I've just started using allofmp3.com and would like to know what format and quality settings you think I should encode the files off of the site to, since their source is from 384kbps Lame mp3s. For those of you who don't know about the website, the question remains the same - what file format and settings would you use if you HAD TO transcode from 384kbps mp3s and still retain the most quality out of the files? I've just started trying .MPC with the braindead setting and they sound excellent, but I am wondering if it would be better to use lame mp3 at 256 ABR or even the INSANE setting (around 320). My main concern is that if I introduce two different types of compression for my 'original' files, might that introduce two entirely different types of 'artifacts' or 'weaknesses' in the files vs. using just one type of compression? I know that people have a very high opinion of .mpc, but do you think my theory would be reason enough to not use .mpc compression for my files? And also, I read on another forum that someone claimed that using MPC at the very high settings - insane, braindead - can actually introduce new artifacts compared to using standard or xtreme! Please tell me that this is TOTAL BS. I want to use a higher bitrate because I plan on transcoding many of these files AGAIN to about half their original size for use with my portable device. Any advice and suggestions that you might have would be very appreciated. Thanks

If I remember correctly, MPC to MP3 yields better results than MP3 to MP3, illogical as it may sound. And yes, I believe it is indeed total BS, what you had read about using very high settings. I'm hardly an expert at these though, so if you're not in a big hurry with them, I suggest you wait for someone to confirm these .

Anyway, considering you'll be transcoding them again, I would use MPC Q7 or Q8. Otherwise Q6.

That is because MPC is a Subband encoder. It is much better to transcode FROM a subband encoder to anything else then it is to transcode from a transform encoder (like Ogg, Mp3 or AAC). I have no idea what your best choice for encoding is here, however I bet you are right to use MPC. Although I think that --quality 8 might be overkill the Mp3 artifacts are so much louder than the MPC ones that, I would think, MPC --quality 4 --xlevel should be sufficient, but I would probably go for --quality 5 --xlevel just in case.

Thanks for the replys thus far - to music man mpc - I am thinking to use quality 7 and mostly 8 because, as I mentioned, I am working with an already 'handicapped' source. I am new to the MPC compression and from what I have read, most people strongly feel that anything over ~6 quality is overkill and a waste of space. But since I'm not working with an original source, I'd like to preserve as much as I can. I'd be fine with 6 if I was working with a lossless source, but that's not the case here. It looks right now that unless someone thinks there is any logic in going MP3 to MP3 instead of MP3 to MPC (because of newly introduced artifacts, etc.), I will most likely end up using MPC quality 7 and 8 for my transcoding. But I'm still interested in any opinions on the topic, as I'm still just learning about MPC - I come from the school of Lame MP3, although I had thought that Ogg was the best current thing going until I started finding out about MPC

I suggest trying to ABX some files transcoded to MPC --quality 8 from files transcoded to --quality 5 before you make that decision but its your choice.

I appreciate your opinion and I will try your suggestion (I'll try it using Foobar), but I still want to err to the side of anal because I will transcode many of these files to a smaller size AGAIN for use with a portable device so I want to start with as good of a source as I can (within reason, and intial file sizes of around 215-270kbps doesn't really bother me). Thanks for your opinion though, I will have to make comparisons with files twice transcoded ultimately - from 384kpbs MP3 to quality 8 down to 128 .ogg and quality 5 down to 128 .ogg ought to be a good trial for my purposes, I suppose. Thanks again

Just out of curiosity, why do you "have" to transcode? Why not just leave the 384 mp3's?

384.. that's a funny bitrate for an mp3.. isn't that a normal AC3 bitrate or something? sorry hmm dunno just sounds weird.

As to the 384kbps and 'HAD TO' transcode, there is actually an option to download at a listed bitrate of 384kbps, but 384kbps MP3s aren't a very 'standard' bitrate and aren't really supported, I have found, in general. As an example, dbpoweramp, winamp, and foobar2000 all cannot handle these files. I'm sure I could find a workaround to use these files, but I am hoping to be able to use a high quality level using MPC and use that format, partly because 384kbps files just seems stupid to me if you are going lossy and once you get that large in file size lossless should be considered, and also the website that I am getting the files from charges by the MB, so if going to ~250kbps MPC has virtually no effect on audio quality, the cost difference adds up quickly. In a perfect world they would use lossless compression for their sources, however that's not the case.

IIRC, if you use the MAD Decoder with winamp, it should be able to decode freeformat mp3

Thanks for the info on the MAD Decoder - I'll try it. Have you tried allofmp3.com by chance, dreamliner? It sounded like you might have used the site.

I tried the MAD Decoder and it does work with these 384kbps files, thanks.

You`ve said that youll have to transcode again to portable..,if thats the case?why dont you go with lossless like ma,flac..whatever...

zver, did you read my original post? MY source is 384kbps MP3s, so I'm already dealing with lossy audio to begin with. The website I'm buying the music from does the actual encoding, THEN I download the music, but I have just about any choice of format and compression level to choose from. But like I said before, the original source is lossy to begin with, so lossless is out of the question.

I've looked into the site, haven't used it though. I know it's cheap, but I can barely afford to buy a cup of coffee at this juncture in time...

Sorry to hear that you're broke, too (yeah, I'm in the same club). I've just started using it to try it out, $5 is all at the moment. But even $5 goes a long way on there if you're just downloading a song here and there and not entire albums at a time. I'll be spending plenty more on there when I can afford to

384kbps mp3s? Surely a silly marketing choice... The only way they can do that is with the --freeformat switch. I don't think a file produced like that can be better than the --alt-preset insane switch, even when the later only produce 320kbps files. If i recall correctly, stuff above 320kbps is optional in decoders, not a wise choice if you want wide distribution... In any case, have fun, the switch lets you have up to 640kbps mp3s files, in 1 bit increments.

Always stick to alt presets for quality, anything else is suboptimal and/or experimental.

Transcoding should always be avoided, unless maybe you are going for much lower (ie non quality) bitrates, say for a portable or net-casting.

same

Well, maybe if someone here spoke russian, they could email someone at allofmp3.com and let them know about the presets, mpc etc.

Well,you got mp3s and wanna reencode`em now to mpc @braindead,and maybe reencode it again in future.I gave a thought about lossless couse difference is not so big bietween braindead&preset insane against lossless.I do agree that lossy encoding to lossless is a waist,but in your case you got a transcodingx2,and who knows maybe even 3times down the road...

They do use 'freeformat', and it's not for marketing. It's just what bitrate they decided to store all of their music at, apparently. I don't necessarily agree with their choice of backup format and bitrate myself, but it could certainly be worse. Ideally they would have everything stored in a lossless format, but that would use about twice the storage space that is presently used for them. Some of you are misunderstanding what the situation is with this website - all of the music on their site is downloading according to your choice of format and bitrate, probably about 50 possibilities in all between bitrates and formats. You choose the bitrate and format, AND THEN YOU DOWNLOAD IT. AGAIN, I AM NOT ENCODING THE FILES MYSELF. Their source that they use for the files you download are transcoded from 384kbps MP3s, and you can download the original source files if you choose. I only realized that they transcode from 384kbps MP3s because of info off of the net and also the fact that when you choose to download the 384kbps MP3s, they download immediately, whereas any other choice of bitrate and format requires that you wait about 90 seconds before the download begins (while the files are encoded). I would just download every file at the original 384kbps except that the site charges by the bandwidth (download size) and not by a song by song or song length basis. So my question is still the same - I don't need people to tell me about how odd 384kbps MP3s are or why would anyone use such a format or why am I transcoding or WHATEVER. Transcoding is a given, that is why my question said 'HAD TO'. I just wanted to know what anyone thought of transcoding 384kbps MP3s down to MPC braindead vs. lame MP3 256 ABR vs. ? and in particular if there was any benefit to going MP3-MP3 vs. MP3-MPC.

I will still say:

For storage, don't transcode. Keep the 384kbps files on your computer.

For portable use, transcode to whatever format and bitrate suits your portable needs.

Again, I don't have any 384kbps on my computer, its on THEIR 'COMPUTER'. It looks like from here on out that everything I am going to DOWNLOAD will be MPCs quality 7 and 8.

Ok, I would download the 384 mp3's.

Why introduce a transcoding step if you don't have to?

Because they charge by downloaded file size, therefore if using MPC at quality 7 yielding files ~220kbps would net me files that are 'transparent' to the 384kbps MP3s, then I'm looking at downloading almost twice as many files for a given cost. I'm new to MPC, but from what I've read, most people believe that it is 'transparent' at around quality 5. If this is really true in practice then it would certainly seem that MPC quality 7 or 8 would be more than enough. However I originally posted this question because I wanted peoples' opinions on whether there was any downfall to transcoding MP3 to MPC, such as creating additional artifacts vs., say, MP3 to MP3 or MP3 to OGG. When people say that it is transparent at quality 5, they're obviously speaking about encoding from an original source or a lossless source. I'm not very familiar with MPC so I was wondering if there were any unusual problems encountered when transcoding down from a high bitrate MP3. Obviously this is not a typical situation, transcoding high bitrate to another fairly high bitrate format.

You're not following:




Seems reasonable to me, though I don't know either, what the actual cost to audio quality would eventually be.

How about not downloading from that site. I mean 384kb mp3, how useless is that?

Could I suggest that you all go to allofmp3.com and click on English at the top, then click on FAQ, and read about Online Encoding. You should then be qualified to answer the guys questions.

Love,
Fairy

It is sound haotic,but after his explanation i would go either with original source or mpc q5 or q6.

I'd download 1 384kbps mp3 and experiment with transcoding.

Or, you could be brave (and save a few cents) and assume that they're using lame freeformat 384kbps (or something similar) to encode things in the first place. To simulate this, take some of the known "problem samples" (stored at HA and elsewhere), encode them to 384kbps mp3s using lame, then transcode these mp3s using the options that are available to you. Compare the results. Be aware that "problem samples" may not actually represent the worst case scenario (other sounds may be more problematic in this particular experiment), but they're a good start for stressing psychoacuostic codecs.

Anyway - I think you have got to try something for yourself. Because, as you say, it's a case of balancing sound quality against the download cost. No one here is going to say "transcode it as this setting, and it'll be transparent", but that's not to say that it won't be transparent for you, or good enough for you.

My hunch would be to try mpc q6, but that's just a guess.


Assuming the site made the decision to go with 384kbps mp3 for a transcode source several years ago, it wasn't a bad choice. As you force the bitrate up, the psychoacoustics are used less and less. I know that, by 640kbps, lame works more like one of those "near lossless" encoders (e.g. wavepac, optimFrog, the experimental lossy monkey's audio etc) - I don't know if it's like this at 384kbps though. If so, the transcode tests of Den and others suggest this is a smart move. If not, well, you don't have a choice anyway!

Cheers,
David.

Thanks David, you've probably given the best advice on this subject, and seem to understand what I've been driving at better than a lot of the people that have posted on the topic. zver - I think you now understand what my basic question is

I do understand what you are trying and/or wanting to do. What I'm trying to convince of is that you will be much happier in the long run if you download the source mp3's. Plus, this way you have flexibiltiy in the future as to what you do with the files. Also, IMHO, the trade off in quality is not worth saving "very" short money.

384 mp3, what a waste of bitrate,
can the allofmp3 hosters switch over to mpc, please ?

It´s not only "more than enough", it´s just a big waste of ressources. Remember: Lossy is lossy, and can NEVER be absolutely perfect, never mind how far you climb on the bitrate-ladder. Simply there´s missing some music-information (if audible or not is another question) after encoding to lossy. So: A wise decision would be to do some test-transcodings from MP3 384 kbit to MPC --q5. And if you have the feeling it sounds the same (and sure you will have), go with --q5. But to be honest: I really don´t understand why you want to transcode from such a popular and well-supported format like MP3 to an outsider- (but nevertheless excellent) format like MPC. Finally no portable-player supports MPC at the moment. - So: Why all that?!

Not mention that you will be letting them do the transcoding which could lead to problems.

Did they mp3gain the mp3's?
Did they use the --xlevel switch when transcoding to MPC?

Using mpc in the first place is aimed for quality. If your source is lossy (not to mention transcoded from another lossy) Quality is out of the question. Stick to the standards, so at least you could save some bits. In the case of mpc, that would be no switch or simply --xlevel (equals to standard/q5). BTW, that q5 is transparent to most ppl, unlike other formats where you need some "room" just in case.

Now about that site, these guys are nuts. They should have used a lossless format. Don't they love to charge you more per size? It will also ease the pain at the lossy versions, as these won't be transcoded any longer. In other words, better quality.

I don't see any point in trying a high quality encode for a transcode. As they say: "garbage in, garbage out"... You want to put a vhs copy of a copy into a dvd

Yep,i could never imagine that they are """transcoding""" it for you....Anyway,if you got money to spare,maybe the best option is to go with a original source,couse as the guy said for example about xlevel switch,you never know how it will come out....

i recommend download at 384 mp3, IF they dont have it in lossless. Some songs they do, so download that instead, i prefer WMA9LL for M$ backing and easy playing in WMP. If you can only get 384 mp3, transcode yourself to MPC using recommended settings by HA posters, etc, so you can have total control of conversion process. If you can get lossless copy, do so, then use that as source for future transcodes to MPC, etc.

Interesting thread, so I thought I'd throw in my experience with allofmp3's files. The bottom line is, if you want to get anywhere close to HiFi quality from this site, don't bother with any of their on-line transcoding standards as they produce unacceptably poor sounding files, as though someone's thrown a veil over the speakers! I've found that many of their free (directly downloaded) VIP files actually sound better than their transcoded files at higher bit rates. The best and only option for listenable files is to spend twice the money per byte and only use their exclusive transcoding service from lossless sources. Problem is that these are a small minority of all available files on the site (probably no more than 100 albums) available for this service. Here's hoping that this number continues to expand.

Personally, I use MPC Q4 with allofmp3.com, if I wanted to be anal I'd use Q5.

Thank you for the input.

They're definitely an alternative to buying from the shop. Which, to be fair, is all i'm looking for...

Problems:

- It is unclear how these files came into existence, I asked them for versions
they used and all they amswered is "lame". If the encoding was done some
time back, who knows which lame version! (Currently they are using
3.93.1, which seems to be acceptable for 384, or what do you think?)
- They say <0.1% of the files are from the unverified "wanted" program. It's
not possible to find out which. Still, if <.1 is true, it's okay.
- Worst thing, the mp3-384 files won't play on any portable devices, so to avoid
transcoding one would have to decode them to wav (or rio karma: flac).
- I still don't know exaclty how bad transcoding from 384 is. Just because
one user says it's inacceptable, I'm still sceptical whether (e.g. for iriver)
wav -> mp3-384 -> mp3-insane REALLY and without doubt leads to results that
are worse than wav -> mp3-standard. (referring to lame 3.90.3 here). I'm
not sure about that veil that is reported. Was the veil not present in the
untranscoded 384's?

I'd love to use allofmp3, but I'm still unsure whether I really should... I want
at least lame 3.90.3-standard quality on a portable device...

Others having similar issues...? :-)

Btw, hi to all, I'm new here. :-) And more newbie than anything else.

Just one additional question...:

Can you point me to the best way to decode the 384-mp3's to wav's? Thank you.

I've stuck with their lossless encodes... as good as it gets, but it makes concerns over *how* they rip larger; do they use EAC Secure mode with offset correction, or just use a poorly configured burst ripper?

They don't tag their files either, which is irritating. Still not providing me with a better product than piracy gets me for free :/

That's definetly not true! You can choose the type of the tags yourself in their "Allofmp3 Explorer":
MP3: ID3 V1 or ID3 V1.1 orID3 V2
WMA: WMA
Ogg: Ogg
MPC: APE 1.0 or APE 2.0

You can also choose how it should save the files (i.e. artist/album (year)/tracknumber_title.ext)!

Big_Berny

Yes, but as I said, I've stuck with their lossless stuff; they have no tagging options for them, so you're left with the filename to guess the tags from after downloading. Bit suboptimal.

I've downloaded a few of allofmp3's 384kB RIPs, decoded them to WAV and then either burned an audio CD from the WAV files directly or re-encoded them to MP3s using either LAME (VBR preset with min of 160kB encoding) or iTunes (192kB VBR setting for bext quality). I've then played them all back to back with the same recordings transcoded from the same 384 RIPs by allofmp3's LAME extreme preset (basically 192 VBR). I found very little subjective difference between the allofmp3 transcoded files and the same source material that I transcoded from their 384kB RIPs with either LAME or iTunes. The most telling test is playback of the decoded Audio CD-R burns from these RIPs, which sounds very similar to the LAME/iTunes transcoded MP3s. What this means is that allof's 384 RIPs are already pretty poor and that there's very little point in making matters worse by downloading their files at transcoded bit rates. That's not to say that they are all bad; they have done something right with Madonna's American Life, for example, because that sounds just great, but Ray of Light is poorly encoded by comparison! Without the right gear, it's hard to say what they've done to make the sound of so many of their RIPs so lifeless, lacking both Hi and Lo frequency extension as well as dynamic range. I can only speculate that the original PCM audio has been put through lo and hi pass filters during the encoding process to reduce file size. It sort of makes a mockery of their extensive documentation on the best bit rates to use for HiFi when the original files are already pretty LoFi. Garbage in means garbage out I'm afraid, and only their very limited range of exclusive offerings is guaranteed to get round this problem. By the way, there's absolutely nothing wrong with their on-line encoders because transcodes from original PCM offerings sound far superior at the same bit rates to their standard offerings. They must know this otherwise why would they bother offering the exclusive service?

> Do you use EAC Secure mode (or burst?)? Offset correction?
>
> :-)

All of mp3 TechSupport: "We use accurate str[ea]m."

Well... All I know now is that they use lame, 384, and accurate stream.
I also know the transcoding seems not to be the problem, but the 384-source
files. So the question is, HOW COME the source files are bad. It would
be interesting to encode the madonna song from cd (eac) to lame freeformat 384
(whatever version...) and compare it to their offered 384. If there's a
annoying difference, I'd be happy to annoy their tech support and press
them to give details on the techniques and versions they used. (Unfortunateyly
I neither have the Madonna CD nor do I currenty have decent audio equipment.)

(Let me point out that as I understand it, minty concedes he did not really notice any clear difference between A) allofmp3384->wavs, B) allofmp3384->selftranscoded, and C) allofmp3384->allofmp3transcoded. So that veil was not
the result from transcoding, as he stated above, but as he now says, already
"featured" in the source 384's.)

I myself noticed one file that I downloaded as "384 -> allofmp3-transcoded with lame extreme", which sounded dull. That's were I became skeptical, but I wasn't
sure whether it was a pre-remastered version of that song, so I'm glad minty pointed to that madonna song which might yield the answer whether allofmp3 is a /bad thing/. :-) I won't download more stuff from there until I can be sure
the chance I'm downloading crap is <.1%. :-)

PS. note that I inquired, and it is true that downloading the 384's means they are not transcoded 384->384, but provided as direct links. I really wonder what they are doing wrong, listening to >>accurate stream non-transcoded 384-lame-rips through MAD<< should not result in a dull experience...

I can tell you right now that encoding any music directly from your own source CD using just about any mp3 encoder set to modest bit rates (160 for example) will sound far superior to most of allofmp3's 384kb files. It's not a marginal issue; even the tone-deaf cloth-eared among us will hear the difference. But like I said before, there's nothing wrong with allofmp3's encoding engines because their exclusive service files are far closer to self-encoded files of the same material. It's just the 384kb source files offered by their standard service that suck and should be avoided. I suppose that they are just about OK for portable listening on a train, but that's about it. Of course, the price is low compared with Napster's new service or iTunes, for example; but at least you can listen to their files without thinking you need to get your ears syringed!

...the problem about allofmp3.com is that they use very bad settings for ther --freeformat encodings! First of all, they use LAME 3.93.1 and secondly they use
--freeformat -k -b 384 -q 0 -m s ...someone try to explain to them that they should use --freeformat -b 384 ...I guess they don't care