How to burn MP3s the right way?
Thread Starter
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 903
Likes: 0
From: Arlington, Texas, United States
How to burn MP3s the right way?
I read that using mp3s will not sound as good as a regular cd. So, my question is how do you burn the mp3s to make the best out of them and is it the lower the kps the better? Just give any tips on burning mp3s that will make it sound as good as a cd 
. I also used nero to burn my cds. 
Thanks,
Jason
. I also used nero to burn my cds. Thanks,
Jason
Junior Member
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Re: How to burn MP3s the right way? (XViEtBoiX)
I'm surprised people ask such questions these days. To me it is the same as something like: how do you use internet? 
Anyways, the sound is just fine, try to listen to it, you'll like it. Burn it just like anything else or if you're making an audio cd, then create an audio cd in nero. You don't really have to do anything there. It is how you rip them from cds..that is how you convert from cd to mp3. If you have lots of time, you can go and try every ripper out there availabe and then come back and tell us which one works better
The higher the kpbs - the better, but that doesn't mean your human ears will hear any difference between a 128 and 320 kbps.
Anyways, the sound is just fine, try to listen to it, you'll like it. Burn it just like anything else or if you're making an audio cd, then create an audio cd in nero. You don't really have to do anything there. It is how you rip them from cds..that is how you convert from cd to mp3. If you have lots of time, you can go and try every ripper out there availabe and then come back and tell us which one works better
The higher the kpbs - the better, but that doesn't mean your human ears will hear any difference between a 128 and 320 kbps.
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 3,028
Likes: 0
From: State College, PA, 16865
Re: How to burn MP3s the right way? (Odessa)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Odessa »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I'm surprised people ask such questions these days. To me it is the same as something like: how do you use internet?
Anyways, the sound is just fine, try to listen to it, you'll like it. Burn it just like anything else or if you're making an audio cd, then create an audio cd in nero. You don't really have to do anything there. It is how you rip them from cds..that is how you convert from cd to mp3. If you have lots of time, you can go and try every ripper out there availabe and then come back and tell us which one works better
The higher the kpbs - the better, but that doesn't mean your human ears will hear any difference between a 128 and 320 kbps.</TD></TR></TABLE>
I do not agree. I can tell an MP3 encoded at 128 quite easily. The deep bass isn't as powerful, and the highs sound very glassy and bad.... but that's to be expected since those are the two regions MP3's target the most when the audio is compressed. Personally 160 is alright, but I shoot for 192 or higher myself. The higher the bitrate, the larger the file, but it means you'll also have a better sounding file. When you use a lower bit-rate, more of the audio information is lost.
Anyways, the sound is just fine, try to listen to it, you'll like it. Burn it just like anything else or if you're making an audio cd, then create an audio cd in nero. You don't really have to do anything there. It is how you rip them from cds..that is how you convert from cd to mp3. If you have lots of time, you can go and try every ripper out there availabe and then come back and tell us which one works better
The higher the kpbs - the better, but that doesn't mean your human ears will hear any difference between a 128 and 320 kbps.</TD></TR></TABLE>
I do not agree. I can tell an MP3 encoded at 128 quite easily. The deep bass isn't as powerful, and the highs sound very glassy and bad.... but that's to be expected since those are the two regions MP3's target the most when the audio is compressed. Personally 160 is alright, but I shoot for 192 or higher myself. The higher the bitrate, the larger the file, but it means you'll also have a better sounding file. When you use a lower bit-rate, more of the audio information is lost.
Junior Member
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Re: How to burn MP3s the right way? (rjr162)
I heard it before 
You're not the first one to tell me that he "can" hear the difference. In reality, this is only your mind that can "hear" and tells you it's different. You just think you hear the difference because you see a larger number (320) and think it must be better. They are both far, far, far away from cd quality...if you want to compare file sizes.
You're not the first one to tell me that he "can" hear the difference. In reality, this is only your mind that can "hear" and tells you it's different. You just think you hear the difference because you see a larger number (320) and think it must be better. They are both far, far, far away from cd quality...if you want to compare file sizes.
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,652
Likes: 0
From: Toronto, On, Canada
Re: How to burn MP3s the right way? (Odessa)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Odessa »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I heard it before You're not the first one to tell me that he "can" hear the difference. In reality, this is only your mind that can "hear" and tells you it's different. You just think you hear the difference because you see a larger number (320) and think it must be better. They are both far, far, far away from cd quality...if you want to compare file sizes.</TD></TR></TABLE>
listen to them on a good stereo and then tell me its all in your head
You're not the first one to tell me that he "can" hear the difference. In reality, this is only your mind that can "hear" and tells you it's different. You just think you hear the difference because you see a larger number (320) and think it must be better. They are both far, far, far away from cd quality...if you want to compare file sizes.</TD></TR></TABLE>listen to them on a good stereo and then tell me its all in your head
Thread Starter
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 903
Likes: 0
From: Arlington, Texas, United States
Re: How to burn MP3s the right way? (EBP_SI)
Is there a way to convert your mp3s to higher kps? Which program? I just bought an alpine 9835, that is why im asking these questions.
Thanks for your help,
Jason
Thanks for your help,
Jason
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 752
Likes: 0
From: Florida
Re: How to burn MP3s the right way? (XViEtBoiX)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by XViEtBoiX »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Is there a way to convert your mp3s to higher kps? Which program? I just bought an alpine 9835, that is why im asking these questions.
Thanks for your help,
Jason </TD></TR></TABLE>
No you can't add kps to an MP3 the only way to get a higher qualitly mp3 is when it's being switched from cd to mp3. On your cd-to-mp3 switcher there should be an option for higher quality switcherness. or i'm sure you can download a fancy switcher that has a real hi one.
Thanks for your help,
Jason </TD></TR></TABLE>
No you can't add kps to an MP3 the only way to get a higher qualitly mp3 is when it's being switched from cd to mp3. On your cd-to-mp3 switcher there should be an option for higher quality switcherness. or i'm sure you can download a fancy switcher that has a real hi one.
Trending Topics
Junior Member
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Re: How to burn MP3s the right way? (EBP_SI)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by EBP_SI »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">listen to them on a good stereo and then tell me its all in your head</TD></TR></TABLE>
I did listen on a good stereo. If you think you can hear any noticeable difference, then think about it this way. Picture it on a scale of 10. 1 is 128, 320 is 2 and cd quality is 10. Do you think there is much of a difference between 1 and 2? You just have to look at it more realisticly...but who cares, if you think 320 is much better then go ahead and convert them to 320 off your cds. I'm not gonna argue about this over the internet...it gets us no where.
I did listen on a good stereo. If you think you can hear any noticeable difference, then think about it this way. Picture it on a scale of 10. 1 is 128, 320 is 2 and cd quality is 10. Do you think there is much of a difference between 1 and 2? You just have to look at it more realisticly...but who cares, if you think 320 is much better then go ahead and convert them to 320 off your cds. I'm not gonna argue about this over the internet...it gets us no where.
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 3,028
Likes: 0
From: State College, PA, 16865
Re: How to burn MP3s the right way? (Odessa)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Odessa »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
I did listen on a good stereo. If you think you can hear any noticeable difference, then think about it this way. Picture it on a scale of 10. 1 is 128, 320 is 2 and cd quality is 10. Do you think there is much of a difference between 1 and 2? You just have to look at it more realisticly...but who cares, if you think 320 is much better then go ahead and convert them to 320 off your cds. I'm not gonna argue about this over the internet...it gets us no where.</TD></TR></TABLE>
no, I *can* hear a difference. Ask any of my friends. 128 kbps, the highs sound like crap, which happens to be the area of music I like the most. I can tell MP3 highs well. They sound like glass, all blended together and not sharp at all. Low quality MP3's, 128kbps for example, have major distortion to them... 192 it's not nearly as bad or noticable. I can tell the difference without even knowing the kbps they are burnt at.
I did listen on a good stereo. If you think you can hear any noticeable difference, then think about it this way. Picture it on a scale of 10. 1 is 128, 320 is 2 and cd quality is 10. Do you think there is much of a difference between 1 and 2? You just have to look at it more realisticly...but who cares, if you think 320 is much better then go ahead and convert them to 320 off your cds. I'm not gonna argue about this over the internet...it gets us no where.</TD></TR></TABLE>
no, I *can* hear a difference. Ask any of my friends. 128 kbps, the highs sound like crap, which happens to be the area of music I like the most. I can tell MP3 highs well. They sound like glass, all blended together and not sharp at all. Low quality MP3's, 128kbps for example, have major distortion to them... 192 it's not nearly as bad or noticable. I can tell the difference without even knowing the kbps they are burnt at.
Junior Member
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Re: How to burn MP3s the right way? (rjr162)
What kind of distortion are we talking about here? Never had any distortion...
And did you understand what I tried to tell with the scale of 10?
But may be who knows, you're one of the few lucky ones with supernatural ears?!
And did you understand what I tried to tell with the scale of 10?
But may be who knows, you're one of the few lucky ones with supernatural ears?!
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,652
Likes: 0
From: Toronto, On, Canada
Re: How to burn MP3s the right way? (Odessa)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Odessa »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
I did listen on a good stereo. If you think you can hear any noticeable difference, then think about it this way. Picture it on a scale of 10. 1 is 128, 320 is 2 and cd quality is 10. Do you think there is much of a difference between 1 and 2? You just have to look at it more realisticly...but who cares, if you think 320 is much better then go ahead and convert them to 320 off your cds. I'm not gonna argue about this over the internet...it gets us no where.</TD></TR></TABLE>
list some details of the system you listened to the songs on first.
I did listen on a good stereo. If you think you can hear any noticeable difference, then think about it this way. Picture it on a scale of 10. 1 is 128, 320 is 2 and cd quality is 10. Do you think there is much of a difference between 1 and 2? You just have to look at it more realisticly...but who cares, if you think 320 is much better then go ahead and convert them to 320 off your cds. I'm not gonna argue about this over the internet...it gets us no where.</TD></TR></TABLE>
list some details of the system you listened to the songs on first.
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,538
Likes: 0
From: Pittsburgh, Pa, USA
Re: How to burn MP3s the right way? (Odessa)
Odessa....I hate to say this but you are incorrect. There is a sonic difference
with MP3...the less you compress the music..the better it will sound. What
many peeps fail to realize is that MP3 is not a replacement for 'cd quality'
sound...its design is to let you have more info available ( ie 10 cd's worth
of music on 1 disc) but with compromises. On a decent system it can be
apparent. I used to sell A/V gear for Tweeter and I would demo this all
the time. My fave was when Nora Jones had just became the rage...a customer
didnt think it was any sonic difference with mp3's. I set up a demo with
a pair of Klipsch reference speakers/denon stereo/2 panasonic dvd players.
I took his mp3 version and A/B'd it with my purchased non audiophile copy. Boy was he ever shocked...and it became a 1 hour demo/discussion with a group of
10 customers who happened to be in the store at the time.
Don't believe the hype...if you want a 'good' mp3..you are gonna have to
burn at a lower compression...but the files are larger...so it defeats the
purpose. By the way is a good Mp3 an oxymoron?
with MP3...the less you compress the music..the better it will sound. What
many peeps fail to realize is that MP3 is not a replacement for 'cd quality'
sound...its design is to let you have more info available ( ie 10 cd's worth
of music on 1 disc) but with compromises. On a decent system it can be
apparent. I used to sell A/V gear for Tweeter and I would demo this all
the time. My fave was when Nora Jones had just became the rage...a customer
didnt think it was any sonic difference with mp3's. I set up a demo with
a pair of Klipsch reference speakers/denon stereo/2 panasonic dvd players.
I took his mp3 version and A/B'd it with my purchased non audiophile copy. Boy was he ever shocked...and it became a 1 hour demo/discussion with a group of
10 customers who happened to be in the store at the time.
Don't believe the hype...if you want a 'good' mp3..you are gonna have to
burn at a lower compression...but the files are larger...so it defeats the
purpose. By the way is a good Mp3 an oxymoron?
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,209
Likes: 0
From: somewhere in INGLEWOOD chillin in tha hood, CA
Re: How to burn MP3s the right way? (audioroach)
Im dissapopinted with listening to MP3's on my system. So i burn them. but when the album comes out. I buy or burn the album. I like my music crystal clear, very few Mp3's come out that way
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
From: Fort Washington, MD, USA
Re: How to burn MP3s the right way? (XViEtBoiX)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by XViEtBoiX »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> I read that using mp3s will not sound as good as a regular cd. So, my question is how do you burn the mp3s to make the best out of them and is it the lower the kps the better? Just give any tips on burning mp3s that will make it sound as good as a cd . I also used nero to burn my cds.
Thanks,
Jason</TD></TR></TABLE>
Exact Audio Copy (www.exactaudiocopy.de) is a very good source for a MP3 encoder (it's free too). I also like Phatnoise's Music Manager app. It's free for 30 days unless you buy a phatnoise product like the Kenwood Music Keg.
A good compromise of sound quality and file size is to encode at 192 kbps. Another alternative is to encode using the WMA format. At 128 kbps, the quality is similar to MP3s at 192. You'll have similar quality but with a smaller file size.
If you are trying to get as close to CD quality as possible with compression, there is a lossless format called FLAC. It's close to CD quality but at half the file size. Currently, I think Phatnoise is the only one supporting the FLAC format. Check them out at (www.phatnoise.com).
. I also used nero to burn my cds. Thanks,
Jason</TD></TR></TABLE>
Exact Audio Copy (www.exactaudiocopy.de) is a very good source for a MP3 encoder (it's free too). I also like Phatnoise's Music Manager app. It's free for 30 days unless you buy a phatnoise product like the Kenwood Music Keg.
A good compromise of sound quality and file size is to encode at 192 kbps. Another alternative is to encode using the WMA format. At 128 kbps, the quality is similar to MP3s at 192. You'll have similar quality but with a smaller file size.
If you are trying to get as close to CD quality as possible with compression, there is a lossless format called FLAC. It's close to CD quality but at half the file size. Currently, I think Phatnoise is the only one supporting the FLAC format. Check them out at (www.phatnoise.com).
New User
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,963
Likes: 0
From: San Francisco, CA, USA
Re: How to burn MP3s the right way? (HondaDriver4Life)
wow, can't tell the difference between a 128 and 320 - time for some hearing tests at the doc if you ask me - the difference is clear as night and day
I guess I'm one of those lucky ones with supernatural ears...
I guess I'm one of those lucky ones with supernatural ears...
Junior Member
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Re: How to burn MP3s the right way? (rcurley55)
The equipment I use to listen to the music doesn't cost thousands, but it is good enough to easily tell the difference between a 128 mp3 and an original cd. Also, it is easy to tell the difference between a 320 mp3 and a cd. The difference is the same...or if you're really picky, will just say it is slightly better...but I hate to be dishonest. So the equipment is just fine.
I especially like this post, it shows how some of you talk like (whatever, you think for a word):
"Im dissapopinted with listening to MP3's on my system. So i burn them. but when the album comes out. I buy or burn the album. I like my music crystal clear, very few Mp3's come out that way"
I assume this guys also will try to convince everyone that 320 is much better. But whatever he said is completely not true, meaning he just thinks it's better...'cause you won't get cd quality like original if you burn a 320...it will still be a 320.
I especially like this post, it shows how some of you talk like (whatever, you think for a word):
"Im dissapopinted with listening to MP3's on my system. So i burn them. but when the album comes out. I buy or burn the album. I like my music crystal clear, very few Mp3's come out that way"
I assume this guys also will try to convince everyone that 320 is much better. But whatever he said is completely not true, meaning he just thinks it's better...'cause you won't get cd quality like original if you burn a 320...it will still be a 320.
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 3,028
Likes: 0
From: State College, PA, 16865
Re: How to burn MP3s the right way? (Odessa)
personally I use the Lame encoders... I played around with the Ogg Vorbis, but there isn't much hardware support yet. MP3.com still has some software availible for free to encode the MP3's. There's also alot of sites out there (for example do a search on http://www.slashdot.org) where people have run tests and compaired all the current compressed audio formats, and even the difference between difference encoders (different ones to make MP3's for example)
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,143
Likes: 1
From: Beavertown, OR
Re: How to burn MP3s the right way? (rjr162)
The best compressed audio format is still Mini Discs
You lose sound quality when you convert to mp3 The higher compression ratio the lower the quality. No MP3 will ever be a replacement for a CD. CD is still the king.
I usually don't encode any lower than 320kb works fine for me for everyday listening.
You lose sound quality when you convert to mp3 The higher compression ratio the lower the quality. No MP3 will ever be a replacement for a CD. CD is still the king.
I usually don't encode any lower than 320kb works fine for me for everyday listening.
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,799
Likes: 0
Re: How to burn MP3s the right way? (nsxxtreme)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by nsxxtreme »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">The best compressed audio format is still Mini Discs
You lose sound quality when you convert to mp3 The higher compression ratio the lower the quality. No MP3 will ever be a replacement for a CD. CD is still the king.
I usually don't encode any lower than 320kb works fine for me for everyday listening.</TD></TR></TABLE>
i hate those little *****, i bought a minidisc player and it sucked ***.. they never were a big *HIT* so nothing really came out for them...
and about the 128bit sound, i can hear a differance from 96 to 128, and 128 to 160/190bits.. and it might depend on the music you listen too, if you listen to rock, its just a clash of a **** load of sounds that you cant really distinguish from.. so wouldnt really matter in that case, but for me (rap music) i can hear a difference in bass tones, and treble tones.. they sound cleaner and a tad bit louder..
You lose sound quality when you convert to mp3 The higher compression ratio the lower the quality. No MP3 will ever be a replacement for a CD. CD is still the king.
I usually don't encode any lower than 320kb works fine for me for everyday listening.</TD></TR></TABLE>
i hate those little *****, i bought a minidisc player and it sucked ***.. they never were a big *HIT* so nothing really came out for them...
and about the 128bit sound, i can hear a differance from 96 to 128, and 128 to 160/190bits.. and it might depend on the music you listen too, if you listen to rock, its just a clash of a **** load of sounds that you cant really distinguish from.. so wouldnt really matter in that case, but for me (rap music) i can hear a difference in bass tones, and treble tones.. they sound cleaner and a tad bit louder..
Re: How to burn MP3s the right way? (-DKap-)
i use WMA files
when i burnt the files to my computer from my collection of cds, Windows Media player gave me the option of quality or quantity
i opted for quality, and still fit 177 files
when i burnt the files to my computer from my collection of cds, Windows Media player gave me the option of quality or quantity
i opted for quality, and still fit 177 files
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,652
Likes: 0
From: Toronto, On, Canada
Re: How to burn MP3s the right way? (Odessa)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Odessa »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">The equipment I use to listen to the music doesn't cost thousands, but it is good enough to easily tell the difference between a 128 mp3 and an original cd. Also, it is easy to tell the difference between a 320 mp3 and a cd. The difference is the same...or if you're really picky, will just say it is slightly better...but I hate to be dishonest. So the equipment is just fine.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
ok and with teh equipment i have its very easy to tell teh difference between 128 and 320. just think about it for a second, the more you compress something the more information you lose. With 128kbs you're compressing it a lot more than at 320kbs so it should be fairly obvious there is a difference. if youy cant tell the difference, listen to it on a better system or get your ears checked.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
ok and with teh equipment i have its very easy to tell teh difference between 128 and 320. just think about it for a second, the more you compress something the more information you lose. With 128kbs you're compressing it a lot more than at 320kbs so it should be fairly obvious there is a difference. if youy cant tell the difference, listen to it on a better system or get your ears checked.
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,143
Likes: 1
From: Beavertown, OR
Re: How to burn MP3s the right way? (..::91TEG-G2::..)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by ..::91TEG-G2::.. »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
i hate those little *****, i bought a minidisc player and it sucked ***.. they never were a big *HIT* so nothing really came out for them...
</TD></TR></TABLE>
There still the best, what other CD can you throw around and not have to worry about it getting scratched up. Take up less space than a CD also.
The only reason MP3's caught on so fast is because of napster,kazza, ect. People who didn't know how to encode could still download songs. Not to mention most weren't paying for it. MP3's remind me of listening to the radio, they work but don't sound as good as the original. When it comes to MD's I cant hear the difference.
i hate those little *****, i bought a minidisc player and it sucked ***.. they never were a big *HIT* so nothing really came out for them...
</TD></TR></TABLE>
There still the best, what other CD can you throw around and not have to worry about it getting scratched up. Take up less space than a CD also.
The only reason MP3's caught on so fast is because of napster,kazza, ect. People who didn't know how to encode could still download songs. Not to mention most weren't paying for it. MP3's remind me of listening to the radio, they work but don't sound as good as the original. When it comes to MD's I cant hear the difference.
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 3,028
Likes: 0
From: State College, PA, 16865
Re: How to burn MP3s the right way? (nsxxtreme)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by nsxxtreme »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">There still the best, what other CD can you throw around and not have to worry about it getting scratched up. Take up less space than a CD also.
The only reason MP3's caught on so fast is because of napster,kazza, ect. People who didn't know how to encode could still download songs. Not to mention most weren't paying for it. MP3's remind me of listening to the radio, they work but don't sound as good as the original. When it comes to MD's I cant hear the difference.</TD></TR></TABLE>
The other reason MP3's caught on is they are small enough of files to be downloaded not only by the just emerging at the time broadband, but also with the dial-up market, which was and still is extremely large. Mini-discs are nice but not supported very well, which was their downfall (just like Beta was superior to VHS, but marketing and other things made the inferior product the standard... look at OS/2 Warp and Windows for a great example of a poorer product taking market domiance!) Also the ability to stream them with something like shoutcast made them highly popular with "student run" streaming servers... the software is free unlike what was needed to make other streaming style files.
192 is about where I can't really notice the difference if I'm not trying to find it. Some newer higher end stuff like Alpine CD players try to re-create what was lost in the conversion to MP3... if it works, I'm not sure since I don't have an MP3 compatible CD player. Anyone really play with that much?
The thing I personally hate with MP3's has nothing to do with them as much as how some people don't understand what really goes on when you make a CD from MP3's. A lot of customers come in claiming thier radio's already play MP3's, because the software they use to make the MP3's is automatically converting the files from MP3 to the actual Audio CD standard. Just a rant but that's a major pet peeve of mine.
The only reason MP3's caught on so fast is because of napster,kazza, ect. People who didn't know how to encode could still download songs. Not to mention most weren't paying for it. MP3's remind me of listening to the radio, they work but don't sound as good as the original. When it comes to MD's I cant hear the difference.</TD></TR></TABLE>
The other reason MP3's caught on is they are small enough of files to be downloaded not only by the just emerging at the time broadband, but also with the dial-up market, which was and still is extremely large. Mini-discs are nice but not supported very well, which was their downfall (just like Beta was superior to VHS, but marketing and other things made the inferior product the standard... look at OS/2 Warp and Windows for a great example of a poorer product taking market domiance!) Also the ability to stream them with something like shoutcast made them highly popular with "student run" streaming servers... the software is free unlike what was needed to make other streaming style files.
192 is about where I can't really notice the difference if I'm not trying to find it. Some newer higher end stuff like Alpine CD players try to re-create what was lost in the conversion to MP3... if it works, I'm not sure since I don't have an MP3 compatible CD player. Anyone really play with that much?
The thing I personally hate with MP3's has nothing to do with them as much as how some people don't understand what really goes on when you make a CD from MP3's. A lot of customers come in claiming thier radio's already play MP3's, because the software they use to make the MP3's is automatically converting the files from MP3 to the actual Audio CD standard. Just a rant but that's a major pet peeve of mine.
Thread Starter
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 903
Likes: 0
From: Arlington, Texas, United States
Re: How to burn MP3s the right way? (rjr162)
Wow, very useful information guys, keep up the good work . But, one more question. Is it the higher Hz the better? I just downloaded this mp3-wav encoder and it has all this ****. Just wondering.
Thanks audio nerds!
JAson
. But, one more question. Is it the higher Hz the better? I just downloaded this mp3-wav encoder and it has all this ****. Just wondering.Thanks audio nerds!
JAson