320 kbps mp3 peaking at 22khz, difference? Options

[xdesirex22]

I have always used LAME to encode my 320 kbps MP3s, but I know there are other encoders out there that encode 320s that peak at 22khz. Does this make for an increase in quality or audible difference? I have always thought LAME to be the best option, but I have heard from different people that 320s that peak at 22khz sound better on a large party/concert sound system.

also, what are some of the other lossy encoders out there besides LAME?

[xdesirex22]

Not really a fan of the term transparency. First off, it is completely subjective. Different files sound differently to different people. Additionally, it is also VERY dependent on what speakers you are playing your music on and how you have connected. I am connected with an optical audio cable with a decent pair of speakers, and I can tell the difference between 320kbps mp3s and lossless files 100% of the time. I am not exaggerating. I have tested this numerous times and every single time the difference is very apparent for me. Compare that to my $5 headphones. I wouldn't be able to tell lossy vs lossless EVER I'd be willing to bet. So yeah, transparency? Not so much. The only thing "transparent" for me are the lossless files themselves.

I am just wondering if there is at all any difference between a lame encoded 320 which peaks at 20khz and a 320 that peaks at 22khz, and what other lossy encoders are out there besides lame.

[db1989]

Not really a fan of the term transparency. First off, it is completely subjective. Different files sound differently to different people.

That’s the point.

Transparency is what is perceptually equivalent to the source for you (any particular “you”), for listening on your equipment.

Also, please don’t come back until you’re willing to comply with rules #8 and #2.