Ive been googling my brain out for hours and reading tons of reviews...

Ive pretty much decided to go with a high bit rate vbr.

I can't decide between

itunes (mp3 fhg?) - easiest to use, good excuse for an ipod
itunes aac - copy protected? not as good as mp3?
wma - not-protected when ripped- smaller files, same quality?
ogg - totally free, cool players that support it

mp3 lame via dbpower amp - fairly easy to use, free?
mp3 lame via EAC with lame - seems pretty "advanced"?


PLEASE HELP!

I just want to get sound so good that I can't tell the difference between the rippped and origional versions. I'm not an audiophile, I just want it to be good quality, AND fairly future proof.

Thank you!

Kelcey

I guess MP3 --alt-preset standard will serve you well.
Check this topic for more details.

You could also try Lame 3.96.1/3.97a10's -V3 mode which sounds almost the same (while -V2 is the same for --alt-preset standard in that versions).

1. mp3
2. WMA
3. AAC

mp3 is at the first place (in terms of hardware and software support), wma is runner up!

STOP googling, don't think too much, just use mp3, it saves you time.
most people can't tell the difference of a CBR 160kbps mp3 and the original CD
some even think CBR 128kbps is CD quality

using --preset standard is more than enough

if you want maximum quality out of mp3
use --preset insane

You can just as easily say, just use Ogg Vorbis, because it saves you space, since some people can't tell the difference between a -q3 file and the original CD.

If --preset standard is more than enough, why not settle for something a little more efficient?

whats "alt-preset" all about? Could you elaborate? I've seen there are different switches for lame at the command line, but Im looking at GUI options.

What about using itunes for ripping? I believe it uses fhg. Is iTunes encoding really that inferior? What if I did vbr at 256 under iTunes, and got an Ipod? Would that be a good plan?

If I did go LAME:
1 - what about iTunes lame support on the mac?

http://www.blacktree.com/apps/iTunes-LAME/index.php


2 - If I did lame on the PC is EAC really better than say CDex or dbPowerAmp with LAME support?

Thank you very much!

don't trust anyone, test them all & see ...

many people that will tell you that this codec/setting is the best are just zealot newbies that don't have an overall view on patents/norms/efficiency/speed/potential/ABXing

actually lossy is a game: the first who find the mp3 successor win ...

those who don't wanna play bet on mp3/lossless so they can't lose ...

it seems those who bet on mpc some years ago already losed, many of them are turning to lossless due to this bad experience ...

those who bet on wma ... are insane because standards are made by audio pirates & most of these pirates hates microsoft ...

now you have MP4-OGG remaining ... & it's fifty-fifty actually Ogg is better in audio, MP4 is better in video ... some people consider mp4 safer because it's in the mpeg family ... some people consider ogg safer because it's free software ...

so to be short:

If you don't wanna play use lame APS or lossless
If you wanna play the game without reading the rulz use wma or mpc
If you wanna play the game after reading the rulz use mp4 160kbps or Vorbis Q5

I don't like that stupid game much but I have bet on Vorbis Q5, so wish me luck

the biggest thing to fear with vorbis is that it became the next mpc ... but with all the linux community behind him this is doubtfull ... the only thing that could prevent vorbis to be the next standard for me is a patent claim coming out from nowhere ... or AVC popularity maybe ... but not AAC alone ...

Could you explain? Or is your answer a basic answer from a (I quote your own words) "zealot newbies that don't have an overall view on patents/norms/efficiency/speed/potential/ABXing" ?

Currently, we have few elements of answers. On latest 128 kbps listening test, Vorbis won over iTunes AAC. But on 64 kbps, AAC was better than vorbis. Last, at 32 kbps, AAC outperforms Vorbis. And on higher bitrate, I suppose that you can't say anything. A bit short to claim that "Ogg [say Vorbis instead of Ogg] is better in audio" than MP4 (say AAC: MP4 could be a mp3 stream).

MP4 is a container, so it can hold audio(including vorbis...), video and subtitle as well
Ogg also is a container... see here...

I said OGG because I am speaking as a norm not as a codec, OGG (Xiph) is the overall leader in the audio as the Speex/Vorbis/Flac trio is as a whole better then aac-alac IMHO, & MP4 (Nero) is the leader in video as a norm due to AVC ...

As Roberto would say I am a zealot afterall, trust me at your own risk

all you say is true ... I just don't use 64-32kbps for audio CD backup !!!

I would most likely use nero aac80kbps+avc640kbps if I would do more video as I am an agressive compressor when it comes to video ... but it ends to say that MP4 (aac+avc) is better than OGG for video ... & that's exactly what I am saying ...

the miss-understanding was that you are speaking about low bitrates ... & I am speaking of high bitrates, Mo0zOoH is speaking of lame aps & kotrtim is speaking of 160kbps so we are obviously speaking of CD backup here not of low bitrate streaming or audio for video or portable ...

why do you pop up & say "hey AAC is the best at 64kbps" ... sorry but you're off-topic man ... you're the zealot not me ...

PS: Allez pleure po Guru rdv sur hardware.fr ... passé un certain nivo de qualité y a d'autres critères que l'ABXing pour juger un codec ... quand tu l'auras compris t'arrêteras d'ABXer comme un malade ... enfin non arrêtes-po on t'aime

thks so much people for learning me OGG & MP4 are containers ... I didn't realized I was was looking so dumb from an external point of view lol

I am not a ContainerZealot ... I am a NormZealot ... in case some people still have doubts ...

Ogg is a container, not a norm. Anyway, kelceylehrich asked about an audio format, not a norm.


I'm not speaking about low or high bitrate, but I comment your claims (vorbis > aac). You can't backup your claims, that's it. All we know on HA, is that vorbis is apparently superior to vorbis at 128 kbps (which is far from the target requested by kelceylehrich), and also inferior at lower bitrate. But if you have personal elements proving that vorbis is > to aac "on audio", you should post them. Currently, you're infringing HA Term of Service (#8).



After TOS#8, TOS#10...

ok ok ... you're the king of abxing ... so you're the king of the forum ... I almost had the same argue with Roberto sooner ... & with mpc-zealots one year ago ... no need to fight you've won ... you've got the TOS with you ... I won't even try fighting ...

the battle for the next standard is not here anyway ... you can put as much ABXing tests as you wish ... it's the viral spreading method of free softwares that will made vorbis the next standard ... the quality difference between AAC & Vorbis in ABXing tests is not enought to justify using a non free codec ...

your (& Roberto) ABXing tests are GREAT for codec development but do NOT use them as holy words to teach people which codec to use ...

I absolutly don't care if AAC is better than Vorbis at 64kbps as long as Vorbis is not far ... because vorbis have overall a much better software-hardware-support-generic-features than aac ... it may be against the TOS to say that a codec is the best because general features & despite ABXing test ... but I won't shut up even against the highest ranked HA members like you or Roberto ... not because I wanna flame or any stupid thing like this ... but just because YOU need me to lower your blind faith in ABXing ... ABXing is NOT everything ...

You are so brave to say that on HA.

I use OGG if i can, and mp3 otherwise. OGG is a "free" format, and mp3 is widely supported. Thats all i need to know. If i really need max quality i use wav.

"mp3 lame via EAC with lame - seems pretty "advanced"?"

That's the option which seems to best fit what you want as far as I reckon. I have used EAC and it's quite easy to use for an 'typical' person that is prepared to spend actually quite a relatively short amount of time just to check up on some of the options

So that will give you: (1)high quality - because of EAC accurate rips. Then (2)high quality if you use a high bitrate VBR lame setting @ high qualty ,& (3)Future proof, because MP3 has such a wide support especially with respect to cross-platform (many operating systems and devices) that you would not get with using wma - there is less 'future proof' with wma because you may choose to change from using Windows and may decide you no longer want to be a Microsoft customer, in the future......

You seem to be in the market for a portable. I would advise, before you start ripping your CDs, decide what portable fits your budget and usage requirements, and then decide what codec to use for it.

Or you could rip to lossless for your hard drive, then convert to lossy for the portable like many people do. That way you never have to worry about re-ripping when a new lossy codec comes out.

I've kinda figured out that THE mp3 standard is LAME via EAC. What is THE lossless standard? I really dont want to do aaclossless or wma lossless, as I don't want to be platform dependant.

is this a good guide for lame via eac? http://www.bestmp3guide.com/ ?

Thanks!

FLAC should come closest - please refer to this article:
http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?ti...less_comparison

There are no such limitations as with the lossy formats (at least it won't be a great problem afterall since all lossless formats are virtually the same), but the most promising ones are FLAC and WavPack. The former has already been HW-supported, and the latter evolves quickly.

2 OggZealot:
Since consumer market will always be dominated by commercial profit, most people will do as others tell them to do. It means, free format will never prevail over the most popular one, and the most popular one will always be dictated by standards, and standards are firstly written by those who want that profit, etc.
If the man wants us to tell him a future-proof format, MP3 IS the one (I may assure you that even in ten years portables will be backward-compatible with this codec), simply because it's still worth some money and it won't get abandoned. And don't put that much of an accent on FREE!11-ness of a codec. Lame mp3s are as free as mp3s can be.
And you put really really much drama into all of that.