Subject:SF6 mp3 quality, Hey, CuzinB

Posted by: kilopapa

Date:5/16/2002 11:41:48 AM

Do you really find the Lame encodes files better. I really have not compared closely as I allways figured the SF plug in was the Fraunhofer one, and it SHOULD be a semi-quality implementation of MP3. Where do you see the differences?
Thanks.
Paul

Subject:RE: SF6 mp3 quality, Hey, CuzinB

Reply by: Vocalpoint

Date:5/16/2002 12:26:14 PM

Kilopapa,

No comparison. My company specializes digital voiceover for the broadcast industry and since dry voicetrack files are not really effected adversely by compression - I use MP3 a lot.

If I produce a voiceclip in Soundforge 6 and save it out to MP3 (anybody notice that the high quality (160 KHZ and higher) is not available in SF6?) and then do the same using the LAME encoder - it's like night and day. SF may be using Fraunhofer but I am really disappointed in the quality. I should mention too that I use 192KHZ from the Audiograbber/Lame combo but since I can't get 192 out of SF6 anymore, I can't A/B them...

When I do the same compare with any promos/spots or clips that have music beds - the difference is VERY noticeable...

Cuzin B

Subject:RE: SF6 mp3 quality, Hey, CuzinB

Reply by: kilopapa

Date:5/16/2002 12:52:33 PM

Thanks, that is just what I wanted to know. I will experiment.
And I am not postitive they are using Fraunhofer now. I just assumed they were since they started with it in 4.5.
That is a shame since why does one buy a top line editor if not to get top line functions!
Thanks again,
Paul

Subject:RE: SF6 mp3 quality, Hey, CuzinB

Reply by: Ted_H

Date:5/16/2002 1:30:22 PM

If your source is mono or low-bitrate stereo, you will not have any bitrates higher than 128 available to encode to. And we do still use the Fraunhofer codec.

Ted

Subject:RE: SF6 mp3 quality, Hey, CuzinB

Reply by: kilopapa

Date:5/16/2002 1:50:13 PM

Thank's for the reply, Sonic. I have always had good luck with the Fraunhofer codec at low bitrates. In fact, MP3 producer, witch is their retail front end, was the only encoder that would encode down to 32kbs semi-clean. So I don't know about these comparisons. Perception can be a VERY delicate item.
Paul

Subject:RE: SF6 mp3 quality, Hey, CuzinB

Reply by: Vocalpoint

Date:5/16/2002 2:36:14 PM

kilopapa,

Well as far as these comparisons go - when a client of mine recently asked me to clean up/remix a mono voicetrack done right outa SF at 128, I wasn't going to ask any questions. The client obviously heard something that was offsetting to them.

Oddly enough, this was a session in which I used the SF MP3 export as a shortcut because time was tight and the client was a bit cranky for the voicework. Unless I set something up wrong...but they heard a problem.

Once I remixed the identical workfile using the LAME encoder, never heard a peep from the client. The spot is still running in our market and it sounds great.

That's when I started doing some heavy comparison between the SF MP3 export and a LAME MP3 converison...I heard a drastic difference mainly in those files that had a music component. Dry mono voicetracks are much harder to discriminate againest but there is a difference...

Cuzin B

Subject:RE: SF6 mp3 quality, Hey, CuzinB

Reply by: doctorfish

Date:5/16/2002 6:26:46 PM

Ted H,

Why would there be such a low limit as 128 kbps? And exactly how low do you mean
by "low bit rate"?

Dave

Subject:RE: SF6 mp3 quality, Hey, CuzinB

Reply by: kilopapa

Date:5/16/2002 8:56:33 PM

I think he meant that the HIGHEST bitrate is 128 only if the source material is sampled at such a rate that anything higher than 128 would be lost or wasted.
As for what I meant about 'testing' at LOW bitrates, this was interesting to me.
I had to make a few super small sized songs for sending to a studio with slow connections for previews. I went as low as 24kb/s mp3. Sounded crappy with a lot of ringing and artifacts. But with "MP3 Producer" by Fraunhofer, it sounded pretty good. Almost zero ugly side effects. Then I experimented with Blade, Lame, etc., and this was about 2 yrs. ago but all could not even come close to the Fraunhofer at the low rates. Now, Lame3.87 and up, and Fraunhofer are the only 2 that encode at 32 or even 24 kb\s and actually sound pretty decent. Thin of course, but hardly none of the gross artifacts induced by most all the others. So, it's Fraun. or Lame for me.
I have read that some excel better at the HIGH rates of 256 and above. But I don't ever use these so I looked for the best at the high compression ratios.
Hope I wasn't to windy but I opened my eyes a lot.
Paul

Subject:RE: SF6 mp3 quality, Hey, CuzinB

Reply by: RikTheRik

Date:5/17/2002 5:52:54 AM

On 128kpbs, the sonic foundry encoder is the best I know.
I tried with the Nero one too (should be the same Fraunhoffer) but that sounded really ugly.
Lame is maybe better when it comes to bitrates upper than 128kpbs or VBR but on my tests the Sounic Foundry is one of the best sounding one.

Subject:RE: SF6 mp3 quality, Hey, CuzinB

Reply by: doctorfish

Date:5/17/2002 7:03:07 AM

Maybe I should've worded my post differently.

I knew he meant the HIGHEST rate was 128k, and so my question was why
they would place a limit on it like that. Why not allow for encoding at higher
bitrates? I haven't tried all the other programs you have, but in comparing Sonic
Foundry products with Real Jukebox, the SF encoding was noticeably better.

Dave

Subject:RE: SF6 mp3 quality, Hey, CuzinB

Reply by: inspector

Date:5/17/2002 7:49:15 AM

Could it be that with mono and lo bitrate stereo anything above 128 would not improve the quality?

Subject:RE: SF6 mp3 quality, Hey, CuzinB

Reply by: Vocalpoint

Date:5/17/2002 9:27:27 AM

nHey Gang,

Okay - so I hit the lab after reading all the crosstalk in here and here's what I found out:

1. SoundForge 6 (and 5) does introduce a bitrate ceiling based on the source material just like Ted had alluded to. If I do a Save AS MP3 with a mono source, the highest rate I could get was 128KHZ. If I did the same with a stereo source, the higher rates (160, 192...up to 320khz)become available. I would think that for a mono source, you would not see any great improvement over 128KHZ

2. After some heavy duty comparison - I must agree that Soundforge 6 does do a great job on my dry voiceworks saving to mp3. So much so that I will stay right inside SF from now on instead of introducing the Audiograbber/Lame combo.

3. To my ears, the LAME encoder does "sound" better than the SF encoder at rates of 192 or higher on stereo source material, but again - this is totally subjective.

Cheers,

Cuzin B

Subject:RE: SF6 mp3 quality, Hey, CuzinB

Reply by: doctorfish

Date:5/17/2002 6:00:22 PM

Interesting. I don't use MP3 much these days, but last year I was recording bass
and sending the tracks via CD to a drummer who lived quite a ways away. Before I
sent the CD's, we would meet online in MSN messenger and I would send him MP3
versions of the different takes so we could discuss any problems before I actually
put the CD in the mail. The were mostly mono 128k bass tracks, but at the time I
experimented with 160k and 192k and they did seem to be better. 128k still had a
few artifacts and was thinner than the other two. At the time, I wound up using 128k
because it still wasn't awful and because the files were smaller and so more quickly
received through his 56k modem.

I guess I should say that I was using Siren to do the MP3 encoding, but since it's
still a Sonic Foundry product, I figure the codec would probably be the same as
the one used in Sound Forge.

I haven't tried MP3 on voice, but as that's mostly what I record, maybe I'll give it
a go, especially on projects for my students.

Dave