Hi everybody I,m a new user of mp3 and have few question looking for some feedback:

1. My mp3 files with different quality and different bite some are 64, 96, 128 and 192 how can I push up all of this to the top quality.. maybe 256Kps.

2. I,m using the nero to burn mp3 cd, what my choice while I need to select audio and data cd.

3. For sound quality which format is better, Mp3, OGG, WAV, WMA, MPC or any other if the root is 192kps.

4. What is Lame, what is for, how to use?

5. What is Mp3 Gains, how to use and where to download?

Thank you for any kind of help.

1. There's no way to magically improve the quality of the MP3s you have. Just leave them as they are, because unless you have the original source CDs for that music, you're better off sticking with your current files.

2. I'm not sure exactly what you're asking here, but if you're burning a CD full of MP3s then you'll be choosing to create a data disc in Nero.

3. Different formats have their strengths and weaknesses at different bit rate levels. I personally prefer LAME (VBR) MP3 for the best combination of quality and compatibility with hardware audio players. You can find out more about this by reading through these forums...

Thanks for your tips, so you mean all my collection is fixed and there are nothing I can do to made it better, if I convert the mp3 to another format mm... how about WMA, can I change anything or gain it better while to process the convert.

People always talking about LAME, is it a tools to convert the original CD to mp3?
All this things made me confuse, is there any where I can learn or read something about the audio stuffs.


Thanks

1. Turning all your MP3's into 256kbps files (known as "Transcoding") will not give you any more quality, but will in fact decrease the quality of all the files you convert. You can not give an MP3 more quality after it has been encoded... i.e. - a 64kbps MP3 will always sound like a 64kbps MP3, even if you convert it to 320kbps (in fact, the converted 320kbps file will sound WORSE, and take over 4 times the space!)

2. To burn an MP3 cd, you can just make a data CD using Nero. Newer versions also allow you to make "MP3 CDs," which allow you to keep the tags in your files if I remember correctly. Both MP3 and Data Cds will not play in regular CD players though. To make a regular CD like you buy at the store, you need to select "Audio CD"

3. This is a very subjective question. Mp3, Ogg Vorbis and MPC can all be considered transparent at around 192kbps depending on what settings you use, and each serves a different purpose. BUT DON"T TRANSCODE YOUR FILES TO THESE FORMATS IN AN ATTEMPT TO GAIN QUALITY! If you want to use MP3, you need to use Lame v3.90.3 with one of the --alt-preset command lines. Look in the FAQ for more information. Vorbis with the -q6 preset is also considered to be transparent to most people. MPC is also transparent 99% of the time using the --quality 5 --xlevel command line. Look at the FAQs in each section of the board for more information.

Wav files are uncompressed and do not sacrifice any quality from the original CD (because they are the same as the data on the CD!) Wav files are not really a choice for portable use though.

WMA files are considered by most to be inferior in quality to similar formats (excluding the Pro version), and I would not personally touch WMA with a 10-foot pole!

4. Lame is an MP3 encoder, used to make MP3 files. If you have original CDs that you would like to make into MP3 files (not burned CDs that friends made you, not for converting the files that you already have) then you need to learn how to use the Lame MP3 encoder and a program called EAC (exact audio copy). You can learn all of this at the FAQ . You can find almost anything you ever wanted to know there.

5. MP3Gain is a program that you can use on your MP3 files to avoid internal clipping. You can find out about MP3Gain at the FAQ above as well. It can be dl'ed from here - http://mp3gain.sourceforge.net/

Hope all this helps. Good luck!

AND DONT CONVERT ALL YOUR FILES TO 256KBPS

Just wanted to add...
5. MP3gain is primarily used to make your MP3-files have the same perceived volume and also make sure to avoid clipping.

Thank you very much, I know better than before and will keep learning.

Thank You

3. In the 192 kbps and above range, MPC is the one providing the best quality. Other can have other advantages (wider support...)

pio, was there any blind test to prove this? or is it just an asumption?

This is a statement that was already enforced in this board when I joined it. Thus I assume that it relies on blind tests. I think they were done on r3mix.net

But the people who ran them are still active here and can give you more information... it has been years since we have not performed any blind test about different codecs in the audiophile kbps range. Actually, if I'm not mistaken, the havoc raised by the last one lead to the creation of hydrogenaudio.

Edit : replaced "assumption" with "statement", and added the assumption about the statement relying on blind tests

maybe we should do one ... roberto?

The problem is that it is far too difficult to do a general test proving this one way or the other, as most samples will be transparent. The way MPC has been "proven" to be better is that it has (far?) fewer problem samples than any other format/encoder, especially at the bitrates it's encoding at.

Yes, I've witnessed that thread on r3mix (and the creation of HA afterwards).

IIRC, Roel's --r3mix switch was included in the test, but it didn't do very well (not much better than 192kbps CBR). Then Roel acted like a bad loser and starting downplaying the test and the statistical numbers (I remember he replied something like "you can probably make up whatever statistics you want" to Garf). This pissed off Dibrom and Garf tremendously, and they left the board. A while after that, HA opened.

And about MPC: Dibrom himself has mentioned several times on this board that MPC has proven to be superior to other codecs at medium to high bitrates time and time again (verified by blind listening tests), and I have no reason to doubt his statement.