# Improving mp3 quality



## Poimen (Mar 15, 2008)

So... our congregation purchased an mp3 recorder. It's great; we have the quality set at 128kbs which is clear as a bell for CD audio. 

In addition we recently set up an account with sermonaudio.com. But they require that every sermon that is uploaded is in 16kbs. No problem, I have found a simple way to change the quality.

However, at 16kbs the quality of the recording goes down. It still sounds fine, i.e. perfectly discernable, but I was wondering is there any way to improve the quality at 16kbs. 

For example, would it make a difference if we recorded our services in 16kbs?


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 15, 2008)

16kbps is bad. There is nothing you can do to change that. The fact that sermon audio uses 16kbps is one of the reasons that I didn't consider it for our congregation. Sermonaudio does give very good publicity/distribution, but the sound is downright horrible.

I did see something recently that for some additional charge (looks like $10 per month) you can get "Hi-Fi" encoding which is 32kbps. That is certainly not "Hi-Fi" (since many music MP3s are 192 or even 320kbps) but its MUCH better.

SermonAudio.com - Breaking News

I have found (after doing this for almost 4 years that 32kbps is the lowest bit rate you can get consistent audio that is listenable with headphones without having it sound like it is coming in over tin cans or in a tunnel. 24kbps is not bad, but can be grating over a long time. I would never encode with 16kbps.

Just my thoughts.


----------



## Poimen (Mar 15, 2008)

Well thanks for sharing your thoughts. 

I guess it is too late now since we just signed up.


----------



## raekwon (Mar 15, 2008)

Well, signing up doesn't necessarily mean that you have to use them.  (Unless it costs. Then... meh.)

128 kbps is a waste of data if you're just recording sermons. Spoken word audio sounds best at around 64 kbps. Anything higher won't produce much of a discernible difference (of course, that's different when you're recording music.)

Recording your sermons at 64 kbps should actually sound fine, though. Give it a whirl.


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 15, 2008)

Poimen said:


> Well thanks for sharing your thoughts.
> 
> I guess it is too late now since we just signed up.



Not too late. Seriously: spend the $10 per month to get the Hi-Fi. For $120 a year, the difference is HUGE.

SermonAudio.com - Breaking News


----------



## Poimen (Mar 15, 2008)

raekwon said:


> Well, signing up doesn't necessarily mean that you have to use them.  (Unless it costs. Then... meh.)
> 
> 128 kbps is a waste of data if you're just recording sermons. Spoken word audio sounds best at around 64 kbps. Anything higher won't produce much of a discernible difference (of course, that's different when you're recording music.)
> 
> Recording your sermons at 64 kbps should actually sound fine, though. Give it a whirl.



But since sermonaudio requires that the sermons come in at 16kbs do you think that will make a difference (going from 64 -> 16 instead of 128 -> to 16)?


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Mar 15, 2008)

For what it's worth, if God's Word is being distributed and the quality is such that it can be clearly understood, why sweet over 16kbs or 320kbs? We've been on SermonAudio for many years now and no one has complained about the quality of the sound. But there have been many of have thanked us for faithfully preaching God's Word. I just save the file in both 16kbs for SA and 128bps for CDs.


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 15, 2008)

raekwon said:


> 128 kbps is a waste of data if you're just recording sermons. Spoken word audio sounds best at around 64 kbps. Anything higher won't produce much of a discernible difference (of course, that's different when you're recording music.)
> 
> Recording your sermons at 16 kbps should actually sound fine. Give it a whirl.



Spoken audio is best at 64kpbs - you're right, anything more is a waste. The "sweet spot" is somewhere between 32 and 64. I always tend toward 32, because you can get smaller file sizes. At 30-45 minutes a sermon, the files are 8-10MB, which is actually email-able in today's world. The same file in 64 would be 15-20MB, prohibitive for dial up.

I've found that there is not a huge difference between 48 and 32. BUt I have found a discernible difference between 32 and 24 (and so do my audio guys - occasionally it gets save in the wrong encoding and we all cringe). We never even try 16.


----------



## Poimen (Mar 15, 2008)

fredtgreco said:


> Poimen said:
> 
> 
> > Well thanks for sharing your thoughts.
> ...



Thanks, I saw that the other day. We'll have to think about it (financial considerations for a smaller congregation).


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Mar 15, 2008)

Poimen said:


> raekwon said:
> 
> 
> > Well, signing up doesn't necessarily mean that you have to use them.  (Unless it costs. Then... meh.)
> ...



If you go with the higher quality, they actually do the conversion for you. You can send it in at whatever bit rate you choose, as long as it is above 32kbs.


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 15, 2008)

Poimen said:


> raekwon said:
> 
> 
> > Well, signing up doesn't necessarily mean that you have to use them.  (Unless it costs. Then... meh.)
> ...



No - you're missing my point. With the "Hi-Fi" option I linked to, Sermonaudio will allow 32kbps. So you could record in whatever (personally we record in 144kbps I think) and modify it to 32kbps, or just record in 32kbps.


----------



## Seb (Mar 15, 2008)

Have you tried coding the mp3 in MONO instead of STEREO? 

That may help some.


----------



## Poimen (Mar 15, 2008)

fredtgreco said:


> Poimen said:
> 
> 
> > raekwon said:
> ...



No I got your point. I responded to your post above but here I was responding to Rae.


----------



## raekwon (Mar 15, 2008)

fredtgreco said:


> raekwon said:
> 
> 
> > 128 kbps is a waste of data if you're just recording sermons. Spoken word audio sounds best at around 64 kbps. Anything higher won't produce much of a discernible difference (of course, that's different when you're recording music.)
> ...



Yeah, I meant to type "64" in that last paragraph, not "16". I went back and edited.


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 15, 2008)

Seb said:


> Have you tried coding the mp3 in MONO instead of STEREO?
> 
> That may help some.



We always do that. We record in stereo, since that is what our sound system does, and we final encode in audio.

Would there be a difference in just recording in mono?


----------



## Seb (Mar 15, 2008)

fredtgreco said:


> Seb said:
> 
> 
> > Have you tried coding the mp3 in MONO instead of STEREO?
> ...



Your initial recording file size *COULD *go down some. It really depends on what your kind of equipment / inputs you're using initially. 

Because of all the different possibilities, trial and error (as usual) is about the only way to answer the question.


----------

