LAME VBR Settings Options

[greynol]

I see you've since edited your post. Please, tell me how you know what is transparent for someone who is not you.

[eahm]

Where's the part where you didn't tell him how low he can go? (sarcasm)

Anyway, I'm gals to see your intention was not to speak for someone else (even though you in fact did speak for someone else ).

Since we're on the subject of testing, how low can you go transcoding 320 mp3 to VBR mp3 before it is no longer transparent?

I didn't want to be rude.
I have no idea where he will reach transparency coming from MP3 CBR 320.

I see you've since edited your post. Please, tell me how you know what is transparent for someone who is not you.

I don't and of course no one does, that wiki post in fact is where generally codecs reach transparency coming from PCM.

[greynol]

I have no idea where he will reach transparency coming from MP3 CBR 320.

Remove "coming from MP3 CBR 320" and I think you'll be safe.

FWIW, many people claim transparent results with -V5. I can imagine that mp3-mp3 transcoding won't make a difference to these people either, but I could very easily be wrong. I think it would be right to assume this threshold could change with training for at least some of them. Regardless, actual testing (and knowing how to perform actual tests) always trumps generalities quoted from wiki articles.

This post has been edited by greynol: Sep 21 2012, 18:18

[daniel.ok]

I think this discussion between you 2 is because everyone have different standards regarding accuracy on an MP3. As far I'm concerned I have a dilemma: I don't know how an MP3 re-encoded from 320CBR to v2 sounds on a high-end audio equipment. I have normal audio equipment (under 200Euros) but also a have a pair of headphones decent I think - Pioneer se-m390.
What do you think guys, using these headphones can I get a right view about quality of an MP3, or when I will play my albums on ... 2000Euros Audio System will sound link junk

here is the link with specs:
http://www.overstock.com/Electronics/Pione...36/product.html

[pdq]

A good pair of headphones is generally the best way to hear artifacts. Of course, in your case you will be comparing a 320 kbs cbr with a vbr transcode, so you won't know how either of them sounds compared to the lossless original.

Edit: Have you tried running any of your files through MP3 repacker to see how much space that would save? Maybe you don't need to reencode at all.

This post has been edited by pdq: Sep 21 2012, 20:43

[daniel.ok]

Edit: Have you tried running any of your files through MP3 repacker to see how much space that would save? Maybe you don't need to reencode at all.

I don't trust so much that program. I've read about it.

[psycho]

I too vote for daniel.ok to try MP3 repacker. You'll save space and there will be no reencoding. Resulting mp3s will be VBR.

[halb27]

Edit: Have you tried running any of your files through MP3 repacker to see how much space that would save? Maybe you don't need to reencode at all.

I don't trust so much that program. I've read about it.

You can easily let foobar compare the original and the mp3packed mp3 file for several tracks from your collection to see that they are bit-identical with respect to the audio contents.
mp3packer is the best way to go as long as you're content with the bitrate reduction.

[pdq]

I don't trust so much that program. I've read about it.

You trust a lossy encoder to reasonably reencode from a lossy source, but you don't trust a program that simply removes wasted space without otherwise changing the contents? (shakes head)

[greynol]

I give up trying to help when I'm expected to debate FUD of unknown origin.

This post has been edited by greynol: Sep 22 2012, 17:00

[mjb2006]

I would really like to know where one can read about mp3packer and come away feeling it's not trustworthy. (If it's a file-sharing site, never mind; posting/asking about it would be a TOS #9 violation.)

This post has been edited by mjb2006: Sep 23 2012, 03:37