the recording, then sampled and converted to a digital bitstream, then compressed even further before being burned into a CD.... and you're basing "CD quality" as being the best out there.. you're FAR from the truth..

okay.. next rant...


Argueably the best compression method is the Fraunhoeffer (as already mentioned), but it still doesn't come close to the originals.

How can you see compression on an RTA? Man, you can't see SHIT on an RTA!! what you going to do, record some pink noise and compress it into mp3 and play it back? WTF?! 
you can only begin to see these differences when you look at it on something like the Miller Audio Research’s QC suite (http://www.milleraudioresearch.com/index.html )
or other high quality spectrum analyzer.. and RTA is looking at 1dB increments at best and has resolution of 1/3 octave… a true spectrum analyzer looks at ANY difference and ANY frequency, not just the ones that land on multiples of 440Hz.

Anyway, the frequency range is still there. that's why the bitrate is that high. (anything over about 80kB/sec will still get the audio bandwidth past 20kHz). The problem with mp3 is the compression techniques used take out all the "inaudible" stuff that make the music truely sound alive. ever listened to the original then an mp3 copy and thought something was "missing" or the sound is "hollow" ? that's not the EQ settings or something an RTA can pick up. that's the very subtle differences down in the dirt when you look at the waveforms that are actually produced.... it's the tiny dits and dots on the scope screen that are peeled off because they aren't considered loud enough on the track to need the memory space. so they strip the very low level resolution off and can save a huge amount of space when you look at it from a data point of view.

think about taking a picture of something with a 2.1 Mpixel camera.. you dump that 2048x1536 image onto your hard drive and convert it to a shitty jpeg in 640x480.. oh, and while you’re at it, strip it down to black and white to minimize the data taken up by all the color. Then you open that file again and blow it back up to 2048x1536 and add back the color… note how shitty the image looks now? EXACT SAME THING!!!

this is where the different audio codecs come into play. some types chop out more data than others.. note the difference in quality between a .tiff .jpg and .gif file (just to name a few)… that’s similar to the difference in encoding techniques. every one takes the same original data and compresses it slightly differently and has different advantages over another. some preserve clarity, some preserve bandwidth, some compress the dynamic range. some sacrifice just a bit of all.. etc etc etc.

Is the picture beginning to show now?



> Home audio and car audio are much much different. You could spend 1000 dollars for amazing sound quality in a home system, but need to spend close to 3000 dollars to make a car sound system just as good.


There is NO WAY you can get “amazing sound quality” in a home system for $1000!! A good set of speakers will run you that much. a good amp will run you that much. a good preamp will run you that much. a good CD or DVD player will run you $500 minimum. your typical $29 wal-mart DVD player doesn’t crap out anywhere near the same audio quality as my Sony SACD player.. Hell, each one of the six DACs in my Sony cost more than $29 each!

In the home, you have just as much to worry about, if not more than you would in a car.. and you’re in a much quieter and better environment to hear those imperfections. you think a rattling trunk is annoying? try the chandelier directly over your head, or pictures buzzing on the wall while you’re listening to your fav CD.. the reflections and reverberation off walls and ceilings is MUCH MUCH worse in the home than it is in the car. all kinds of proper room treatments are required before it sounds right.. In the car, everything is so close to your ears that you’re listening in near-field conditions 90% of the time. I could go on but I’ve beleaguered the point enough already, and it’s not the true point of the subject.

MP3 will NEVER sound as good as the original CD. CD will NEVER sound as good as the original live session that it was recorded from. it’s close, but still not there.
the average person may not be able to tell the difference between a good mp3 and a mediocre CD recording, but those of us that have been in the music industry for years and KNOW what it’s supposed to sound like can definitely hear it.
can you hear the difference when you’ve got the windows down and you’re cruising the highway at 80mph and the volume knob cranked up? No.
can you when you’re sitting in a quiet environment with little/no background noise? yeah. which is where people like me spend MOST of our listening time. I can easily hear a difference between even a GREAT mp3 and the original CD it came from… but again, I know what to look for and have a very vivid picture of what the original track sounded like before it was ripped to mp3.

If they sound the same to you, then I suggest you don't take a career in audio.. Maybe you'd be better suited for SPL competitions Best Buy installs. I'll be calling about my third interview (and hopefully a job offer!) with Ford Audio/Video on Monday.


----------



## Punkrocka436 (Jul 8, 2003)

Matt93SE said:


> MP3 will NEVER sound as good as the original CD


That is the point i have been trying to prove all along. 



Matt93SE said:


> There is NO WAY you can get “amazing sound quality” in a home system for $1000!!


That is just a comparison, i was trying to point out that you need to spend almost 3x more in a car than in a home

I dunno if your rant is directed at me, but you are proving many of the points that I was trying to prove. I may have jumped the gun a little bit with saying RTA, but spectrum analyzer is what i was talking about.


----------



## captain_shrapnel (Sep 10, 2004)

Punkrocka436 said:


> I dont encode my own mp3's, and i dont see a point on encoding them because the reason for me having mp3's is to have music that I did not buy. When people think mp3, they think kazaa, limewire, etc etc. Those mp3's soudn shitty, and that is MY point


The reason I use them is because I had 150 rare cds stolen out of my car (along with it's previous system). I'm sure you can relate, combing through 2nd hand stores and indie shops to find out of print or bootleg recordings. That stuff is impossible to replace. So now all my shit is safe in my house. I ripped every single thing I have to mp3 on my hard drive and either burn copies for the road, or load em to my hard drive in my car. Either way, the originals are still safe in my house. Compromise in sq, surely. But MUCH peace of mind. Not to mention no more cd cases sliding around when I carve that on ramp.


----------



## Punkrocka436 (Jul 8, 2003)

captain_shrapnel said:


> The reason I use them is because I had 150 rare cds stolen out of my car (along with it's previous system). I'm sure you can relate, combing through 2nd hand stores and indie shops to find out of print or bootleg recordings. That stuff is impossible to replace. So now all my shit is safe in my house. I ripped every single thing I have to mp3 on my hard drive and either burn copies for the road, or load em to my hard drive in my car. Either way, the originals are still safe in my house. Compromise in sq, surely. But MUCH peace of mind. Not to mention no more cd cases sliding around when I carve that on ramp.


Then more power to you man. I am sorry that your shit got stolen, it hasnt happened to me, but a couple of people had their stuff stolen right in my high school parking lot.


----------



## Matt93SE (Sep 17, 2003)

Punkrocka436 said:


> That is the point i have been trying to prove all along.
> ....................
> That is just a comparison, i was trying to point out that you need to spend almost 3x more in a car than in a home
> 
> I dunno if your rant is directed at me, but you are proving many of the points that I was trying to prove. I may have jumped the gun a little bit with saying RTA, but spectrum analyzer is what i was talking about.



Actually, you were arguing the whole time with the ONE person that makes sense in this thread. I was siding with him.


----------



## Showtime316 (Oct 21, 2004)

*MP3*

I totally agree with you there that it is really nice to have only 5 CD's in the car instead of 100. My CD case rides shot gun with me most of the time and it is a hassle to flip through them just to find a CD I like. I bought myself a MP3 head unit and I would suggest it to everyone to get one. Your head unit box should tell you if it is MP3 compatable or not. I get really good sound quality out of my MP3 player. On the software to rip it into MP3 I would suggest Nero. You can get it for www.download.com Really easy to use and burns it pretty quick. You can fit about 150 to 300 songs on one CD.

Steve :cheers:


----------



## pete? (Jul 6, 2004)

this thread has really gotten good :thumbup: thanks for all the info guys. and keep the techno bable comin.......... i dont really know what it means, but non the less its interesting to read


----------



## Punkrocka436 (Jul 8, 2003)

Matt93SE said:


> Actually, you were arguing the whole time with the ONE person that makes sense in this thread. I was siding with him.


You were siding with him, but yet you proved my point? Interesting


----------



## pete? (Jul 6, 2004)

Punkrocka436 said:


> You were siding with him, but yet you proved my point? Interesting


meow :fluffy: now now play nice


----------



## captain_shrapnel (Sep 10, 2004)

The problem with the argument we had was our individual interprtatation of what "good sq" is. I was arguing from the pragmatic view, yes there is a difference in sound but it is acceptable to me in a car environment (my reference in the home set up) where theft is common and changing cds can be a distraction. The sound to me, is therefore "good".
You were arguing from the more puritanical side where any revealed flaw in the music is a bad thing. Nothing wrong with that whatsoever, we just have different standards for quality. Some people are trying to build the highest quality setup in their car as possible, I just don't happen to be one of them. Maybe I should have clarified that right away.


----------



## Yellowsentragirl (Dec 30, 2003)

windows media player takes MP3's off CDs...and they'll have about the same quality

Winamp does it too


----------

