bin/cue or iso+mp3?
- Thread starter soul
- Start date
SkankinMonkey
Established Member
The filesize differential for most games isn't *that* big, 20-50 meg at the most usually.
Update: Added the OGG version of the same sample just to compare it to the MP3 versions. This file was encoded using "OGG-Drop" with quality set to 100% - really quite impressive
The ony difference to my ears was a slight loss of frequencies at 16K - other than that pretty damn good!
The ony difference to my ears was a slight loss of frequencies at 16K - other than that pretty damn good!
SkankinMonkey
Established Member
Compared to the mp3 or compared to the wav? (about the loss of quality)
SkankinMonkey
Established Member
First off you said 256kpbs mp3 is cd quality, WRONG.
Anything other than lame? Ogg isn't lame.
You lose.
Anything other than lame? Ogg isn't lame.
You lose.
The issue is basically is one's ability to hear. Only roughly 10% of people can really hear high and low frequencies, so technically most people can't hear the difference.
At the same time, the quality of sound from CDs are lost on them.
I'm sure most people know how the mp3 encoding works, but for the sake of argument, basically the highest and lowest frequencies are dropped off. The higher the kbps, the more it is retained. But as Curtis emphatically pointed out, mp3s won't attain CD quality.
It isn't applicable to just high pitched noise, low bass is also affected. Depending on it's kbps, this can make a great song sound really awful.
This lends creedance to this ongoing debate. It seems that 10% is awfully small, given the number of people who have issues with Mp3s. But keep in mind the people who can't tell the difference aren't complaining.
Not quite true. As your age increases, the ability to hear the upper frequencies diminishes - show me a 50 year old who can still hear the "TV whistle". However, as years pass the ability to hear the lower frequencies remains fairly constant. There can even be an argument put forward that states as you get older, your hearing compensates for the fact that it has poor upper freqency response by compensating with boosting lower frequency reception.
Also MP3 goes beyond simply removing the frequencies - if you listen to the samples I made (especially at the lowest frequency), you'll hear that the sounds (toms and kick esp.) seem to have been "blurred" together - there is an overall lack of definition and the sound is left very muddy. You'll notice this at all other frequencies if you but listen. What I'm trying to say is that not being able to hear the frequencies will not fully mask the crapness of MP3.
I guess I'm just used to listen to things with headphones - headphones will always bring out the worst in any recording...
Within the same age bracket; I'm not really referencing young and old SXers but the general populace of 16-35 (to which the 10% is applicable).
And also, unfortunately, it's more of a USA statistic. There are too many variables to get an equatable score for other countries due to demographics, health, etc. That being said, I know several 60+ year olds who have outstanding hearing, but who do not reside in the USA.
SkankinMonkey
Established Member
256kpbs mp3 is cd quality WHen you use lame
use anything else and its not
dont have time to be imature and debate it
read about it
start at r3mix.net[/b][/quote]
the whole point of mp3's is compression, NO mp3 is cd quality regardless of the codec. MP3's are LOSSY, that is a known fact, and only idiots dispute it.
Thank you Skank - I was about to post something to that effect when my computer crashed.
Here is a version of my sample with the vaunted "r3mix" settings. You can still hear the artifacts that I described on the previous page - artifacts not present in the CD Quality original.
You've obviously just taken what they said at the "r3mix" site as gospel, as there are clear differences between the original and any MP3.
Fact: Ogg produces better results.
Here is a version of my sample with the vaunted "r3mix" settings. You can still hear the artifacts that I described on the previous page - artifacts not present in the CD Quality original.
You've obviously just taken what they said at the "r3mix" site as gospel, as there are clear differences between the original and any MP3.
Fact: Ogg produces better results.
Down to the point...
To anyone willing to ripping games from now:
Try to use newer, more advanced, audio compression schemes if you're going to compress the audio tracks. Presto!
Mp3 is kinda dated now. Either use OGG, or high-bitrate VQF. Or if you're an audiophilic paranoic, use non-lossy WAV compression. Not much compression, tough...
To anyone willing to ripping games from now:
Try to use newer, more advanced, audio compression schemes if you're going to compress the audio tracks. Presto!
Mp3 is kinda dated now. Either use OGG, or high-bitrate VQF. Or if you're an audiophilic paranoic, use non-lossy WAV compression. Not much compression, tough...
Hi guys!
If you're interested on discussing audio compression formats, www.hydrogenaudio.com is the best place to be!
As for my opinion, bin/cue files are certainly better, but 56ker's like me have a hard time d/ling them.
Iso/mp3 files are pretty reasonable. Actually, if you encode your wavs to mp3 with Lame, --alt-preset standard setting, most people won't notice the difference from the original wav.
Of course, with the new compression codecs such as Ogg Vorbis, AAC and MPC, mp3 is getting outdated. All these codecs sound better than mp3 at all bitrates. I think Ogg is currently quite good at 128kbps (about q4.00 setting), maybe people should start using Iso/Ogg? Also, if you want the best quality, MPC is the way to go. The standard setting which averages about 175kbps sounds just like the wav for most people...
Also, Lame with --r3mix setting is outdated already. Please use the --alt-preset settings, which are tweaked to offer the best possible quality from mp3s~
If you're interested on discussing audio compression formats, www.hydrogenaudio.com is the best place to be!
As for my opinion, bin/cue files are certainly better, but 56ker's like me have a hard time d/ling them.
Iso/mp3 files are pretty reasonable. Actually, if you encode your wavs to mp3 with Lame, --alt-preset standard setting, most people won't notice the difference from the original wav.
Of course, with the new compression codecs such as Ogg Vorbis, AAC and MPC, mp3 is getting outdated. All these codecs sound better than mp3 at all bitrates. I think Ogg is currently quite good at 128kbps (about q4.00 setting), maybe people should start using Iso/Ogg? Also, if you want the best quality, MPC is the way to go. The standard setting which averages about 175kbps sounds just like the wav for most people...
Also, Lame with --r3mix setting is outdated already. Please use the --alt-preset settings, which are tweaked to offer the best possible quality from mp3s~
Interesting post - I wasn't aware of those other codecs so I decided to give them a go
MPC (at "insane" level) gave results that were better than the Lame encoded 320K MP3, but not as good as Ogg (though not by much).
I couldn't seem to find an AAC encoder to test though...
MPC (at "insane" level) gave results that were better than the Lame encoded 320K MP3, but not as good as Ogg (though not by much).
I couldn't seem to find an AAC encoder to test though...
Well, here's my bit.
The whole thread started about iso/mp3 vs. bin/cue and now is degenerating into a flame war over how good/bad mp3 files really are.
Let me cover the bases one by one.
Yes, MP3 is lossy. No, MP3 is never CD quality. That said, done right, it's still better than even the highest-fidelity tapes and vinyl records of yore used to be. A lot of ppl, myself included, at least still have tapes and enjoy listening to them and they're good quality.
Also, a direct comparison between CD audio and any compressed version of it is pointless when it comes to games, for two reasons:
1. When you download an iso/mp3, burn it and listen to the audio, you never have the advantage of listening to the ORIGINAL audio vs. what's on your burned CD. What matters to *you* is that it still sounds pleasant and listenable. Of course a *lot* more people will say they can hear compression artefacts if they have the benefit of comparison.
2. Often, the music will be drowned by other sounds during a gaming session, you won't have time to appreciate the nuances of the music because you're busy playing a game. That further dimishes the real importance of high-quality rips.
A thing to warbling MP3s... a lot of it depends on how and with which CD drive a game (and its audio) is ripped... I have seen - rather, heard - BIN/CUE images on Ralos' FTP that sounded terrible despite being a 1:1 rip. For anyone who wants to see for himself, download the bin/cue of Tryrush Deppy and listen to the last couple tracks. (I vote for it to be removed, actually...but that's another story.)
My personal experience is that the biggest audible difference between CD tracks and their MP3 counterparts isn't in clarity vs. muddiness or in frequency response ... it's in STEREO IMAGING. At average bitrates (128kbps), all encoders will by default devote most of the available bitrate to encoding a MONOPHONIC signal and use the remainder to encode the DIFFERENCE between the left and right channels. This is known as joint stereo encoding and seems to be done rather poorly across the board... In fact I find that if I use higher bitrates (upward of 160kbps) and true stereo encoding (half the bitrate for each channel separately), MP3s sound much more alive and truer to the original.
The fact remains of course that MP3 is lossy and is meant to be a compromise, which it is. That said, game audio just doesn't have the same importance to me that an audio CD (album, soundtrack) has. Heck, I've come across CDs of either kind that have been poorly mastered - the original Thunderforce V disc, for example, has very loud audio and slight distortions due to overload...
I, for one, vote for iso/mp3... so long as the ISO track is the correct length (almost always it isn't) and the mp3 was encoded with care and a minimum of 128kbps...
I even think that 320kbps is almost overkill, for anyone who isn't happy with even that bitrate should stick with the uncompressed audio to begin with...
Oh, for the record!! I'm deaf since birth, only hear low frequencies on the left hear (but the full range on the right)... I always use headphones, I have a pair from audiotechnica which can play loud without distortions, perfect for me... I am an excellent listener, at least on the right side
, and even have a good sense for stereophonic hearing... I dare say that I pick up more details than the average person despite my deafness...
The whole thread started about iso/mp3 vs. bin/cue and now is degenerating into a flame war over how good/bad mp3 files really are.
Let me cover the bases one by one.
Yes, MP3 is lossy. No, MP3 is never CD quality. That said, done right, it's still better than even the highest-fidelity tapes and vinyl records of yore used to be. A lot of ppl, myself included, at least still have tapes and enjoy listening to them and they're good quality.
Also, a direct comparison between CD audio and any compressed version of it is pointless when it comes to games, for two reasons:
1. When you download an iso/mp3, burn it and listen to the audio, you never have the advantage of listening to the ORIGINAL audio vs. what's on your burned CD. What matters to *you* is that it still sounds pleasant and listenable. Of course a *lot* more people will say they can hear compression artefacts if they have the benefit of comparison.
2. Often, the music will be drowned by other sounds during a gaming session, you won't have time to appreciate the nuances of the music because you're busy playing a game. That further dimishes the real importance of high-quality rips.
A thing to warbling MP3s... a lot of it depends on how and with which CD drive a game (and its audio) is ripped... I have seen - rather, heard - BIN/CUE images on Ralos' FTP that sounded terrible despite being a 1:1 rip. For anyone who wants to see for himself, download the bin/cue of Tryrush Deppy and listen to the last couple tracks. (I vote for it to be removed, actually...but that's another story.)
My personal experience is that the biggest audible difference between CD tracks and their MP3 counterparts isn't in clarity vs. muddiness or in frequency response ... it's in STEREO IMAGING. At average bitrates (128kbps), all encoders will by default devote most of the available bitrate to encoding a MONOPHONIC signal and use the remainder to encode the DIFFERENCE between the left and right channels. This is known as joint stereo encoding and seems to be done rather poorly across the board... In fact I find that if I use higher bitrates (upward of 160kbps) and true stereo encoding (half the bitrate for each channel separately), MP3s sound much more alive and truer to the original.
The fact remains of course that MP3 is lossy and is meant to be a compromise, which it is. That said, game audio just doesn't have the same importance to me that an audio CD (album, soundtrack) has. Heck, I've come across CDs of either kind that have been poorly mastered - the original Thunderforce V disc, for example, has very loud audio and slight distortions due to overload...
I, for one, vote for iso/mp3... so long as the ISO track is the correct length (almost always it isn't) and the mp3 was encoded with care and a minimum of 128kbps...
I even think that 320kbps is almost overkill, for anyone who isn't happy with even that bitrate should stick with the uncompressed audio to begin with...
Oh, for the record!! I'm deaf since birth, only hear low frequencies on the left hear (but the full range on the right)... I always use headphones, I have a pair from audiotechnica which can play loud without distortions, perfect for me... I am an excellent listener, at least on the right side
