I wish to first pre-qualify my question. I use LAME 3.97 -V2 --vbr new for all of my MP3 encodes. Previous to this, I used 3.90.3 aps for years. I *know* the V pre-sets are the most efficient encoding method for a given level of quality.

However, there are a variety of sources available that offer MP3s encoded with CBR. eMusic, the Pearl Jam bootlegs, songs on artists web sites, and other sources come to mind. The most common compression seems to be 192 kbps.

My question: Does the MP3 encoder matter when CBR is used? I am assuming yes, and if it is, is LAME 3.97 the optimal encoder for CBR 192? How tuned are the CBR tunings on LAME 3.97? It seems like most if not all development work went into the V presets. How does Fraunhofer rank with CBR? Do Blade, iTunes, Xing offer similar quality at CBR?

I would say Lame is also one of the best CBR encoders at 192k and above (if not the best).

Of course they dont. Maybe you should do some listening yourself...

J.M.

Last time I checked, in 2004, E-music proposed either 128 kbps mp3s (a very small part of their catalog), either Lame 3.90.2 --alt-preset standard mp3 (nearly all their mp3).

I believe eMusic uses LAME VBR

-beaten to it while typing-

I believe it does now. My mistake.



Ahhhhh, the inevitable HA response to any question asked. Well, of course, I do not dispute that is very viable option. However, the purpose of posting my question was to leverage the knowledge and experience of those in the forum. If I was just going to perform my own test, I would not have bothered to post. I do not enjoy testing as I am not as technically as savvy as many here, nor do I wish to clutter my new PC with several codecs as I did my previous PC. There are many in this forum who greatly enjoy testing and also love to try out all manner of audio codecs. It is their experience and wisdom I was seeking.



Good to know. I have just seen other current threads that are having a similar discussion, although not restricted to CBR as this thread is. It seems that there have been improvements in many encoders of late, not just LAME. However, no one seems to question LAME remains the king of MP3 at all quality levels.

Was there much (any) development work on the CBR presets in the recent versions of LAME - 3.97 or 3.98 or was development limited to tweaking the codecs to optimize the V2 presets?

There certainly were some optimizations also in CBR (I'm not sure exactly what, but 3.98 over 3.97 uses less short blocks)

J.M.

If you're really all that interested in CBR and the quality differences between different encoders try them out for yourself. Personally I however won't venture from using the trusty LAME VBR recommendations. You need to make sure though that you're using the same or very similiar settings, e.g.; Joint-Stereo, etc. I do know that the FhG Pro encoder that came with WMP 10 encodes differently outside of WMP, such as in EAC and CDex it will encode using Stereo for some qualities however in WMP it will use Joint-Stereo more often (sorry I don't remember what bitrates this happended at) but there's no way to control it because it's an .acm encoder.

Actually you can change it (as I just recently found out myself). Device manager -> audio codecs, then open the codec's properies. There is a little config to choose the stereo mode for 96kbps and higher.

On topic:
Different encoders can sound different than each other at 192kbps CBR. The only way to decide which encoder to use is to try them all and use the one you like the best. Myself, I like lame 3.93.1, others around here like lame 3.97b2, some might prefer xing or helix or fhg. Only you can decide what suits your needs the best.

It is my understanding from HA posts that LAME CBR settings are not significantly different from many other decent MP3 encoders - the primary "magic" of LAME is the very well done VBR.

That being said, by the time one is at 192kbps CBR, many encoders work very well. iTunes AAC, LAME MP3 - they will all be essentially "transparent" for most listeners and material, and will of course produce files of the same size.

And yes, eMusic uses LAME 3.96 in standard preset. I have lots of eMusic tracks and many protected AAC from ITMS as well - oddly or no, the protected AAC (128kbps) usually sound better, more like the "real" CDs to my ears. However, since eMusic is so very inexpensive I love it nonetheless.