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.

[Kohlrabi]

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.

First off, I assume that "peaks at" means, "has a lowpass at". I'd guess the file with the higher lowpass at 22kHz might sound worse, because you use the encoder at fixed bitrate, but force it to encode even more mostly inaudible parts of the spectrum, even if the psy-model violently shakes its head against that. Is that assumption valid?

This post has been edited by Kohlrabi: Sep 10 2012, 11:27

[yourlord]

First off, I assume that "peaks at" means, "has a lowpass at". I'd guess the file with the higher lowpass at 22kHz might sound worse, because you use the encoder at fixed bitrate, but force it to encode even more mostly inaudible parts of the spectrum, even if the psy-model violently shakes its head against that. Is that assumption valid?

You are correct, in a way. Forcing the encoder to consider inaudible content will mean it has to use the fixed bitrate to represent more data than otherwise would be necessary to achieve transparency. That means some of the bit budget is wasted encoding inaudible content when it could have been used to more accurately represent audible content. Having said that, 320Kbps should be so far above the needed bitrate to achieve transparency that on the overwhelming majority of music you'd not hear any difference between the 2. So the quality is essentially the same.

I'll join the chorus wanting ABX results because I simply don't believe anyone who claims they can 100% ABX 320CBR mp3 and lossless on a variety of music, unless they are using a severely broken mp3 encoder.