Hi,

I have a question concerning the compression output when ripping with EAC (Exact Audio Copy) and Compressing with LAME.

Why compress using the --alt-preset standard and not flat 256? The --alt-preset standard compresses the tracks ripped in various bps (Bites) which when checked are not actually correct. When not using the --alt-preset standard and compressing at 256 all the tracks are compressed at an actual 256 when checked.

I checked this by ripping the same Audio CD for both formats which is “AC-DC Volts” all 10 tracks. The disc was clean no scuffs scratches and had never been pulled out of the case till now. The EAC Settings were all the same except for using --alt-preset standard on one rip and flat 256 on the other.

EAC Settings: Used drive : ATAPI CD-RW 32/12/40X Adapter: 1 ID: 1
Read mode : Secure with NO C2, accurate stream, disable cache
Read offset correction : 0
Overread into Lead-In and Lead-Out : No

I used EncSpot MP3 analyzer to verify the actual bit rate of each MP3 track ripped.
http://www.cd-rw.org/software/audio_softwa...ols/encspot.cfm

The Results:

RIP: --alt-preset standard

Bitrates
Actual Claimed
------- ----------
231 500
235 498
239 488
242 593
253 585
133 488
200 509
218 460
226 506
206 468

Total Megs: 89.3mb


RIP: 256

Bitrates
Actual Claimed
------- ----------
256 256
256 256
256 256
256 256
256 256
256 256
256 256
256 256
256 256
256 256

Total Megs: 105mb


Using the --alt-preset standard takes up 15% less in disc space needed for storage of the track but the quality variant between tracks is allot.

So Why use the --alt-preset standard ?

Anyone have thoughts?

Thanks,

Woody

You should really do some basic read up on the --(alt-)presets. The whole point of VBR is to put more bits in problematic passages, where they are actually needed.

Browse/search the forum & check out the knowledgebase at http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Main_Page

bps = bits per second .... VBR = variable bit rate

http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=VBR


no... quality is not the variant with VBR, bitrate is.
VBR = consistent quality level (variable bitrate / file size)
CBR = variable quality level (constant bitrate / file size)

CBR is constant bitrate, variable quality. VBR is constant quality and variable bitrate. Obviously VBR is the better choice if you're concerned about quality, at least in theory.



Did you actually do a formal test to determine if APS was VBR? Thats certainly taking not reading the manual to new extremes

In theory AND IN PRACTICE. With LAME and at the same bitrate the VBR modes always give more quality than the CBR modes.

256 VBR is better than 256 CBR
224 VBR is better than 224 CBR
192 VBR is better than 192 CBR
160 VBR is better than 160 CBR
128 VBR is better than 128 CBR

Below that is difficult to say, but the quality is not vary good in any case.

I know I'm not providing any proof but anyone can use the search function of this forum or better, test by themselves.

Choosing CBR over VBR you are only getting less quality and/or wasting more space.

For quality VBR is always the right choice.

For very good quality preset stardard is always a good choice.

Like for example VBR , ABR and CBR explanations

Thanks allot you all helped me allot in understanding it. So --alt preset standard is the way to rip.

How does one change the the out put for tha constuction of saved fil names. EAC always starts with track # and Track name. I always have to change it as I prefer Artists - Album - Track #- Track Name.

I think it has to do with the .cfg file but I have never edited one so am not sure.

Thanks,

Woody

Good choice.

By the way, where did these claimed bitrates come from? If they came from clicking on a file in Windows Explorer, then you should know that these figures are utterly wrong. LAME has nothing to do with it, it's Windows' fault.

APS targets bitrates around and above 200 kbps so what you got was very much expected.

http://www.digital-inn.de/showthread.php?t...t=artist+folder

AFAIK....
%A\%C\%A - %C - %N - %T will create a folder named after the artist, a subfolder named after the album and a file named as per your request.

The claimed bit rates come from a bug in microsoft windows. It just does not know how to recognize the bit rate in variable bit rate mp3's made with Lame. With a player like Foobar2000 you will see the correct bit rate displayed.

I hereby confirm that those "odd" bitrates are only seen in explorer AND windows media player. Any good player like foobar, itunes or winamp, will recognize without problems the files. Also, ( it's a long time I don't use Windows Media Player, asa long as windows itself...) in WMP you cannot reliably skip through a vbr song.

Get rid of that crappy software!

Just use the recommended ones, that are foobar2000 and media player classic (for video) or vlc, or mplayer, or winamp, or... there is plenty of good software out there to stick with the worst media player in the world!

(Also, I hate how WMP tags and manages the music library. Try iTunes on a Mac, or foobar2000 with the proper plugins...)

Which Media Play do you recommend?

foobar2000?

yeah, most of us here are proponents of foobar2000. it is highly customizable, can do anything but make you dinner, is a very lite and fast running program, and its completely free. it takes most people some time to get used to it. it has so many advanced features, new users can feel overwhelmed at times, but imho, it is very worth it. its an amazing little app that i cant imagine not having.

VBR is more efficient than CBR. Think of CBR as a container of size x. At a water factory, they produce 600mL (20oz) and 1.25L (40oz) bottles of water using this container. The problem is that when they put 600mL into the container it's half empty, and they can't sell 2L bottles of water because the container isn't large enough.

VBR is the equivalent of using containers of different sizes. When there's only 600mL of water a 600mL container is used, when there's 2L a 2L container is used. You're still producing around the same amount of water, but you're not wasting space that could be used more effectively elsewhere.

The high bit rates you are seeing are the result of Windows being unable to properly report the average bit rate of VBR/ABR files. No Mp3 can have a bit rate of over 320kbps, be it VBR/ABR or CBR.

there's one thing I wonder about: how come you are asking for "flat 256" and not for "flat 320". I mean, 320kbps is the highest available bitrate defined in the mp3 standard...

Defsac,

Thanks that made it allot clearer. I appreciate that.

JoJo,

320 is the best but takes up more space. From what I have found out so far is that 256 is identical quality to the original cd and no diference can be heard.

Woody

Uh-oh.

You had better have a read around these forums, because what you've heard is plain false.

See here for more info:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=31583
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....=FAQ#entry74068

@krazy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony

ed: darn! I overlooked unholyone's last post

@unholyone

256 kbps CBR may be indistinguishable from CD to you, but not to everyone

JoJo's post was meant ironically for sure - people are appearing in this forum from time to time - questionning the presets, which have been designed/tuned to produce results of constant quality at a bit rate as small as possible.

Those people are regularly calling for 320 kbps CBR MP3, which they think must be best , sacrificing the least quality. However, in order to give max quality, not every part of a song/sample requires to be compressed at the max avaiable bitrate MP3 offers. This is where VBR steps in.

What's he's heard isn't "false" (it probably is transparent to him), but people have been able to find artifacts at 256cbr which aren't present in vbr. Given that the vbr files are also usually smaller, it doesn't make much sense to go 256cbr.

But then it is false that "256 is identical quality to the original CD"

Maybe he can't hear the difference?

Almost no one can.

That proves nothing.

In fact, for most people, the transparency threshold of MP3 should be around 160k.

It is false that ANY mp3 is the same as the original CD. What's your point?

Forget it.

I thought that unholyone was under the impression that mp3 @256kbps was CD-quality, however after re-reading his post it seems that he may have meant that he couldn't hear a difference at that bitrate.

concerning audioplayers:
If you just want a plain simple audioplayer: VUPlayer
If you want a bit more customizability and skins: XMplay
If you just want to use what most do use: Winamp
If you have an iPod and want it simple: iTunes (but for gods sake, don't use its mp3-ENcoder)
If you want everything + total customizability and don't mind a steep learning-curve: foobar2000

Of the above players, VUPlayer, XMplay and Foobar2000 support "replaygain" natively. There is a plugin for winamp to get replaygain-support for it too.

- Lyx

I just ran into this thread....there seems to be some rumour on the internet (i am talking the napster like sites like limewire and kaaza) that is propogating this concept (256k = CD Quality, 96k = FM quality, etc...). this might be so that nontechies like myself have a reference that we can relate to.

Analogies like that are so 1998. "56 kbps = AM Quality!" Ah, nostalga.

There's no one size fits all classification. Person A might find aps (--alt preset standard) transparent (source [usually CD] quality), while Person B may not. Person B may only be able to tell only on high or low end equipment, or their hearing might not be good enough to distinguish between the source and MP3 on any equipment. Some songs will be transparent where others will be distinguishable.

Saying something like "128kbps = CD quality" is a gross oversimplification. Is it transparent to Person A? What about person B? Which song is being compared? What equipment is being used to compare? Which encoder was used? LAME at --alt preset extreme, which gives a bit rate of 320kbps, will do a much better job than Blade or GoGo at 320kbps.

That's exacly where the presets come into play. Instead of confusing the non-techie with bitrates it is even easier to have the plugins. They tell with their names alone what a non-techie should think:

-alt-preset insane: seems to be insane. probably not right for me. while a non-techie that considers himself/herself insane may choose it (which then is the right choice). The same goes for --alt-preset extreme, if he/she considers himself/herself [damn political correctness ] not insane but not standard.

--alt-preset standard: umm, this seems to be the standard. as I have no doubt about all this stuff, I should be safe with this.

--alt-preset medium: medium could mean medium file sizes. i noticed that aps files are sometimes quite big. this might be better for my portable mp3 than aps. (and so on)

Wouldn't you say that this is even more user-friendly than remembering: 128kbps = CD quality, or was it 192, no my friend said that 160 is enough... (tbc) ?

This can probably be traced back to the old r3mix website. He had this stated in multiple places if I recall correctly, in addition to many other quality statements that were flat out wrong.

Some of the old timers from HA might remember a few rather large debates about "CD Quality" over on his (now defunct) forum...