android
Go Back   abi>>forums > MP3 Players By Brand > Samsung > Samsung P3

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #41  
Old 05-31-2009, 09:28 PM
skip252 skip252 is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 5,149
Default

Thanks for the heads up on the Sound Solution 1.31b dsp TomCat39. Got it running in a DSP wrapper in XMPlay and it simply blows the doors off any equalizer I've come across before. It allows me to apply the type of effects that are possible in Audacity but in real time. Very nice!

You say that when you are encoding using your method it makes your machine unusable. How so? I have been transcoding FLAC files to 128 kbps.mp3 using the XMPlay external encoder while I have been reading the forums and then listening to the results thru a second copy of XMPlay. Am I missing something?
Reply With Quote

Advertisement [Remove Advertisement]

  #42  
Old 05-31-2009, 10:10 PM
Leroy Bad's Avatar
Leroy Bad Leroy Bad is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 468
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TomCat39 View Post


If you are this concerned about your "sound" then why in the world do you use ANY solid state product, you should be analog (tube) technology to get the true sound. Which of course negates portability. Not like I run my P3 through a tube amp and high end speaker systems to get every little nuance.
Well wait a second, one does not have to go through those extremes to recognize good sounding audio. I'm not that elite!
But I can tell the difference between 128k mp3 and a 16bit 44.1khz CD easily. And if its a good mastering job, I'd like to appreciate it for what it is.
__________________
Current Gear: Cowon J3; iPod Touch 4G; Sony XBA-3; HiFiMan RE-272; Sennheiser HD558; Bose AE2
Reply With Quote

  #43  
Old 06-01-2009, 01:37 AM
TomCat39's Avatar
TomCat39 TomCat39 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 406
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skip252 View Post
Thanks for the heads up on the Sound Solution 1.31b dsp TomCat39. Got it running in a DSP wrapper in XMPlay and it simply blows the doors off any equalizer I've come across before. It allows me to apply the type of effects that are possible in Audacity but in real time. Very nice!

You say that when you are encoding using your method it makes your machine unusable. How so? I have been transcoding FLAC files to 128 kbps.mp3 using the XMPlay external encoder while I have been reading the forums and then listening to the results thru a second copy of XMPlay. Am I missing something?
Maybe your method with XMPlay is easier on the CPU. But I tend to think it might be the dual core CPU gambit. If I had a newer dual core machine, I'm sure I'd not be hit as hard.

My machine is an old AMD XP 2800+ (1.67 Ghz) machine. So with decoding flac or mp3, then processing through the dsp, then encoding back into mp3 just sucks up all of my available CPU. More so than any other 99% cpu task I've ever done.

There is no way my poor aging machine could also play the results simultaneously.

Oh and thanks for the recognition of the dsp, I absolutely love it too, just wish the author would make a VST version that handled more than just 44Khz 16 bit format. It's quite powerful and the only other place I ever saw one as complete is in SAM broadcaster software.

I'll have to look into XMPlay with wrapper, sound like it might be better than the Winamp solution.

Last edited by TomCat39; 06-01-2009 at 01:51 AM.
Reply With Quote

  #44  
Old 06-01-2009, 01:47 AM
TomCat39's Avatar
TomCat39 TomCat39 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 406
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leroy Bad View Post
Well wait a second, one does not have to go through those extremes to recognize good sounding audio. I'm not that elite!
But I can tell the difference between 128k mp3 and a 16bit 44.1khz CD easily. And if its a good mastering job, I'd like to appreciate it for what it is.
If you have high end equipment (headphones included), you can notice the difference. But on most casual equipment to moderately decent equipment, in most situations, you won't notice a whole lot of difference between a CD and a 128Kbit mp3 of the same song.

And for my purpose of tunes and variety at work in a noisy atmosphere, I'm not bringing the 3000 dollar sound system to take the beating just so I can hear perfect high hats or cymbals.

Thus 128Kbit works perfectly well for me and I'm quite impressed with the P3's upscaler. I'm not used to having such clarity from a 128Kbit mp3. I was shocked. Quite shocked.

I'm really only used to having superior sound at home with the use of the broadcast dsp I mentioned and running my sound through a home stereo and home stereo speakers.

Oh and don't get me wrong, I love the fact that the P3 plays FLAC files. So when I desire I can slap on some albums and pump it through a high end system and get perfect sound. I absolutely love that fact, but it's not what I bought the player for, I bought it for work.

Now you know why I tend to do 128Kbit. The dsp processor is to get the best possible out of the 128Kbit and I must say, it's rather impressive when paired up with the P3.

And lastly, "that elite" says that you consider yourself elite, which explains why the insinuation of the insults you slapped my way. It's that attitude that keeps people separated instead of coming together as fellow human beings.

Peace out.
Reply With Quote

  #45  
Old 06-01-2009, 05:45 AM
lebellium's Avatar
lebellium lebellium is offline
Samsung Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Paris
Posts: 3,599
Default

Please use the "edit" button.
No double post here.
Especially if it is to say the Audio Upscaling Mode is efficient ...
__________________
I'm French^^ *GenerationMP3 Samsung Moderator*
Reply With Quote

  #46  
Old 06-01-2009, 05:46 AM
skip252 skip252 is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 5,149
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TomCat39 View Post
Maybe your method with XMPlay is easier on the CPU. But I tend to think it might be the dual core CPU gambit. If I had a newer dual core machine, I'm sure I'd not be hit as hard.

My machine is an old AMD XP 2800+ (1.67 Ghz) machine. So with decoding flac or mp3, then processing through the dsp, then encoding back into mp3 just sucks up all of my available CPU. More so than any other 99% cpu task I've ever done.

There is no way my poor aging machine could also play the results simultaneously.

Oh and thanks for the recognition of the dsp, I absolutely love it too, just wish the author would make a VST version that handled more than just 44Khz 16 bit format. It's quite powerful and the only other place I ever saw one as complete is in SAM broadcaster software.

I'll have to look into XMPlay with wrapper, sound like it might be better than the Winamp solution.
First in the spirit of the thread:

LAME 3.98.2 -V5 or Vorbis -q3

TomCat39, I have just about the same specs on the machine I'm using. I think it may have more to do with how light XMPlay is on system resources. Task Manager reports that with the using this dsp to while transcoding FLAC to .mp3 with XMPlay I'm only using 15% to 20% of a 2.0 Ghz AMD single core. The same setup in Winamp jumps to 75% to 90%.
Reply With Quote

  #47  
Old 06-01-2009, 10:12 AM
TomCat39's Avatar
TomCat39 TomCat39 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 406
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skip252 View Post
First in the spirit of the thread:

LAME 3.98.2 -V5 or Vorbis -q3

TomCat39, I have just about the same specs on the machine I'm using. I think it may have more to do with how light XMPlay is on system resources. Task Manager reports that with the using this dsp to while transcoding FLAC to .mp3 with XMPlay I'm only using 15% to 20% of a 2.0 Ghz AMD single core. The same setup in Winamp jumps to 75% to 90%.
WoW, okay, I'll definitely be looking into XMPlay. Didn't realize that Winamp was being such a culprit.

Thank you very much. My wife will be much happier too.
Reply With Quote

  #48  
Old 06-01-2009, 10:48 AM
TomCat39's Avatar
TomCat39 TomCat39 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 406
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dfkt View Post
128k CBR uses not enough bits for passages that need more information, and uses too many bits for passages that could save you some file size. VBR would be the much better way to go.
Just out of curiosity, what is the optimal top setting to allow the complex passages of a track proper expression? 160Kb? 192? or does it require the full 320Kb to get approximate representation? Thinking about CD quality comparison.

Would 160-8 variable be the best compromise between size and quality? Or would you recommend a higher top end on the variable bitrate?
Reply With Quote

  #49  
Old 06-01-2009, 10:56 AM
lebellium's Avatar
lebellium lebellium is offline
Samsung Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Paris
Posts: 3,599
Default

Hey what's the matter guy?!
I just told you not to double post.
Just EDIT your post.
It's the last time I told you that
__________________
I'm French^^ *GenerationMP3 Samsung Moderator*
Reply With Quote

  #50  
Old 06-01-2009, 11:17 AM
iNero iNero is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 53
Default

320 ftw!
Reply With Quote

  #51  
Old 06-01-2009, 03:54 PM
nuwbuddy nuwbuddy is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 22
Default

i'm planning on re-ripping all of my music from wma 128kbps to at least 256. i'm not much of an audiophile, but i re-ripped some cds of mine to 160 kbps and noticed how horrible 128 really sounds...
Reply With Quote

  #52  
Old 06-01-2009, 07:43 PM
TomCat39's Avatar
TomCat39 TomCat39 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 406
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lebellium View Post
Hey what's the matter guy?!
I just told you not to double post.
Just EDIT your post.
It's the last time I told you that
Sorry, never notice you telling me not to multi post, just edit.

Probably missed it with having 5 different conversations going at the same time.

I shall adjust accordingly.

Yeah missed the post, see it now just above. My apologies. To error is to be human.

Back to the topic at hand, this thread is one huge can of worms I had no idea about.

I've been doing a little looking around about "optimum" bitrate for mp3. And the more I read, the more it becomes apparent that it's pretty much a huge subjective thing and no one answer is the "right" answer.

It does seem that hardware plays a role but even there it's subjective and also how trained the listener is and how good of hearing they have and other factors to boot.

One thing that does help one find the answer for oneself and just a little more objectively is the ABX testing method.

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...howtopic=16295

It's quite the process and I've read results of people finding out that in reality they couldn't tell the difference (on their equipment) between the bitrates and the wav/CD file.

So boiling it all down, use whatever bitrate floats your boat and makes YOU happy.

One thing I can say from experience, if you can avoid re-encoding an mp3 from an mp3, do so at all costs because quality is reduced very noticably even on the crappiest of equipment.

Leroy Bad: I want to apologize for coming down on you so hard. I just get really pissed off when someone takes an elitist stance on anything, especially anything subjective. I don't bode well with the, you are stupid, I am smart attitude that tends to come out of an elitist mentality. And I usually retaliate vigorously and feverently. I'm truly sorry. If you wish to have a debate on the subjective matter and not just ridicule one another, feel free to open discussion. I look forward to it. I've happily been learning from this whole discussion.

And for that, I thank everyone who has participated in this interesting and informative thread.

Last edited by TomCat39; 06-01-2009 at 11:26 PM.
Reply With Quote

  #53  
Old 06-02-2009, 12:44 PM
Leroy Bad's Avatar
Leroy Bad Leroy Bad is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 468
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TomCat39 View Post
Leroy Bad: I want to apologize for coming down on you so hard. I just get really pissed off when someone takes an elitist stance on anything, especially anything subjective. I don't bode well with the, you are stupid, I am smart attitude that tends to come out of an elitist mentality. And I usually retaliate vigorously and feverently. I'm truly sorry. If you wish to have a debate on the subjective matter and not just ridicule one another, feel free to open discussion. I look forward to it. I've happily been learning from this whole discussion.

And for that, I thank everyone who has participated in this interesting and informative thread.
Take it easy lol, Noone was trying to offend you or call you stupid.
But realize that there is somewhat of a "Shock Factor" in your initial post
"This guy is taking Flac and doing what with it??" And I honestly have'nt heard anyone say that a 128kbps MP3 is the same as CD quality since the late 90s. But I forgot, I always say that music is supposed to be a personal experience on a PMP. So if you personally like it, nothing else matters.

Also I am in noway an elitists. Perhaps my use of that word was a bad choice. As much as I'd like to be I just can't afford it
I gained a large appreciation in hi-fidelity when I took sound engineering in college. The teacher was recording engineer Jay Henry, who is so hardcore he won't even listen to a speaker with a cloth speaker grill on it, without claiming theres a difference, nor will he listening to music on the radio because of the quality. I am no where near that level of being a perfectionist (I'm not a perfectionist). But I was struck with an interest, a curiosity because of him. The guy has won grammies so I know he knows what he's talking about.

By my own experimentations, I've learned the difference in low quality or badly encoded MP3s agianst CD quality. And while MP3 encoding technology has improved a lot since the late 90s, such as the latest Lame encoder, there are still are times when I run across stuff that does'nt sound right. Like a few tracks from Dave Brubeck's Time Out album for example. But with most stuff I admit I am fine with MP3s encoded in V0 with Lame.
__________________
Current Gear: Cowon J3; iPod Touch 4G; Sony XBA-3; HiFiMan RE-272; Sennheiser HD558; Bose AE2

Last edited by Leroy Bad; 06-02-2009 at 01:04 PM.
Reply With Quote

  #54  
Old 06-02-2009, 10:22 PM
TomCat39's Avatar
TomCat39 TomCat39 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 406
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leroy Bad View Post
Take it easy lol, Noone was trying to offend you or call you stupid.
But realize that there is somewhat of a "Shock Factor" in your initial post
"This guy is taking Flac and doing what with it??" And I honestly have'nt heard anyone say that a 128kbps MP3 is the same as CD quality since the late 90s. But I forgot, I always say that music is supposed to be a personal experience on a PMP. So if you personally like it, nothing else matters.

Also I am in noway an elitists. Perhaps my use of that word was a bad choice. As much as I'd like to be I just can't afford it
I gained a large appreciation in hi-fidelity when I took sound engineering in college. The teacher was recording engineer Jay Henry, who is so hardcore he won't even listen to a speaker with a cloth speaker grill on it, without claiming theres a difference, nor will he listening to music on the radio because of the quality. I am no where near that level of being a perfectionist (I'm not a perfectionist). But I was struck with an interest, a curiosity because of him. The guy has won grammies so I know he knows what he's talking about.

By my own experimentations, I've learned the difference in low quality or badly encoded MP3s agianst CD quality. And while MP3 encoding technology has improved a lot since the late 90s, such as the latest Lame encoder, there are still are times when I run across stuff that does'nt sound right. Like a few tracks from Dave Brubeck's Time Out album for example. But with most stuff I admit I am fine with MP3s encoded in V0 with Lame.
Ahhh, okay. I understand where you are coming from and where we seemed to have crossed wires.

I guess the shock factor is understandable, it does show just how much work I was going through to get the highest quality, low bitrate mp3's possible.

Now that I know about mp3gain and how it works without any decoding and encoding.... I can fix the mp3's I don't have the flac or CD's for without all the trouble.

One thing I loved about the processor I use is that even bootlegs come out near studio quality and makes listening to them much more bearable.

Some garage recordings just really blow and need mastering.

I guess in my original post I should have included what my purpose was for the mp3's. That may have explained why the smallest size possible. And also why the lower quality is quite tolerable and rather unnoticeable (noisy listening environment).

As for the 128Kbit is approximately equivalent to CD, that comes from streaming Inet radio. Then again, the consensus at one time (the 90's you said?) was that 128Kbit is approximately CD quality. The reason for Inet radio to stick with that consensus is mainly because bandwidth is still limited, especially as a provider, 128Kbit is the best compomise for quality versus listener capacity of a server. But I suppose some people (like your professor) would refuse to listen to those stations because of the 128K feed and also that they use a compressor/limiter/expander setup usually.

I guess it really depends on the track. What kind of music, how complex, etc. Some songs just don't seem to encode into mp3 faithfully no matter what bitrate you do.

And I guess in all reality, I'm just not that fickle about music. As long as I like the tune, and can discern the tune. I'm usually pretty happy.

Last edited by TomCat39; 06-02-2009 at 10:28 PM.
Reply With Quote

  #55  
Old 06-16-2009, 09:43 AM
TomCat39's Avatar
TomCat39 TomCat39 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 406
Default

After switching to decent headphones for bus travel and no longer listening in a noisy warehouse environment, I'd like to change my stance.

I know I probably made an *** of myself but for my situation it worked well and the P3 was quite impressive even with the limited 128Kbit mp3's.

But now that I'm getting to hear the songs fully, I prefer original mastering variable bitrate (320-min bitrate) -v0 setting in Lame 3.97+.

So all in all, it really depends on your situation, and listening environment.

I'd been listening to heavily compressed music for so long, I forgot what nuances I was missing in a lot of my tunes. Seems newer metal and rock songs are already highly compressed so there isn't much change, but on a lot of the older music...... Quite significant.

I guess I'd have to pretty much agree with everyone else in this thread and recommend, nothing lower than 192Kbit mp3's if you must do mp3.

Ciao
Reply With Quote

  #56  
Old 06-16-2009, 03:42 PM
lebellium's Avatar
lebellium lebellium is offline
Samsung Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Paris
Posts: 3,599
Default

always time to change his stance, that sounds more reasonable
__________________
I'm French^^ *GenerationMP3 Samsung Moderator*
Reply With Quote

  #57  
Old 06-16-2009, 09:22 PM
TomCat39's Avatar
TomCat39 TomCat39 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 406
Default

Well, 128Kbit should be fine if it's a noisy listening environment and you aren't using noise canceling headphones. In a case like that, you wouldn't hear the nuances or any of the missed sounds.

And if space is a serious issue, 128Kbit works for that too.

This player does pretty good with even the low grade 128's.

But for most, I'm sure, 128K just won't do.

And if you are a serious audiophile.... Then don't use mp3 period.

It has flac ssupport which is absolutely awesome.
Reply With Quote

  #58  
Old 06-17-2009, 01:58 PM
triarii117's Avatar
triarii117 triarii117 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 554
Default

920 MBPS, WMA Lossless.
Not really... heh. I usually use 128mbps or 160mbps, WMA standard or pro.
__________________
PMPs: Cowon J3, Samsung P3(touchscreen problems), Creative Zen (4GB, black)
Headphones: Panasonic RP-HTX7, Philips, JVC Marshmallow IEMS (why not)
Reply With Quote

  #59  
Old 06-28-2009, 04:34 AM
nick_j007 nick_j007 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Bewdley, Worcs. UK
Posts: 13
Default

I've been thinking about this myself recently as I'm considering a new player.

I have all my CD's ripped at 128 kbps WMA's via WMP 11 and played on my Zen. This is a historical thing for me (probably read somewhere once it was the best compromise). I feel like I've been left behind reading your posts here

Very few of you seem to go for the WMA option, and many more at a higher bit rate than me

Also, a few quote bit rates above 300, how do you achieve that when my WMP only goes as high as 192 kbps max?

I sense I may be looking at a re-rip at some point (joy).

For me this also places a strong emphasis on finding a player with sufficient capacity to hold all of my music on one device...many of you must be travelling with a pared down version of your libraries? I bet at these higher rates I will certainly need at least 100 GB! Zune seems more necessary as I go. (?)

Your thoughts would be appreciated.
Reply With Quote

  #60  
Old 06-28-2009, 05:14 AM
Marvin the Martian's Avatar
Marvin the Martian Marvin the Martian is offline
Ultra Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: east central NY state
Posts: 10,602
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nick_j007 View Post
I've been thinking about this myself recently as I'm considering a new player.

I have all my CD's ripped at 128 kbps WMA's via WMP 11 and played on my Zen. This is a historical thing for me (probably read somewhere once it was the best compromise). I feel like I've been left behind reading your posts here

Very few of you seem to go for the WMA option, and many more at a higher bit rate than me

Also, a few quote bit rates above 300, how do you achieve that when my WMP only goes as high as 192 kbps max?

I sense I may be looking at a re-rip at some point (joy).

For me this also places a strong emphasis on finding a player with sufficient capacity to hold all of my music on one device...many of you must be travelling with a pared down version of your libraries? I bet at these higher rates I will certainly need at least 100 GB! Zune seems more necessary as I go. (?)

Your thoughts would be appreciated.
WMP 11 will rip higher than 192 in WMA. If you are happy with WMA sound, at least use the VBR settings. They'll give you a better compromise of quality vs. filesize. The 85-145kbps target range would be ok if you're cramming songs into a small capacity player, or the 135-215kbps target range is better overall, but of course would use more space.

Most of us though use the LAME MP3 codec, but at higher bitrates. You'd need a different ripping program for that though, like Exact Audio Copy(generally regarded as the best)or CDex (very good but easier to set up). LAME MP3 will play on just about any player under the sun. There are a lot of players that support WMA, but it's not nearly as universal.

The MP3 encoder on WMP11 is not recommended....indeed, I suspect they used it to bolster their claim that WMA is better than MP3. In this specific case, it is, but the LAME codec is a whole different ballgame.
__________________
iPod Touch 5G 32GB, Touch 4G 32GB, Clip Sport 8GB. Rockbox-> Clip Zip 4GB, iPod Nano 2G 4GB, iPod 5.5G 80GB
2012 Nexus 7 32GB, Asus MeMoPad 8 16+64GB, LG Optimus G Pro, Nokia Lumia 900 and Lumia 520
Reply With Quote

Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:32 AM.