Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Is This The Best Setting for Quality? (Read 3171 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Is This The Best Setting for Quality?

Hi Everybody,

A Quick Question

I am currently backing up my MP3's  & want the closet possible sound to the originals & I don't care how big the file is.

Iam using CDex and using Lame on alt-prest-insane.

Does this setting give me the best possible sound quality?

Is This The Best Setting for Quality?

Reply #1 –
Yes.

EDIT: -b640 --freeformat is even "better" but even if it's still MP3 it's not compatible with most decoders (hardware & software).

Is This The Best Setting for Quality?

Reply #2 –
If you don't care how big the file is... then you should go Lossless.... I personaly recommend FLAC... but some others like WavPack...
JorSol
aoTuVb5 -q4

Is This The Best Setting for Quality?

Reply #3 –
Quote from: soundstory on
I am backing up my MP3's  .... Iam using CDex and using Lame on alt-prest-insane. ....

I guess you're not backing up available mp3 files but rerip CDs and encode to mp3.
But what is not entirely clear is: do you want to use the high quality encoded files only for backup purposes or want to use it for music playing on mobile DAPs or whatever.

If it's just for backup purposes the best way is to go lossless of course. Use for instance Monkey as giving one of the best compression ratios while still being pretty fast, or FLAC or wavPack whatever is most attractive to you. Compression ratio is roughly speaking 50% (usually a bit better with classical music and quite a bit worse with popular music).
If this should require too much disc space you can consider using wavPack lossy at a bitrate of something like 500 kbps. The error of using wavPack lossy as compared to lossless is added noise of very low volume that can be pretty safely considered inaudible at such a high bitrate. On the positive side you save roughly half the amount of disc space that the lossless encoding would require. 500 kbps is an extreme bitrate, and you don't run into big danger choosing a lower bitrate downto say 350 kbps.
Morever you can use Rockbox firmware on a number of mobile DAPs which enables them to use wavPack.

If it's not only for backup then mp3 is an adequate format if you use high bitrate. Sure --alt-preset insane is best. However I would not really expect a quality loss if you go a bit lower. My personal setting is --alt-preset 270 which gives an average bitrate of 270 kbps, and as it uses ABR, has a very good chance to use 320 kbps frames on the extremely difficult parts of the music. In most situations bitrates a lot lower are totally sufficient for best quality, so --alt-preset 270 does have a big safety margin, and saves some 15% of disc space as compared to --alt-preset insane. All a matter of taste, and going a bit lower than 270 kbps is not unwise too.
Another question is which Lame version to use. At the moment I consider 3.90.3 being best. In most cases lame version doesn't matter at all at such a high bitrate - quality is simply perfect to the same degree. But at rare occasion there's sufficient evidence to me that 3.90.3 (or 3.91 available at ReallyRarewares) is better. Things are in progress as 3.98a3 has caught up a lot, and 3.98a4 has been announced by Gabriel to have overcome the issue. I'm very curious about it. Hope it is offered soon.
lame3995o -Q1.7 --lowpass 17

Is This The Best Setting for Quality?

Reply #4 –
here's the link for the highly recommended, official hydrogenaudio wiki entry for lame:  http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=LAME

it includes recommendations for optimal settings for varing purposes.  it certainly should answer all questions you have about which settings you should use.  also, lame version can be very important.  hydrogenaudio officially recommends the excellent version 3.97b2.

as stated above, if quality (for backups) is your primary concern, and filesize is unimportant, you really should consider lossless.  here is the link for our excellent, official wiki entry for a comparision of lossless encoders: http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?ti...less_comparison

do your reading, and enjoy! 
a windows-free, linux user since 1/31/06.