Hello,

I have to make a hard decision...I have a song that it is only available in 128kbps (Xing old) or 256kbps (Xing old). I do not like to keep the 256kbps file, so I have to choices; I either keep the 128kbps (Xing old) file or I re-encode the 256kbps (Xing old) file by using --alt preset standard.
After re-encoding the 256kbps (Xing old) I got a 180kbps average file. So what file should I keep?

There is a third option: I got the same song in


I'm not sure if this has a better quality then the 256kbps (Xing old) file...so I need an advice from somebody that is experienced in such matters...

Thanks

omg please keep the 256kb xs... xs... xing file!

edit: but i don't know which quality that asf file has as i never encoded something in that format but i thought it's only used for streaming, isn't it ?

I recommend keep the 256 kb/s (Xing Old)

thanks to both of you guys, but 'keeping the 256kbps file' was not an option! There are only two options:

1. I keep the 128kbps (xing old) file
OR
2.) I transcode the 256kbps file by using --alt preset standard.


I'm not sure about that...it is the soundtrack of a video game. All the songs are actually stored in one big file, so I used a special program to extract all the files...the information I posted are provided from the extracting program...

Does somebody want to do a listening test? I could upload 3 different versions of the track...maybe only 30 seconds of it...

Of course it will have worse quality than the original - it's not going to magically grow the quality back from somewhere!


If you're not willing to keep the original 256kbps file, which is almost definitely your best option then do whatever one you like the sound of best.
Just don't go sharing your rubbish copy of the 256kbps file if you choose to re-encode it.

Hi,

if you cannot hear the difference between 128kbit Xing (old), VBR 180kbps (re-encoded 256kbit Xing (old) with preset standard) and 256kbit Xing (old), take the 128kbit Xing (old).

Just buy the CD, rip and use APS...

Beggers can't be choosers.

What you are doing is taking a rare file (xing 256), and downgrading it with a transcode to Lame -aps.

This only serves to make the file more rare. For me, the only stuff I offer on winmx is rare stuff.

I saw where you said that keeping the 256 file is not an option. I guess a few of us are hoping you will re-think that. At most you will save a few megs.

Xing 256 is not what we would make ourselves, but all in all, it will probably sound pretty good, especially without the original around for comparison.

This is plain stupid. Keep the 256 Xing, transcoding is not an option. The 256 Xing sounds bad already... The resultant aps transcode gives a file which is bad and big, maybe as bad as the 128kbps Xing, almost as big as the 256 Xing one.

I agree with Artemis there, I'm afraid the decision you're taking makes no sense at all. There is no reason to transcode a 256 to something like a 180 (average). You'll save about "a meg and a bit", I can't believe you're that desperate for space. Just keep the 256 Xing and rest assured you've got the best copy available to you; and as an added bonus, we'll all stop moaning at you

Wow! Thanks for all your feedback . I'll try to give an answer to all you guys statements...

@ Vietwoojagig

no, I can't hear the difference, because I have a really bad soundcard at the time...this is why I was asking .


@mithrandir


there is no CD! It is from the game NFS 5: Porsche. EA provides the music online but it is only available in 128kbps (Xing old) and 256kbps (Xing old). The Game itself only includes the music as 'asf' as I have stated in my first post.


@kennedyb4


The file is NOT rare; it is taken out of Need for Speed 5: Porsche. The space on my portable mp3 player is limited and I don't like that song this much that it is worth 256kbp/s.

@gazzyk1ns

look at the answer for kennedyb4 and it is not only one song so it is more than just '1meg'.

Why not e-mail them, and ask them about a proper encode, or a WAV duplicate of the music ? Why not tell them that Xing is the worst mp3 encoder on earth, and you want good sounding audio at ~160kbps ?

If you want to transcode, why not take the 256kbps Xing and transcode it to either 128kbps FastEnc or LAME --r3mix ? You'll get decent quality for portable use, and interesting bitrates then.

Maybe this is harsh, but..

If you don't like this song that much to begin with, why go to the trouble of bothering with this whole thread? Just for a single track you don't even like much?

Something to convert this ASF to WAV:
http://www.nhlinfo.net/sndutil.zip

Then use Vorbis/MPC/AAC/Lame with MP3/whatever.

@ NumLOCK



This is a good idea! I'll send them an email...but I'm afraid they can't help...but it is worth a try .



This is exactly what I wanted to do. I just wanted to know if the quality would be worse then the '128kbps (Xing old) file' .What is 'LAME --r3mix'?

@ floyd



First of all it is good to know; many people ask questions like that and I would like to give them an answer next time. Second, it is not only one track! And I do like that track but let's say I'm not crazy about it...maybe only 80% crazy about . You know what I mean?

@ Bedeox


Thanks for that tool! I also got one; the only issue is that the file has a Sample Rate of 32000 Hz! I'm not sure what that means and if it is bad...I guess it is even worse than the 128kbps file .

This is MUCH BETTER than any MP3.
<edit>
You can't get better quality from this file.
Additionally this is what probably these MP3 were made from.
</edit>

32kHz can be safely encoded to MP3.
This hasn't been tested as much as 44,1 or 48 but works.

You can always look for Game Audio Player to extract and play the files.
(although that small utility should suffice)

Well, 32000Hz sampling rate means max. of 16khz highest frequency.
So the question is:

Are your 128kbit and 256kbit mp3's build (resampled/encoded) from this source? If these files do have frequencies above 16khz I would not think so.

Case 1: They do not have frequencies above 16khz
Try to encode the wav with the --resample 44100 option (but only if you're playing device has problems with 32khz sampling rates). I would guess, that the VBR you get is less than your 180kbps. Take this version!

Case 2: They do have frequenies above 16khz
Dump the ASF-based wav.
Use the 180kbps resapled version ("proov by intuition"). No one in this forum will ever tell you, if you get more artefacts or if you preserve quality of the 256kbps that was left out of the 128kbps. This is a question, that only one can tell after listening tests.
So intution winns: 180kbps is a good compromise.

Ehhh.... <bleh>XING</bleh> DROPS ALL FREQUENCIES ABOVE 16kHz NO MATTER WHAT!

See and try it. And if you can't distinguish between that 256kbps MP3 and original,
then decode this, use LAME (3.90.2 preferably) with this command line (for example):

lame --alt-preset 128 <infile> <outfile>

For LAME look in section General (MP3), one of sticky threads.

This will give a file with most probably higher quality than your 256k MP3 and a filesize similar to 128k.
If not, then use --alt-preset 160 or --alt-preset standard.

So what should I do now? Since Xing drops all the frequency's above 16 kHz it will not be any better than the ASF version. Tell me if I'm wrong! Is it normal that the file where all the music is stored has a size of only 112MB? The length of all the tracks is ~57 minutes. That is approximately 255kbp/s.

So to come to a final conclusion: I should create a *.wav file of the songs I like and then encode it with LAME!!??

ok, I extracted the files as individual music tracks...that gave me an average of 278,5kbp/s.
I also found out that the "AF Type" is "EACS" and the "RF Type" is "PLAIN"...I've no idea if that helps any or not...

Well, ASF is something like MP3, means, it is not a lossless audio compression format.
This is the reason for the small size and the avarage bit-rate.

You're mistaking two ASFs: one is Windows Media Streaming Format,
second is Electronic Arts ADPCM.

Second format is lossy too, but very very similar to PCM, unlike MP3 and WMA.

The reason for the filesize is that this EA ADPCM uses something similar to Mid-Side stereo,
uses compression and has 32kHz. I think that it has variable bitrate.

This should encode well, I'll check it myself.
(I have NFS Porsche too and like the music)

I just encoded one *.wav file (converted from the ASF file) to mp3 by using --alt preset standard. I got an average of 214kbp/s (the Xing 256kbp/s file gave me an average of 180kbp/s).
I did the same encoding again but at this time I set the output sample rate to 32000 Hz (instead of 44100 Hz) and I got an average of 168kbp/s.
So staying with the 168kbp/s file would be the best choice, I think. When I got everything right it should have exactly the same quality as the 44100 Hz file!? Does that also mean that I got now an even higher quality file then the 256kbp/s Xing old Version? I know it is hard to tell without listening tests but just generally...

LOL! That is great! Why haven't you said that before? Ok do some tests and please keep me posted . I do have very good ears, but I got a bad on-board soundcard, this is why I can't participate in such listening tests...I really should get a new soundcard . My new PC doesn't have any ISA Slots; this is why I couldn't keep my old soundcard .

<bleh>XING</bleh> is very bad MP3 encoder, file generated by LAME
using alt-preset surely is higher quality... listen to 128kbps <bleh>xing</bleh>
and compare to ~168kbps LAME... it should even be better than that 256kbps file.
Anybody around here will tell you that.
If you can't notice any artifacts, then go as low as you can... try alt presets like that:
--alt-preset <bitrate> (begin from 160)

Even if you have that **** mainboard AC97 chip,
you'll probably hear if MP3 is bad...
There's no need for special equipment!
For ABX programs look in fresh new FAQ.

--alt-preset standard is okay for 90% of people on ANY track,
these included, the artifacts I have mentioned there
I can hear only when I'm maximally concentrated and only on headphones.
Post somewhere that 128 BLEH sample, I'll check it out.

I can hear preecho and distortion in hf percussion on 'Rezidue'
apstandard LAME 3.90.2 ICL by Dibrom (175 kbps),
apextreme (182) is better on this, but it still shows artifacts,
(background percussion has less HF and reverb loses second [quiet] tap, 5/5)
Vorbis GT3b1 q5 has less stereo, but otherwise it's good, (193, 9/10)
q6 is ideal (215, 2/5).

Vorbis q6 'Let the Music Move You' has slightly different percussion in some places
(different type of noise, 5/5, 209), q7 is okay (1/5, 235)
MP3 apextreme hides quiet percussion in some places. (5/5, 177)
(I'll try it with LAME 3.94a9 later, it seems that ATH curve at 32kHz is wrong for me)

These tracks seem to be hard to encode ideally... (probably because it is reencoded)
I'll post samples later.

Thanks for everybody that gave any to me! I think I'll keep the 32 kHz aps file (from the asf version).

@Bedeox
Thank you very much for all your help and immense effort! I really appreciate your help! You don't have to post more examples...you already spent too much time for it .
What are ABX programs? People always post that values and I never quite understood what it was supposed to mean .

I forgot to mention that MppEnc 1.15i standard xlevel was indistinguishable to me in both previous cases,
(Rezidue: 176kbps, Let the Music Move You: 166)

'Stealth Run':
MPC standard xlevel and Vorbis GT3b1 q6: no problems.
Lame 3.90.2 ape has in few places smoother plates in background. (4/5)
Vorbis q5 gives different noise on start, but after that is great.

<edit>
Look at http://www.pcabx.com
I've done my share of testing today, now I'll be installing FreeBSD 5.0,
so don't count on quick response.
</edit>

Sorry for not including samples, but I'm quite busy nowdays.

It's alright . I don't need those samples...but at the other hand I just got a new soundcard so I might be actually able to hear the differences.