Conversion quality

jq · Joined: 02 Dec 2007 Posts: 1124

Okay, so here I am, converting some of my music onto mp3. Lo and behold I have two options, and I do not know which one is better.

Which of these is better sound quality? These are my two best options:

192 kbs 48Khz

320 kbs 44Khz

since I don't know what khz are, it is hard for me to know what is better to sacrifice, the kbs, or the khz.......please help a confused person out!

Kizzume · Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 12:29 pm Post subject:

On both numbers, the higher the number, the better quality the sound. However, CD's are at 44khz with NO compression, so there's not even the kbs to worry about with the original since it isn't compressed. There's no point in converting 44khz to 48khz--there will be no improvement in the sound. The higher the kbs, the better the quality.

320 kbs 44khz is FAR superior to 192 kbs 48khz.

The 320 kbs mp3 you will not be able to tell the difference from the original unless you have some really expensive equipment.

The 192 kbs one you will definitely be able to hear the compression if you listen. Most "good" quality streaming radio stations are 128 kbs. Poor quality streaming radio stations use 64kbs, which really sounds bad.

jq · Joined: 02 Dec 2007 Posts: 1124

Thanks so much Kizzume. It was really important for me to know this. I am having a real issue with having stuff sound as good AFTER the conversion from pro tools. What I mean is, it sounds different on pro tools than it does when it isn't on pro tools. At the same time, I want to be able to move it to mp3 so that I can file share, and at 192 anyway, it just doesn't sound good-- not NEARLY as it sounds while in pro tools.....

Kizzume · Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 12:30 pm Post subject:

I made an edit to my message for even further clarification since you typed your response...

jq · Joined: 02 Dec 2007 Posts: 1124

Yeah I am sure it is going to help then to put it at 320 instead of 192. I have been doing it at 192 and it sounds like shit. Its like there is just too much information to be compressed that tightly I guess....

Kizzume · Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 12:40 pm Post subject:

I need to ask--what are your settings in ProTools when you're making your initial recordings? If you ARE recording at a higher rate than 44,100hz (44khz), you may want to research other compression options than 44khz.

If you've recorded at, let's say, 96khz, you would get the best sound if you converted it to 320 kbs 96khz. If you don't know, then you've probably recorded at 44,100hz (44khz) and the advice I gave the first time would be the best.

jq · Joined: 02 Dec 2007 Posts: 1124

I was recording at 48 khz, but for some reason it was sounding worse after conversion, so I brought it back down to 44 khz. Also, I tried recording at 16 bit depth, and found that 24 is WAY better.

jq · Joined: 02 Dec 2007 Posts: 1124

In fact, I feel like I ruined one of my best songs by recording it in 16. Doesn't make sense to me because I think I've heard most cds are in 16 bit depth, but I definitely hear a difference compared to the other tracks I have recorded. Also, what quality does audacity record movie sounds in?

Kizzume · Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 12:41 pm Post subject:

16bit / 24bit are another thing altogether, just to make it even more confusing. I'll explain more in the next post... I just wanted you to know THIS right away...

Kizzume · Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 12:43 pm Post subject:

16bit is the standard that CDs use. 24bit is the standard that DVDs use.

DVDs use 24bit 96khz uncompressed sound, uncompressed meaning that there is no need for a kbs--it isn't compressed, at least not in a way that has any sound loss.

CDs use 16bit 44khz uncompressed sound.

If you're not worried about your music sounding BETTER than a CD, I wouldn't worry about the fact that you used 16bit.

jq · Joined: 02 Dec 2007 Posts: 1124

You're probably right. I think the difference will be heard alone in the fact that I will be making 320 compression rather than 192 on mp3. I'd say that alone will be better. (I am about to try that in the next 15 minutes or so and see if it sounds better.)

jq · Joined: 02 Dec 2007 Posts: 1124

Oh man.....it is so much better sounding now! Thanks for your help Kizzume!

Kizzume · Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 12:44 pm Post subject:

Glad I could help. The compression rate truly makes a huge difference.

jq · Joined: 02 Dec 2007 Posts: 1124

Man. I have some badass songs now. Do you know how I would take them from a cd to put them onto a computer without losing quality..? (What I mean is, I use Nero to cut the songs to the right length, and then burn a cd with it. But I would like to have it back on my computer with the new song lengths, but I don't want to import it through windows media and lose quality. ....)

Kizzume · Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 12:44 pm Post subject:

I use Sound Forge for that. You may be able to find an older version floating around out there.

If you're creating them yourself though--why get them from the cd source? Why not just export them as a wav or aif? It doesn't make any sense to convert them to mp3 first and THEN put them on the CD--in Pro Tools, export/bounce them to a stereo interleaved aif or wav and put THOSE on the cd instead and also put those wherever you want on the computer.

If you have the hard drive space, and you want a pristine version that isn't the one you share with others, why use the mp3 for your own purposes? Sure, make the mp3 to share with others, but for your own use and your own enjoyment, make a wav version--export/bounce wav/aif versions in ProTools.