Re: [MP3 ENCODER] Continuation of crippling wavs
| OdesÃlatel: Shawn Riley [EMAIL PROTECTED] | The album will be a mix of ballads rock songs. How do you guys suggest we do it? | | Note that we'd like there to have no percievable difference between the original effected sound in the studio. | I decided that the MP3 encoding should be bad for the following combinations- | 128kBit/sec - JStereo - 44.1kHz | 112kBit/sec - JStereo - 44.1kHz | 56kBit/sec - JStereo - 22.05kHz | I'd like to limit the subectivity of the word, "bad", to mean that it sounds particularly nasty unfaithful to people who are normally satisfied with sound quality at those described bitrates. | But I'd like it to still sound perceivably lossless for 320kBit/sec - Stereo, 'cause *I* would like to be able to make an MP3 of our stuff w/o having artifacts popping out everywhere. But that doesn't really matter quite so much 'cause I could always get a copy of the CD, mastered without the mangling. | | Shawn See archive of this maillist, few months ago I put here (GPL) method about psychoacoustics changes to sounds before ecoding and minimum bitrates (I reccomend 64kbit IS for 22kHz/full response, 64k JS for 10kHz or 56kbit ror reduced frequency response to 9-10k). REgars Jaroslav Lukesh -- -- MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
[MP3 ENCODER] Continuation of crippling wavs
If you remember my question a while ago about crippling wavs so they sound bad at all but the highest bitrates, this is a follow-up. My band is recording its album in the near future. I know MP3 has its limitations, I thought it would be useful for the band from a business perspective if we messed with the original recorded tracks to make so-called "CD-quality" MP3ing difficult. The recorded tracks will probably consist of the following (maybe less, but no more)- 2 tracks for the kick drum (front back) 2 tracks for the snare (top bottom) 4 tracks for the toms (4 toms- one track for each) 1 track for the hi-hat 2 overhead mics (for the cymbals room resonance) 4 tracks for the guitar (2x stereo) 1 or 2 tracks for the bass guitar (1x mono or stereo) up to 4 tracks for vocals (1x stereo lead, up to 2 backups) up to 4 tracks for keyboards (2x stereo) up to 4 tracks for solo instruments (more if we get carried away hire a 96-piece orchestra :-) The album will be a mix of ballads rock songs. How do you guys suggest we do it? Note that we'd like there to have no percievable difference between the original effected sound in the studio. I decided that the MP3 encoding should be bad for the following combinations- 128kBit/sec - JStereo - 44.1kHz 112kBit/sec - JStereo - 44.1kHz 56kBit/sec - JStereo - 22.05kHz I'd like to limit the subectivity of the word, "bad", to mean that it sounds particularly nasty unfaithful to people who are normally satisfied with sound quality at those described bitrates. But I'd like it to still sound perceivably lossless for 320kBit/sec - Stereo, 'cause *I* would like to be able to make an MP3 of our stuff w/o having artifacts popping out everywhere. But that doesn't really matter quite so much 'cause I could always get a copy of the CD, mastered without the mangling. Shawn -- MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
Re: [MP3 ENCODER] Continuation of crippling wavs
I think your wasting your time Shawn. There have been problems in the past with LAME and other encoders which may have been expoited to make bad sounding MP3's, but as each distortion is isolated, it has also generally been worked on to overcome the distortion. So I suspect your album would become the test case to get LAME working even better. Cheers, Ross. Shawn Riley wrote: If you remember my question a while ago about crippling wavs so they sound bad at all but the highest bitrates, this is a follow-up. My band is recording its album in the near future. I know MP3 has its limitations, I thought it would be useful for the band from a business perspective if we messed with the original recorded tracks to make so-called "CD-quality" MP3ing difficult. The recorded tracks will probably consist of the following (maybe less, but no more)- 2 tracks for the kick drum (front back) 2 tracks for the snare (top bottom) 4 tracks for the toms (4 toms- one track for each) 1 track for the hi-hat 2 overhead mics (for the cymbals room resonance) 4 tracks for the guitar (2x stereo) 1 or 2 tracks for the bass guitar (1x mono or stereo) up to 4 tracks for vocals (1x stereo lead, up to 2 backups) up to 4 tracks for keyboards (2x stereo) up to 4 tracks for solo instruments (more if we get carried away hire a 96-piece orchestra :-) The album will be a mix of ballads rock songs. How do you guys suggest we do it? Note that we'd like there to have no percievable difference between the original effected sound in the studio. I decided that the MP3 encoding should be bad for the following combinations- 128kBit/sec - JStereo - 44.1kHz 112kBit/sec - JStereo - 44.1kHz 56kBit/sec - JStereo - 22.05kHz I'd like to limit the subectivity of the word, "bad", to mean that it sounds particularly nasty unfaithful to people who are normally satisfied with sound quality at those described bitrates. But I'd like it to still sound perceivably lossless for 320kBit/sec - Stereo, 'cause *I* would like to be able to make an MP3 of our stuff w/o having artifacts popping out everywhere. But that doesn't really matter quite so much 'cause I could always get a copy of the CD, mastered without the mangling. Shawn -- MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ ) -- MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
