Hello all! I'm new here, and have been reading through the forums for a couple of days..lot of information here, it's great!

Anyway, I am going to start encoding my whole CD collection to MP3 via LAME v.3.98. I don't care about file size at all, since I'm working with a 500GB drive, and the files will stay in the HDD, only some will be used for portable use.

I know VBR is the preferred method for encoding with LAME. But, I wanted to go for something a little more universal (given there are some devices that still have problems with VBR), and something straight-forward.

I have done searches, and have read a lot....

This is what I'm thinking: -b 320 -m s

I want the most simple, but, best quality encoding. Like I said I don't care about file size at all. Just quality. I'm thinking normal stereo instead of joint to preserve spatial information/stereo imaging qualities.

What does everyone think? Please be easy on me.....

Thanks!!

FLAC or any other lossless codec might be the better solution.

Raiden, your right..but, the only bummer is that I play everything back through my Pioneer DVD player's USB port...and the player doesn't decode FLAC. At least I don't think it does.....I initially thought of going AIFF, or similar, but realized that the player doesn't read/decode lossless files at all...if it did, I wouldn't even bother with a lossy format....

I've compared LAME VBR -V0's, -V2's, and -V4's, and a couple of other variations....320 CBR seems very similar, if not, just like VBR -V2's to my ears. I just figured CBR 320 just to play it safe....

My main concern is the -m switch, and using the -m s setting...I've read good, and bad things about this, and have yet to find a solid answer on how it works, and such. Logically it seems that it would be simpler mathematically and more accurate as far as reproduction of the stereo image....but, I could be wrong?



Oh, forgot to mention....I am on a Mac OS X (10.5) I use the iTunes-LAME 3.98 front-end.....was using LAMEBrain with 3.98..but, it was weird....

It is myth - internet folklore. Imaging delusion etc. Ignore and use -b320.

you probably won't notice a single difference at -V5

Is this issue worth revisiting?
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=65367

It's becoming very hard to find a modern portable MP3 player that won't play LAME VBR encodings properly to be honest. VBR has been a recognised part of the standard since at least 1993, so there's no justifiable reason for any player made since that date to not support it anyway. It's not a standards-compliant MP3 player if it doesn't.

Regarding the stereo encoding method, "Joint Stereo" as used in LAME is an entirely lossless mathematical transform and won't hurt the stereo field in any way whatsoever. It tends to improve the quality of the encoding when using CBR due to making the most efficient use possible of the available bits for a given fixed bitrate with a stereo source.

Cheers, Slipstreem.

shadowking, thanks..I did read the different myths. But, after thinking about it, it still seems normal stereo would be better...just from reading how it works...but, the various explanations that I read online seem to contradict themselves. I read one that stated a 320 CBR file is actually split into 2 160kbps streams, stating that, even though it's a 320 CBR file, it only has 160kbps resolution! ....to more logical descriptions of; normal stereo leaves high frequency information in place in the sound field, and not summoning them to mono, as in joint stereo. The later would make sense, but, what is true, and what is not? shadowking, do you use normal stereo, or joint? And why?






greynol, that's funny you posted that link, I was reading that exact thread when you posted...

See my edited reply above. I don't think anyone avoids Joint Stereo as it's a totally non-destructive and lossless process the way LAME implements it. Rather than the available bitrate being cut in half for a stereo source, the boundary is made flexible by the use of Joint Stereo. The bits are dedicated where they're needed the most at any given time.

Cheers, Slipstreem.

Slipstreem, Ah...OK, that makes sense....now, I'm just wondering how much better, or worse normal stereo would be compared to joint stereo...hmm I would imagine joint stereo would introduce at least some kind of psychoacoustics into play?

Joint stereo is always better than plain L/R stereo for the reasons explained above. It neither removes nor introduces anything apart from adding the flexibility to spend the bits more effectively where needed within the stereo data rather than a blind 50/50 split. It switched between L/R and M/S stereo on-the-fly choosing whichever is the most efficient for the current block of MP3 data.

Cheers, Slipstreem.

A blind 50/50 split is what is done with dual channel. With normal stereo the encoder has the flexibility to allocate more bits to one channel if required.

Still, Slipstreem has already said all that needs to be said in his first post to this discussion.

Got ya' ...OK, that makes sense.

Now, just curious...what does the -h switch do for CBR, and what is the default lowpass characteristic of the -b 320 setting?

Thanks Slipstreem!

Before going down the other well-traveled road on concerning low-pass characteristics, please review our Terms of Service, paying special attention to #8.

Sorry about that...just was curious about what frequency it was; that's all..

I'd also highly recommend carrying out some actual ABX testing before getting too hung up on having to use CBR320. Nobody is likely to criticise you if it genuinely is necessary in your particular instance, but I very much doubt that it is in reality.

Much more effort has gone into tuning LAME for VBR in preference to CBR over recent years, and it makes no sense to dispel VBR as being in some way inferior for your purposes unless you've scientifically proven this for yourself.

I spent many years avoiding MP3 altogether out of a misconception that even 320Kbps in CBR wasn't enough. I've since happily settled for LAME in VBR at -V3 (~175Kbps) as I genuinely can't hear any difference the vast majority of the time on even my best listening equipment when carrying out ABX tests. Your requirements will likely differ, but I'm not convinced that you've tested thoroughly enough to find out what your requirements actually are.

Cheers, Slipstreem.

Slipstreem, actually, I have done some ABX testing, as stated in my second post. I guess I should do some more. With the knowledge I've gained so far from you guys, I'll be able to do some ABX testing with more detail. I will report what I find....now that I have the weekend, I will be able to really dig into this..

No need to be sorry, Nightvoyager. I'm just hoping to avoid some of the usual pitfalls associated with using numbers to judge a lossy encoder.

I hadn't spotted the magic letters "ABX" in any of your posts so wondered whether any testing carried out had actually been blind testing or not. Whatever, we're here to help you to make the most of the encoder within your own personal requirements. The more scientifically you approach the subject, the better. It's a steep learning curve at first and I'm glad to see you cottoning on quickly. Keep us updated.

Cheers, Slipstreem.