ok i have read a bunch of stuff.
here is what I am doing
rip with audiograbber
tag with mpgtag cover art etc
normalize with mp3gain (89db)
settings lame 320 joint stereo
blade 320 I have read that lame is better than blade so I switched. will it really make any differecne at 320.
I chose 320 bacuase I can use it on my ipod and to me it sounds as good to me as flac .if I use flac I have to transcode to use my ipod. it seemd like a good compormise of actually lossless vs compatibility.
I know people who thought 128 was good enought but are now reripping. am I lilkely tofeel that way about 320.
Full Version: Is 320kbps enough for everybody?
more questions
more questions I say it is possible to use itunes with lame. any way to chain the rip and mp3 gain (track) portions
that seem like it would rip tag and get album art in one step not 2 steps
alternatively is it possible to chain the rip and mp3gain steps with audograbber.
more questions I say it is possible to use itunes with lame. any way to chain the rip and mp3 gain (track) portions
that seem like it would rip tag and get album art in one step not 2 steps
alternatively is it possible to chain the rip and mp3gain steps with audograbber.
QUOTE(scooterfrog @ Mar 23 2006, 08:06 PM)
blade 320 I have read that lame is better than blade so I switched. will it really make any differecne at 320.
Yes, a big difference even.
QUOTE
I know people who thought 128 was good enought but are now reripping. am I lilkely tofeel that way about 320.
No way to tell. However, a modern MP3 encoder is transparent 65% of the time on difficult samples for a variety of listeners. At 320kbps, you'll be hard pressed to find any problem samples.
QUOTE(Garf @ Mar 23 2006, 02:14 PM)
QUOTE(scooterfrog @ Mar 23 2006, 08:06 PM)
blade 320 I have read that lame is better than blade so I switched. will it really make any differecne at 320.
Yes, a big difference even.
QUOTE
I know people who thought 128 was good enought but are now reripping. am I lilkely tofeel that way about 320.
No way to tell. However, a modern MP3 encoder is transparent 65% of the time on difficult samples for a variety of listeners. At 320kbps, you'll be hard pressed to find any problem samples.
should I rerip the the blades with lame.
in audiograbber waht settings should I use. assuming 320 I think Joint stereo. what else. it seems like most of the lame discussions is about vbr and abr. not cbr
QUOTE(scooterfrog @ Mar 24 2006, 02:26 PM)
QUOTE(Garf @ Mar 23 2006, 02:14 PM)
QUOTE(scooterfrog @ Mar 23 2006, 08:06 PM)
blade 320 I have read that lame is better than blade so I switched. will it really make any differecne at 320.
Yes, a big difference even.
QUOTE
I know people who thought 128 was good enought but are now reripping. am I lilkely tofeel that way about 320.
No way to tell. However, a modern MP3 encoder is transparent 65% of the time on difficult samples for a variety of listeners. At 320kbps, you'll be hard pressed to find any problem samples.
should I rerip the teh blades with lame.
in audiograbber waht settings should I use. assuming 320 I think Joint stereo. what else
With LAME, it is suggested that you use the presets.
I suggest that you listen to some music encoded in -V0 --vbr-fast, and see if you can hear a difference between that and your 320kbps sample.
Not only will you save some space on your iPod compared to 320 CBR, but you probably also will not be able to tell a difference.
If you believe that the samples encoded in Blade sound bad, then rerip them. If not, dont.
Only you decide what sounds good
QUOTE
With LAME, it is suggested that you use the presets.
I suggest that you listen to some music encoded in -V0 --vbr-fast, and see if you can hear a difference between that and your 320kbps sample.
Not only will you save some space on your iPod compared to 320 CBR, but you probably also will not be able to tell a difference.
If you believe that the samples encoded in Blade sound bad, then rerip them. If not, dont.
Only you decide what sounds good
I suggest that you listen to some music encoded in -V0 --vbr-fast, and see if you can hear a difference between that and your 320kbps sample.
Not only will you save some space on your iPod compared to 320 CBR, but you probably also will not be able to tell a difference.
If you believe that the samples encoded in Blade sound bad, then rerip them. If not, dont.
Only you decide what sounds good
I am not really concerend with size I was using flac before but i didnt want to transcode every time I wanted to move music to the ipod.
are there presets for 320
as an interna coder in audio grabber I can choose
mono joint stereo/ stereo/ dual stereo
and voice/low/normal/high
I think I want JS and high
Moderation: Fixed quote.
ok like this
audio grabber
calls this batch file with %s %d
___
"c:\program files\audiograbber\lame\lame.exe" %1 %2 --alt-preset insane
"c:\program files\audiograbber\lame\mp3gain.exe" /rc %2
__
lame extreme
then mp3 gain track allow clipping
then all i need to do is add album art.
audio grabber
calls this batch file with %s %d
___
"c:\program files\audiograbber\lame\lame.exe" %1 %2 --alt-preset insane
"c:\program files\audiograbber\lame\mp3gain.exe" /rc %2
__
lame extreme
then mp3 gain track allow clipping
then all i need to do is add album art.
QUOTE(scooterfrog @ Mar 24 2006, 12:23 PM)
lame extreme
then mp3 gain track allow clipping
then all i need to do is add album art.
then mp3 gain track allow clipping
then all i need to do is add album art.
If you are using LAME 3.97b2 (which you definitely should -- it is faster) I don't think the alt presets are supported anymore.
And really, you should try to find your transparency threshold before any mass-encoding. If you have the FLACs stored, re-encoding later on (for example, if AAC catches on) should be very easy.
I would be very surprised if you could ABX between v4 and FLAC. And I don't mean that as an insult. Almost no one can.
QUOTE(AtaqueEG @ Mar 24 2006, 01:42 PM)
I don't think the alt presets are supported anymore.
They work, or at least --preset fast standard does, also if using lame_enc.dll with CDex or EAC all that is available are the old preset names. The lame tag info when looking at a file with Mr Questionman clearly shows that it's mapped to the new recommended settings.
I'd just suggest that the OP read the stickies in the mp3 forum.
QUOTE(dreamliner77 @ Mar 25 2006, 07:25 PM)
I'd just suggest that the OP read the stickies in the mp3 forum.
not sure what the above means
I have read much of the stickies and done a bunch of searches.
almost all of the lame seetings are about which vbr settings
for simplicity I am looking for the best quaity mp3 I can get.
I am using different settings on my batch script now
"c:\program files\audiograbber\lame\lame.exe" %1 %2 --preset insane
"c:\program files\audiograbber\lame\mp3gain.exe" /r /c /s r %2
lame 3.97b2
note no alt preset.
allow clipping and clear analysis
QUOTE(scooterfrog @ Mar 26 2006, 08:55 PM)
QUOTE(dreamliner77 @ Mar 25 2006, 07:25 PM)
I'd just suggest that the OP read the stickies in the mp3 forum.
not sure what the above means
I have read much of the stickies and done a bunch of searches.
almost all of the lame seetings are about which vbr settings
for simplicity I am looking for the best quaity mp3 I can get.
QUOTE(sticky)
# Quick Start:
Best Quality: archiving
-b 320 - This is the strongest setting for MP3, with the lowest risk of artifacts.
With the exception of a few situations, quality is rarely better than the highest VBR profiles described below.
Alternative: Lossless formats like WavPack, Flac etc allow true archiving bit for bit like on original CD.
High Quality: HiFi, home or quiet listening
-V 3 --vbr-new (~175 kbps), -V 2 --vbr-new (~190 kbps), -V 1 --vbr-new (~210 kbps) or -V 0 --vbr-new (~230 kbps) are recommended.
These settings will produce transparent encoding (transparent = most people cannot distinguish the mp3 from the original in an ABX blindtest).
Audible differences between these presets exist, but are extremely marginal.
Portable: background noise and low bitrate requirement, small sizes
-V6 --vbr-new (~115 kbps), -V5 --vbr-new (~130 kbps) or -V4 --vbr-new (~160 kbps) are recommended for this use.
-V6 --vbr-new produces an acceptable quality, while -V4--vbr-new should be close to perceptual transparency.
Best Quality: archiving
-b 320 - This is the strongest setting for MP3, with the lowest risk of artifacts.
With the exception of a few situations, quality is rarely better than the highest VBR profiles described below.
Alternative: Lossless formats like WavPack, Flac etc allow true archiving bit for bit like on original CD.
High Quality: HiFi, home or quiet listening
-V 3 --vbr-new (~175 kbps), -V 2 --vbr-new (~190 kbps), -V 1 --vbr-new (~210 kbps) or -V 0 --vbr-new (~230 kbps) are recommended.
These settings will produce transparent encoding (transparent = most people cannot distinguish the mp3 from the original in an ABX blindtest).
Audible differences between these presets exist, but are extremely marginal.
Portable: background noise and low bitrate requirement, small sizes
-V6 --vbr-new (~115 kbps), -V5 --vbr-new (~130 kbps) or -V4 --vbr-new (~160 kbps) are recommended for this use.
-V6 --vbr-new produces an acceptable quality, while -V4--vbr-new should be close to perceptual transparency.
Moderation: Removed unnecessary quote
thanks for making that clear. this is not nealy as straign forward as I would like. I wll change my script from --insane to --b 320.
thanks for making that clear. this is not nealy as straign forward as I would like. I wll change my script from --insane to --b 320.
QUOTE(scooterfrog @ Mar 27 2006, 02:59 PM)
I wll change my script from --insane to --b 320.
Just to make sure it's not a typo: note that you have to use a single dash (-b) instead of a double-dash (--b)!
QUOTE(PoisonDan @ Mar 27 2006, 09:16 AM)
QUOTE(scooterfrog @ Mar 27 2006, 02:59 PM)
I wll change my script from --insane to --b 320.
Just to make sure it's not a typo: note that you have to use a single dash (-b) instead of a double-dash (--b)!
already figured that our.
I used the doubel dash and got nothing but errors.
changed it to a single dash and all is good
According to my recent ABX tests, I may conclude that MP3@320 kbps (LAME 3.97b2) is not that transparent, I can often find differences on pretty normal, but clear music (Dire Straits - Money for Nothing, Walk of Life) I ABX some samples
with the result of about 8\10 and 9\10 but I'm sure to be able to completely ABX them if I'll be more concentrated. Although, I'm not able to ABX these samples with
Ogg Vorbis@192 kbps, it sounds absolutely transparent. I'd say, Vorbis@160 kbps has the same quality
as MP3@320.
The reason for saying all this is that I'm a bit disappointed with the latest LAME, I thought I wouldn't be able to tell the difference at the highest possible bitrate but it's not the case. I can provide ABX logs and samples if needed.
with the result of about 8\10 and 9\10 but I'm sure to be able to completely ABX them if I'll be more concentrated. Although, I'm not able to ABX these samples with
Ogg Vorbis@192 kbps, it sounds absolutely transparent. I'd say, Vorbis@160 kbps has the same quality
as MP3@320.
The reason for saying all this is that I'm a bit disappointed with the latest LAME, I thought I wouldn't be able to tell the difference at the highest possible bitrate but it's not the case. I can provide ABX logs and samples if needed.
QUOTE(Leo 69 @ Mar 27 2006, 05:42 AM)
The reason for saying all this is that I'm a bit disappointed with the latest LAME, I thought I wouldn't be able to tell the difference at the highest possible bitrate but it's not the case. I can provide ABX logs and samples if needed.
Please do provide samples and logs. I am sure both the lame devs and other forum members would find samples where LAME is easily beaten by other codecs very useful.QUOTE
Please do provide samples and logs. I am sure both the lame devs and other forum members would find samples where LAME is easily beaten by other codecs very useful.
Here we go. I've just done the test for the second time to ensure my hearing abilities.
You can download а 7sec sample and an ABX log
from here
edit: everything was done with all DSP off in Foobar.
I've got an X-FI Elite Pro soundcard @ default Entertainment mode with 24-bit Crystalizer OFF and set to 2 speakers. No EQ either.
Headphones are Audio-Technica ATH M-30.
Setting for MP3:
-b 320
A cymbal at 00:02:150 is simply smeared. If I were a native speaker I would explain it in more details..
QUOTE(scooterfrog @ Mar 24 2006, 08:26 AM)
Should I rerip the the blades with lame?
It depends.If you mean rerip literally (i.e. you have the original CD's and can actually rerip them), then yes, you should rerip them. The increase in quality with Lame is definitely worth the time and trouble.
If you mean rerip loosely (i.e. decode the Blades to wav and re-encode with Lame (=transcode)), then no, you should not, since you will lose even more quality.
Regards,
Madrigal
QUOTE(Madrigal @ Mar 27 2006, 01:10 PM)
QUOTE(scooterfrog @ Mar 24 2006, 08:26 AM)
Should I rerip the the blades with lame?
It depends.If you mean rerip literally (i.e. you have the original CD's and can actually rerip them), then yes, you should rerip them. The increase in quality with Lame is definitely worth the time and trouble.
If you mean rerip loosely (i.e. decode the Blades to wav and re-encode with Lame (=transcode)), then no, you should not, since you will lose even more quality.
Regards,
Madrigal
I meant rerip, as in from the physical media.
I know not to transcode. I may be new here but I am not stupid.
i am reripping with the above settings -b 320 chained to mp3gain track ingnore clipping. (mp3gain mosly end up LOWERING the level of my mp3s so if I dont ignore clipping it on something that clips to begin with it either does nothing ro lowers it too much.
I sit at a computer all day and I have a spare under my desk. it doesnt take much effort swap disks.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.