I'm curious, on your normal songs(not training songs, or ping pong like clips{c44}), which --alt preset CBR is transparent to you? On your headphones or speakers. 128k, 160k, 192k, 224k, 256k, 320k? Just curious; I rarely do use MP3, but I'd like to see what's transparent on normal music to the audio nuts here B). Thanks.

--alt-preset standard is all I use, no point in anything else for me. Car CD deck plays mp3s, and I'm not concerned with how much I can possible squeeze on one CD.

--alt-preset cbr 192 does it for me, but I suspect 160 would also be OK to my ears.

--alt-preset standard all I use but if I had to use CBR it would be 256 or perhaps 320.
192 just doesn't cut it for me.

Unless I am really listening (Mental Note: Need to do more of this), 224 is transparent

For me --alt-preset CBR 256 is trasparent.
But IMO it's difficult to reach "trasparency" with CBR..

I think the best option is --alt preset CBR 192, size/quality


It's not hard just costs too much, API

My take,
If you use CBR less than 320kbps parts of the song that need more bits to perform optimally will artefact if you use API or CBR 320 you waste bits that's why VBR is used.

Good short and concise summary. If only everyone in the world applied that flawless logic as opposed to "Use VBR and compromise Quality? Get stuffed!"

I just use APS and APE. CBR wastes space, and doesn't sound any better, however if I was to revert back to CBR it would be API and no less.

"Normal" pop music (as can be encountered on Chart-Compilations) is fine with me when I use CBR192 ...

FHG CBR 192 for non-critical listening (critical=music that you listened a thousand times and know by heart, expecting each note to come in advance).

I'd have to say 224 or better 256. If someone remembers the legendary r3mix listening test , the optimized 192 CBR setting was the one with the most obvious audible artifacts for most people (me included).

I can't help myself... but with --alt-preset insane --lowpass 21 I can live... sounds really good

then you like cbr. coz the insane preset is CBR 320!! it's not vbr and therefore it's wasting lots of bits. but it's the best quality possible with mp3, coz the specifications limit mp3 to a maximum of 320 kbps.

but preset standard should be transparent for 99% of all ears.

cheers

To my ears Lame 3.90.2 or GoGo 3.11@ 256CBR sound pretty decent.


LIF

What amazes me is how many people have somehow managed to ignore the point and stated they only use VBR...

I'm not quite sure what's transparent to me, probably 224-256kbps. 192 is getting annoying as far as quality and unfortunately it's what most people share...

Well sometime ago (2001) I did a proper listening test and found out Lame 3.90 @ 224 Kbps was good enough for most of the muzak I listen (Beatles, Elton John, Eric Clapton, Cream, Black Sabbath) that was only in complete songs, in test samples after 256 Kbps I couldn't manage to hear the difference.

For today's popular muzak (Britney Spears, N'sync, Backseat Boyz, Shakira) I'm pretty sure 48Kbps WMA is transparent.

Anyway it doesn't really matter much to me now since I store ev'rything losslessly and transcode for at --alt-preset extreme for my portable

In most cases --alt-preset cbr 256 sounds pretty decent. For portable use --alt-preset 128 is fine too.

dev0

Heh.

Even after training, over 10 people I tried said I was nuts or some sort of bat. Using --alt preset CBR 160 MP3s, normal headphones(some $40 ones at the store, good quality and sound) and a CD player. Most of ff123's training clips didn't even make anyone wonder. All I could show them that made them say "wow that sucks" was c44, then they just asked me "when are we gonna hear a screwed up ping pong game in music?". I bet --alt preset CBR 128 would be enough for most, since the artifacts are so subtle, or even if you breathe too loud you can't hear them.

Interesting results indeed.

EDIT; I tried this test again in a quieter room, they told the difference from 160k easy.

Transparent is such a loaded word.

Since you aren't going to get transparency from MP3, I'm going to say --alt-preset cbr 160. Maybe 192 because that bitrate has been so indoctrinated in our minds as "transparent". But really, 160kbps CBR will do the job unless you are bent on serious listening. If you use 256 or something it just seems like a waste for a flawed format that bitrate can't even save.

That's why I like APE. No thinking involved. B)

I wasn't going to use $150 headphones and a $500 soundcard, just a norma; over $100 panasonic CD player and $40 headphones that sounded damn good in the store. That is what people use, so that's what would matter. This site had led me to believe a lot more of transparency, when it really could be reached a lot lower for most music and conditions. My central heat is killing the MP3 artifacts they're so unnoticeable.

It is true, unless it's an easy choice(a finalized CD-R, where they won't fit on in WAV so you just use --alt preset insane for the MP3 CD and have a lot of space left, why not use the best bitrate?), as the flaws of MP3, while few, kill it no matter what bitrate you use. Maybe when Ogg Vorbis GT3 when it's done will make me believe in lossy formats..

I use --alt preset standard with mp3 and its transparent for me, but alt-preset cbr 192 is transparent for me for casual listening with rock/pop music, no abx tests, and I use cbr 192 at work, a FM radiostation, the automation software that we use have troubles showing the correct duration of vbr mp3 files ,

In casual listening of studio-recorded music, I only detect very occasional artifacts with --alt-preset cbr 192.

However, live music for me would require 224 or higher to not be annoying.

160 or 192 CBR for my heavy music is perfectly ok.

.

Somewhere between 160 CBR and 192 CBR using LAME.

(or Q2.5 Vorbis VBR)

Whoa!!! That's the way to make friends with the LAME developers

Personally I notice flaws using 192 CBR. Sometimes even with 256 I have noticed slight differences to the original - usually only with music I know intimately well (e.g. an album you have had for years and know every vocal bit, every guitar phrase and tone by heart). I think without using VBR you'd have to go with 320 kbps CBR (well, you can't go higher and still be compatible can you?) but I personally don't use the alt preset settings for CBR. I'd determine your own lowpass setting for one - this is an individual thing determined by your hearing ability. I use the following 320 kbps CBR commandline (after a fair bit of research and questioning here) with LAME 3.90.2:

-b320 -m j -h --nspsytune --nssafejoint -Z -X 1,3 --athtype 2 --lowpass 19

An added advantage to the lowpass 19 is that the remaining frequencies can be better encoded (cf. lowpass 21).

I defy anyone listening to music to tell the difference between lowpass 19 and lowpass 21.

You can search on this forum for the properties of the other switches.

RD.

--ap cbr 192 is usually transparent for me.

DELETED

I think that's probably not accurate; to 99% of listeners (i.e. talk to an average person who downloads mp3s), even fraunhoefer 192 CBR is transparent on most metal. I listen to a *lot* of music, and I certainly can't tell the difference between preset standard and the original CD on the vast majority of music (pretty much everything except a few of the MPEG test samples actually, and even then only on repeated close listening).

DELETED

I thought that for that version of LAME, --alt-preset insane was the best 320 CBR commandline. Am I wrong?

No, you're not. Although his commandline resembles the --api switches a bit, i'd use --api anyhow. And don't forget that he can't access any of the code-level tweaks that Dibrom utilized for the alt-presets.

I don't think the LAME developers are going to deny that MP3 has some flaws in the area of transparent high bitrate encoding.

PS. Have you tried --alt-preset insane?

Yes. ABR 224 didn't do well either, so CBR 224 is probably a no go too. CBR 256 was (on average) transparent.

I'm interested in samples where it fails. Metal has tended to bloat bitrate, but usually there were little or few problems getting things transparent.

(Even more so because you're using 'I'm an amateur musician' as an argument, and experience has thought me those are far from being the most reliable listeners.)

Yeah I'm new to this mp3 encoding stuff a complete "noob" so to speak so I'm definantely no expert. But from what I've gathered so far when I encode in "extreme" it sounds just about the same as a cd. When I encode in "standard" it sounds just about the same as a cd also exept it seems to lack an almost imperceptible amount of "clarity" or "crispness" compared to "extreme"

You ought to do a blind test, aka ABX, to make sure that that isn't a placebo effect, Granny.

I just recorded a song using Media Jukebox with Lame at the VBR normal setting. I recorded the same song as a 'wav' file to compare instantly with the mp3 copy. I can't really tell a difference. If there is a difference, it's not relevant. Some people may have better ears than I and can hear a difference. Therefore, to switch to other codecs that are not usable on portable players doesn't make sense to me. I have a Creative Jukebox that I have loaded with MP3 music. I can't see throwing the Jukebox away and use another codec that won't play on my jukebox because in theory it is better (like Ogg and MPC, etc). I guess everyone has to decide for themselves.

Yeah your probably right about the placebo effect since I'm new to mp3 making, just started a week ago I think I may have been a little too eager to spout off before I knew what I was talking about. I just did a comparison with a NEVERMORE song in standard and extreme and I really cant tell the difference between the two.

I have not tried --alt-preset insane. I didn't think the code level tweaks applied much for CBR. If you noticed, my commandline:

-b320 -m j -h --nspsytune --nssafejoint -Z -X 1,3 --athtype 2 --lowpass 19

contains just about everything that is in -api anyway (I did a pretty indepth check of these forums). Who knows what is not in mine but is in -api? The reason I chose mine was that I knew exactly which switches were set and what they apparently do. I didn't think that -Z, -X 1,3 were in -api and people like JohnV who seems to know what he is on about suggested these as possible improvements. As I stated before I wanted a lower lowpass because I can't tell the difference with 19 and 21. True you can also do this in -api but I like to know the settings.

RD.

I think they do, but I don't know for sure which ones do. Would have to look at the code or ask Dibrom.



I think at least -Z and -X3 are in API. Don't know about -X1 (or if it's any good).

--alt-preset insane uses code-level tweaks that you can't access via command-line switches.

Try "--alt-preset insane --no-preset-tune".

I use the following settings for the best quality (LAME v3.90.3):

--alt-preset insane -ms -d -c

Description:
--alt-preset insane, To get all the tweaks that are not available on the command line (uses 320 cbr).

(The rest of the settings "override" what the insane preset gives you)

-ms, True stereo mode - using joint stereo will give you a bit more quality at the cost of less stereo separation. To me accurate stereo separation is very important. And yes, I can hear a difference between joint stereo and true stereo at this bit-rate on some music - the music sounds fine (mp3 encoding wise) but it seems kind of mono in some areas, the music doesn't leap out from the right or left channels.

-d, Allows the left and right channels to use different block types, which is sort of like a VBR between the left and right channels - applying the bit rate to the channel that needs it most but still keeping a constant bit-rate.

-c, Marks the encoded file as copyrighted - I use this because I believe anything that is encoded is copyrighted material.

I also use AudioGrabber and Normalize all my music to 98% before encoding. This can be done using LAME with the "-scale 0.93" switch but I prefer to let AudioGrabber do the work since it process the entire file in RAM before writing the wave file to disk for encoding.

Hope that helps.

you will have to hide in the mountains for a week or two after this post B) , before that search the forum for joint stereo and/or normalization to name the two.

192 if I stress myself. But 160 is very fine as well.

If I want to do "critical" listening, (which, by the way, I hardly ever do anymore),
I put the original CD into the stereo and skip the computer altogether.
For mobile/portable use, and "casual" listening, I do --alt-preset standard.

Dex