sorry about the mix on the name.
Jake.
i see you found the other thread. yes that is what happens
to the word submarine here.
changes completely but i did mp3 and wma and ogg and got tired of the mess up with the lyrics.
so i just went to the amount that did not
have the mess up.

it is not this computer it mess's up on any computer i do the compression with. and any program i use to compress with.

i don't work with digital sound at first. if i can get a vinyl copy i put that in the computer and go with the compressing from that wav. which is hard to do with the new rap music so i did use a digital version i got for it. but it was the one that did the lyric change when i made it smaller.

it might be the difference in the hardware setups but it does do what i said here at this computer and the other 2 computers i have. can't be the sound cards as this is a turttle beach card and the others are sound blasters.

might be the os? thats it lets blame it on microsoft.
because all computers are running windows os's

Hi Cowboy, it's jake by the way not jack,

Something else must be the problem then, as compression in a proper encoding environment should not remove sound/music in that way. It can muddy the sound and make it crappy but only some kind of filtering will cause vocal and instruments to be merged or clipped.

How have you encoded these tracks? If you are using mp3Pro then playing back with an mp3 player only half the frequency will be in the result. WMA and AAC encoding tend to push the higher frequencies to make the sound brighter overall but to my knowledge there is no specific notch filter running. Fraunhoefer brick wall filters above 16kHz and Lame filters above 19.5kHz none of which would be notch filtering in the vocal range.

Not having any ymca in my collection I slimewired 3 mp3's of that track, one each 128, 160 and 320 kbs. Ran Encspot over them, the 320kbs was a Xing new, the 160 FHIIs and the 128 an old Xing. Listened to them and could make out clearly the guy in the background rapping about submarines etc and I listened to them enough to not hear anything like what you are saying.

Anyway, good luck with solving that one,
cheers,
jake

in some of my other posts jack you will see the examples of the songs i said when i found the error of the merging of the songs
sounds.

but in short , i think? (short for me maybe)

the songs i found it doing this in mostly are the disco and the rap songs.

where they are talking in the background as with the music and the main singer making every beat have a word to it.
or doing a conversation with the singer talking and the back ground singers, singing their lyrics. either way when i go below th 196kbps rate for songs of that type the bits are so close that the ones removed are half of the syllables of the word or one of the notes in the song. and when that song has played to that point you will not hear the songs normal lyrics.

there just seems to be too much going on note wise for some of the lower compressions to work proper when removing the bits it thinks you can't hear.

the old disco song i get this on all the time is "In The Navy" by the village people, and i get it on most of the rap songs of today "Missy" somebody? has several songs that do this. her and her group is singing or chatting with the music while a Chris? some one is doing his rapping in the background to the song.

the words are mainly said in beat with the music or noise and said really close to the note or at the same time as the note.
so when it is compressed something is removed making the word said sound different. but these same songs do not do that when compressed higher then 192kbps.
which is why i don't suggest any lower then 196, just to make sure it never hurts to add a few kbps's

One needs to be careful with sweeping statements like WMA has a better compression algorithm than MP3. Spend some time at the forums at hydrogenaudio.org and you will find a huge community that will disagree with that statement -- wholeheartedly.

I am not understanding rovingcowboy's discussion about music merging ... I doubt that a beat and a vocal would ever be merged, but as one goes lower in bit rate, the overall sound quality suffers and it can be to the point when it just sounds like crap ... interpreted as sounds merging, music missing, being muddied or whatever.

The whole contentious discussion of exactly what bit rate and encoder is best is not the point here, but if you are looking for one of the best quality vs file size compromises, I suggest looking closely at LAME with the alt preset switches. Lame with --alt-preset standard equivalent could be considered almost indistinguishable from the original when played in typical mp3 environments and even on decent sound systems. The resultant file size of an --alt-preset standard file vs a 320kbs file can be as low as 60% with very little loss in sound quality. (the audio geeks working the LAME project have tweaked those switches all these years and they really have it right!).

Keep in mind that if a file is encoded at 192kbs it will be exactly the same size no matter what the algorithm, so if you like wma-192 or lower you may or may not find a saving in file size vs quality compared to a well ripped/encoded VBR mp3.

cheers,
jake

Like said Cowboy, 192 kbps is rather high for a WMA.
WMA has a better compression algorithm than MP3.
One could say that WMA@128 corresponds to MP3@192, so it's 1.5 X better, and Microsoft claims that WMA@64 is as best as MP3@128 !

I would go for the 1.5 X.

So 192 X 1.5 = 288. If you don't want to loose any quality, go for MP3@320 (CBR), or MP3@256 (VBR).

But if you don't mind a little loss (and don't own studio quality equipment) go for MP3@224 or even MP3@192 which have real acceptable sound for home listening and mp3 players.

I don't know if you have a lot of these hi quality WMAs, but I think you sould keep them by making backups (on DVDs or whatever). Who knows...

no i don't think your #1 is possible.

the #2nd one of the wma bitrate well that is rather high for a wma most are defaluted at 128,

there are other posts in the forum that say what is best or what the bit rate equals between formats but nobody can
agree on the lower ones.

how ever going from the high wma to the high mp3 is not really any different.
but if you go to a mp3 lower then 192/196 kbps you going to get in to trouble with sound's merging,
if you are doing that on rap or disco or other genera where the beats of the music over lap with the singers.

lower kbps will take out bit's it thinks you can not hear, and it has the most trouble with those formats, where it takes out a bit from the music and one from the singers,

but when you hear it you get some different words then what was sung. because the bit was mixed in with the one that was removed. making for some strange lyrics.

That's what I'm doing...

I don't think it's possible but what I was asking was if there was a way to avoid converting MP3's when their mixed in with a playlist containing WMA's and FLAC's.

Another question, if the WMA's are a 192 bitrate what is the optimal setting to convert to MP3 that would yield the minimum loss in quality during the conversion? Can one go from 192 WMA to 192 MP3?

Thanks

select all the files you want to make mp3's put them in a new playlist.

select them all again click on covert button or on tools then on covert files.

pick your settings for the mp3 set up you want.
click okay.

songs are converted.

make list for mp3 cdrom and burn.

I've just began using the menu option "Convert Audio Format..." to convert a selection of tracks to MP3 format that is subsequently burnt to disc. However, I just want to convert those tracks that aren't MP3 already but this option converts existing MP3's to whatever the criteria is I set for MP3's under this option. I thought when I first started using this feature that it would only convert those tracks that were'nt MP3. I want to specify a mask for the filename otherwise I'd just copy the files over.

Any suggestions?