Hi My Audio Gods

I have some old cdm's which i want to rip, but i have some problems using EAC and Lame encoders.
First , could somebody tell me how do i get 320CBR Full Stereo RIP using lame 3.97b2. I use this settings


but from this settings i can only get 320CBR joint stereo mode

Second , how do i get 320CBR full stereo rip using lame 3.90.3
When I use this setting --alt-preset insane i have this error
http://www.sendspace.com/file/ppoopg

Third, Could somebody have suggestion what lame codecs will be best for making 320CBR full stereo rips?

My EAC version is V0.95 beta 3

I will be gretful for every help and suggestion

-b 320 -m s --add-id3v2 --pad-id3v2 --ta "%a" --tt "%t" --tl "%g" --ty "%y" --tn "%n" %s %d

If you take us for audio gods, then you'll listen to your gods when they tell you that encoding full stereo is probably wasting half of your bandwidth, and potentially making your mp3 as "bad" as a 160 kbps joint-stereo encoding would be.

You should ABX to see what is distinguishable to you. In this case, you probably won't hear -V 5 --vbr-new from the original.

Great Thanks Guys for your help.

One question , what will be better 320CBR or VBR??

320 CBR. But that is never the point. The point is if you can perceive it to be better.

There's no such thing as 320 VBR, because the bitrate cant go higher than 320kbps.

J.M.

What about

...though this might not make too much sense, as only few decoders might be able to decode these files. Why don't you ABX if your settings are an overkill for you? There was a similiar case on this forum only a few days ago, and the thread is still active.

depends on the switches used. If you use 320CBR Stereo (as you intended), or some VBR mode that uses the presets and therefore Joint Stereo (which essentially is a smart Stereo mode), VBR will be better...

In theory, 320 CBR since it has the highest bitrate (no such thing as VBR 320).

However, the settings you're using, CBR 320 w/ Full Stereo are going to be vastly worse then much lower bitrate VBR. Full stereo is extremely wasteful of bitrate, so while it will give you large file sizes, you tend to get the quality of a much lower bitrate.

I'd recommend you read the recommended LAME settings guide. Theres more to quality then bitrate.

Is it possible that the poster was asking what was better between VBR in a generic sense and 320 CBR?

And if someone was planning on sometimes using an mp3 for karaoke, would you still be suggesting joint stereo over full stereo?

I'm sure the poster appreciates the opinions and knowledge being imparted but why make assumptions about his or her specific application?

What does karaoke have to do with m/s stereo ?

Please provide real samples or examples where m/s is causing 'stereo problems' in mp3 especially at high bitrates. M/S can gives more bandwidth, therefore better S/N ratio / less artifacts. In a case where m/s isn't done properly the result is worse S/N ratio - more artifacts. Now what does this have to do with STEREO !!!!! ????

In public, a lot of listeners are pretty much half deaf, ignorant of ear health and you can drop the bitrate to 96k.

There is no point in providing you samples, you can do it yourself.

Now perhaps there are better ways to implement a vocal cut, though this one is pretty common (IOW, here is how you can make your own sample):
Take a lossless file, convert it to mp3 as 192 CBR joint stereo and also convert it to mp3 as 192 CBR stereo.
Take these mp3s and listen to R-L (or L-R) and tell me which sounds better.

There are still other examples where stereo is a better choice over joint stereo.

For just about everything that *I* do, joint stereo works best. This doesn't mean it will work best for what someone else does.

BTW, I never made the claim that m/s was causing "stereo problems" at any bitrate. I don't appreciate the mischaracterization.

The encoder can choose adaptively between joint stereo and stereo, so normally speaking there shoudn't be a reason to force stereo.

"Normally speaking," yes I agree though that wasn't my point.

The encoder has no clue that someone may choose to implement a vocal cut using the mp3 after it was created.

But shoot, I'm totally off my rocker. I'm sure Gabriel will get around to eliminating the stereo option eventually.

I don't know much at all about vocal cuts. I made two 192k cbr files - m/s and l/r as you said, then listened with channel inversion, 100% panning L or R and I can't hear / abx any differences. I only tried 1 short sample though.

Panning shouldn't make a difference since the vocal cut method I'm taking about sends exactly the same thing to each speaker (except that one channel may be out of phase).

Load an mp3 in Adobe Audition or Cool Edit Pro and select the vocal cut preset from the Effects menu under Amplitude and then Channel Mixer.

The preset basically inverts one channel and sums it with the other channel and then sends that signal off to both speakers. The result is that anything that is common to both channels (amplitude and phase) is removed.

If you would like to pursue this further, feel free to send me a PM. I don't want to make this thread any more off-topic than what I've done already. For normal situations involving stereo recordings, I agree with the rest of you: joint stereo is the way to go.

Is there going to be any significant changes from beta 2 to final for 3.97? Just wondering...

Is there even going to be a final for 3.97 ? Just wondering...

Regards,
Madrigal