[Sam Kapasi]

Originally Posted by santosh.s

with 128kbps mp3s, treble is more compromised on quality than bass/midbass/midrange. At lower bitrates, even midrange etc is also significantly affected, but bass is not affected much. So, I would personally prefer a good system with sub even if all my collection was to be mp3s.

I do agree with you Santhosh, a 128Kbps CBR would be predominantly lossy on the highs and mid highs.
Here is where I disagree with you. Imagine, your source is low on highs and mid highs, therefore more dominating on the bass, low mid front. You run it through a system with a subwoofer. The already dominating lows are further amplified and the submissive highs take a step further back?

I think, if he is keen to listen to his Indian 128Kbps CBR recordings, he needs a system with clear emphasis on mid and highs.

Lastly, mithun, you need to have a broad and open humorous mind to come to this section.

The broad is for me, the open mind is for you to appreciate our stupid jokes.
Kasam Paida karne waali ki.

[mobike008]

Originally Posted by Sam Kapasi

Lastly, mithun, you need to have a broad and open humorous mind to come to this section.

The broad is for me, the open mind is for you to appreciate our stupid jokes.
Kasam Paida karne waali ki.

Sam, you never cease to make us all giggle on this forum

@Mithun, even i have a 2K songs error free songs on my ipod (hindi/english mix) and most of them are either 128kbps bit rate or lesser and only thing that you will miss is the loundness or the jingle and jangle (treble) for the rest of the main components of the music ( midrange and especially bass ( my fav of the lot ) remains more or less intact.

Simple solution is to play a few of your songs in a car ( find somebody) having a basic system and then play the same in another car having a more expensive system and i am sure the fog will be clearer. Good Luck !!!

[santosh.s]

Originally Posted by Sam Kapasi

Imagine, your source is low on highs and mid highs, therefore more dominating on the bass, low mid front.

I don't think mp3 makes songs "low on highs and mid highs" or "dominating on the bass", does it? I believe amount of highs is still there but their quality is compromised during compression. Some encoders (like lame for example) are good at the job while some are not.

[nura]

So speakers that are criticised as being a bit too bright may actually make these MP3s sound more accurate?

[Sam Kapasi]

Originally Posted by santosh.s

I don't think mp3 makes songs "low on highs and mid highs" or "dominating on the bass", does it? I believe amount of highs is still there but their quality is compromised during compression. Some encoders (like lame for example) are good at the job while some are not.

Santhosh I believe a 128bit CBR MP3 recording compromises on the higher frequencies. My statement wasn't referring to all MP3's on this good earth. We're discussing a particular souce here.

Of 128Kbps CBR:-
I think you believe this too.

Originally Posted by santosh.s

with 128kbps mp3s, treble is more compromised on quality than bass/midbass/midrange. At lower bitrates, even midrange etc is also significantly affected, but bass is not affected much. So, I would personally prefer a good system with sub

Now the "source in question" by your own reckoning, has compromised highs, possibly compromised mid highs, but decent bass. Overly compressed highs, tend to sound softer than open uncompressed highs. No arguing with that. Ergo if you listen to a 64KBps MP# recording, the first thing you will notice is the lack of clarity (To put it simply)

That automatically will translate to bass domination at higher volumes - this is a simple simple equation. Make everything else a little soft and the bass is loud.

To suggest that the person then add a subwoofer with an amplifier to THIS system, thereby amplifying the only thing that is not compromised, is to practically kill the highs and mids into submission.

We're not discussing LAME here. Or any other high quality MP3 convertor/ripper/encoder or what have you. Mithun has a simple request, he just wants to listen to his 128CBRs.

@nura- Not accurate, I believe an overall brighter setup may tend to be more enjoyable in a case where the source is noticably less bright, if the source has ill-pronounced highs. This ofcourse will also increase the noise and hiss factor, but one can't have everything.

This is strictly MHO ofcourse.

[santosh.s]

Not to further confuse mithun with details, here is my opinion once again in simple words-

1. CD versus 128kbps CBR mp3=> I won't change the quality of system between two just for the format difference. It would rather depend on what you listen to, oldies or new songs as given below.

2. Oldies = recordings lacking in bass, sub won't be utilized much, 6x9 ovals would be enough. Noisy in treble, you may have to reduce treble anyway to avoid hiss. So, highly capable tweeter will also be underutilized. Though, I don't know how to strictly define oldies as such, because one might call Bhappi da's disco songs mostly featuring Mithun da (you?), as oldies, but I think those records are good.

3. Modern songs (probably everything after 80's, definitely after 90's) = Much better recordings, I would go for a good system including a sub.

@Sam sir, no arguments...

[mithun]

Thanks for the overwhelming response (especially hydrashok & Sam) !!!!

For the old songs, I've used GoldWave and cleaned out most of them. I've also normalised the dB level of all the MP3's using MP3Gain

And, I'm a great fan of treble than bass. So what should I do to get crystal clear treble ?

[jkdas]

Originally Posted by mithun

And, I'm a great fan of treble than bass. So what should I do to get crystal clear treble ?

TS20.

but dont you feel tired or irritated after you listen to too much high freq for long duration? Or did you mean you like strings kind of?

[mobike008]

Originally Posted by jkdas

TS20.

but dont you feel tired or irritated after you listen to too much high freq for long duration? Or did you mean you like strings kind of?

Whew, I just discarded my TS20, I couldnt bear its high jingle and jangle

[Sam Kapasi]

Originally Posted by mithun

And, I'm a great fan of treble than bass. So what should I do to get crystal clear treble ?

Just take any GTO7 series and put the switch on +3dB. More treble than you can shake a stick at. And good quality treble, unlike the TS20.

[clipto333]

hi,

sam bhai, could you please explain the difference between Constant bit rate and variable bit rate. if already discussed before, please let me have the linky:-) .

honestly speaking, i have my collection mostly in 128kbps cbr. i've tried to test both mp3 and original cd with a same track but couldn't really make out the difference between them. maybe i wasn't serious enough about the test thing.

cheers
clip

[navin]

Originally Posted by clipto333

sam bhai, could you please explain the difference between Constant bit rate and variable bit rate. if already discussed before, please let me have the linky:-) .

given the smae file size. CBR = variable quality. VBR = constant quality however this usually translates to CBR = smaller files size than VBR for the same quality.

What a friend tells me (I dont use CBR) is that VBR 320 is better than CBR 256 but the files size in 320 VBR is actually a bit smaller than CBR 256. Music used was Miles Davis, Pancini, and Rolling Stones.

more here.
ScratchLIVE.net · General Discussion · CBR vs. VBR continuation thread...

[DerAlte]

Originally Posted by navin

given the smae file size. CBR = variable quality. VBR = constant quality however this usually translates to CBR = smaller files size than VBR for the same quality.

What a friend tells me (I dont use CBR) is that VBR 320 is better than CBR 256 but the files size in 320 VBR is actually a bit smaller than CBR 256. Music used was Miles Davis, Pancini, and Rolling Stones.

more here.
ScratchLIVE.net · General Discussion · CBR vs. VBR continuation thread...

One would expect a CBR to have a larger file size than VBR. Statistically, the bit-rate variation is expected to produce lesser number of bytes - a la 'zip file' - using less number of bytes for silences, at the same time using the higher bit-rate in passages with more content to give better quality. Works that way in Layer 4 (video), so shouldn't that be the logic for Layer 3 (audio)?

[Sam Kapasi]

Originally Posted by clipto333

honestly speaking, i have my collection mostly in 128kbps cbr. i've tried to test both mp3 and original cd with a same track but couldn't really make out the difference between them. maybe i wasn't serious enough about the test thing.

My point isn;t the CBR or VBR. Dude there is a massive difference between an original audio CD and a 128KBps MP3. Massive. You don't need to be an audiophile or engineer to hear that difference. And neither do you need great equipment, you could hear the difference even on Xplod speakers!

Just make sure your Audio CD is not made from reconverting that 128KBps file lol

[reignofchaos]

^^There is a massive difference even between 320kbps mp3 and plain old cd/ripped WAV/FLAC. If the equipment is resolving enough, its very very audible. However the difference between 128kbps whether VBR and CBR and uncompressed/lossless compressed media is audible even on crappy 1000-1500 rupee speakers.