Has anyone noticed :
original CD converted to MP3, then MP3 converted back to CD vs. original CD
MP3 CD has louder bass sounds than the original CD and music sounds boomy
I prefer to rip with Constant Bit Rate 192 kbits/sec latest LAME codec
dbpoweramp v.11 for my MP3 files.
I was just curious if anyone else noticed this phenomenon with MP3?
On the same note, AAC at CBR 192 kbits/sec using Nero AAC codec
dbpoweramp v11
then converted to .wav.
Will the conversion result in the same noticeable bass issue as most MP3 files?
I have yet to try the comparison of AAC vs MP3 to .wav conversion,
but was curious if anyone out there has tried it?
my home equipment is not super high end,
but it's better than what you would buy at Best Buy:
Denon DVD 2200
Denon 4802 R receiver
PSB Speakers
Hsu Research 12" Subwoofer
Full Version: MP3 vs. AAC conversion to .wav
Hello bejocun, and welcome to HA.org. I don't mean to be insulting, some people find the scientific standards that this board tries to hold a little intimidating, but you really should read the FAQ and the Terms of Service before posting here again.
The trouble with your first post is that you make a claim about subjective audio quality that is expected to be backed up by some objective evidence (see TOS Rule Number 8) usually provided here in the form of an ABX test. If you can indeed back up your claim about boosted bass frequencies when using LAME I'm sure you will find the members of this board quite interested and fairly alarmed. Personally I think it is very likely that you are either suffering from the placebo effect (don't worry it happens to all of us now and again) or you are using suboptimal settings for your LAME encoding, you should only use the presets:
LAME 3.90.3:
--alt-preset standard (VBR ~210kb/s)
--alt-preset extreme (VBR ~240kb/s)
--alt-preset insane (CBR 320)
LAME 3.96.1: See this thread.
Thanks for your patience, have fun here at HA!
The trouble with your first post is that you make a claim about subjective audio quality that is expected to be backed up by some objective evidence (see TOS Rule Number 8) usually provided here in the form of an ABX test. If you can indeed back up your claim about boosted bass frequencies when using LAME I'm sure you will find the members of this board quite interested and fairly alarmed. Personally I think it is very likely that you are either suffering from the placebo effect (don't worry it happens to all of us now and again) or you are using suboptimal settings for your LAME encoding, you should only use the presets:
LAME 3.90.3:
--alt-preset standard (VBR ~210kb/s)
--alt-preset extreme (VBR ~240kb/s)
--alt-preset insane (CBR 320)
LAME 3.96.1: See this thread.
Thanks for your patience, have fun here at HA!
QUOTE(music_man_mpc @ Jan 2 2005, 12:16 AM)
The trouble with your first post is that you make a claim about subjective audio quality that is expected to be backed up by some objective evidence (see TOS Rule Number 8) usually provided here in the form of an ABX test. If you can indeed back up your claim about boosted bass frequencies when using LAME
One should also be wary of shooting from the hip with TOS boilerplate. ABX will tell you whether the subject can detect a difference, not what the difference is.
On the other hand, while folks are rightly condemned on this board for using time or frequency domain plots to show that a lossy compression is invalid, if a spectrum plot shows consistantly higher levels over an octave or 3 of bass that implies a lot more fault than a narrow band being temporarlily masked according to the codec's chosen model.
One thing to check.. there have been a couple of occasions where folks have shot arrows at some codec's frequency response and later discovered that they had some equalization manually set.
don't forget to use Joint-Stereo 
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.