These forums are a pretty good source of information for audio encoding. However, sometimes, lengthy and technical discussions, covered with diverse user opinions make it difficult to draw simple conclusions on some basic questions I have got. I would therefore like your simple opinions on a few issues I have to deal with, please bear with me.

I am deeply involved into music making, and there is a need for me to use audio compression in two occassions. First, I need a purest sonic quality lossy solution, to archive audio material. Secondly, I need a very flexible lossless solution to back-up some critical audio files (mixdowns, reference material and so on).

For a lossy solution, I have been using Lame (version 3.93.1 downloaded from the Mitiok site, using the preset standard setting). I am satisfied with it so far, the quality is good, the filesizes are reasonable. However, since I am eventually going to be converting a large amount of audio material, I want to be sure I have made the best possible choice. At some point in the future, I am going to upgrade my audio system to a high-end solution, and I would find it terrifying to realize that several nasty artifacts of the encoded files suddenly become apparent. My absolute concern is sound quality, the size of the encoded files and the encoding speed is of much less concern. So here are a few questions I have on this subject:

* Is the lame version and settings I use one of the best possible ways to encode to mp3? Anything I could change to achieve a noteworthy increase in quality?

* Are there other formats that will allow for substantial quality improvement with similar (+-20%) file sizes?

* Do codecs that perform better than mp3 (i.e. OGG) at low bitrates, also necessarily perform better at higher bitrates and VBR?

I am going to be dealing with a lot of diverse material (from jazz and classical music right up to electronic and heavy metal). I am mostly interested in encoding the material without any low/high pass filtering applied (I noticed lame applies low-pass with the alt-preset standard setting) even if that requires increased bit-rates.

Now, for a loseless compressor, I have been relying on Monkey's Audio. This too has been very handy to me, but I now have the need for advanced file format support (notably, 32bit floating point audio, and sample rates up to 96kHz). Are there any alternatives out there I should consider?

I am willing to do more research on this subject, but I would need some starting points, suggestions and links. Thanks in advanced for any help offered!

Welcome to the forum Evan

1. see the "list of recommened compiles" and "list of recommened settings" in mp3 general forum. lame 3.90.2/3 is considered optimal. (lame 3.90.2 and .3 are identical exept the -Z switch is (edit: in .3) added by default to the presets. it improves quality in some cases for the cost of slightly bitrate incrase)

2. yes, musepack/mpc. see "recommened" (in mpc forum) threats again

3. no, not necessarily

regards; ilikedirt

Hydrogen Audio says the 3.90.3 would be the best. I don't hear a difference between 3.93.1, 3.90.x and 3.92.



Yes, MPC and Ogg. MPC has the best quality already @170-190kb/s. See the MPC General Thread.



Yes, Ogg is generally better than MP3, especially at low bitrates and especially WITH vbr.

I try to answer... Hope it helps.

1a. Yes, it's pretty much so.

1b. You could possibly add -Z for some very rare cases, but most of the time you won't notice any difference.

2. You could try Musepack (MPC). In the MPC forum here you can find quite a lot of information about that format.

3. No. MP3 Pro would be one example which doesn't. Ogg and AAC however most often perform a bit better than MP3 also at higher bitrates.


Edit: Wow, so many replies before mine.

For lossy encoding:
If you need portability and best quality possible without too much consideration for disk space, go for alt preset insane.
If you don't care about portability, go for MPC.

For lossless, I'm quiet interested in an answer for higher bitrate/bitdepth , working also in music.

I think WavPack would be a perfect solution for your needs

My fav setting is "-h -b320 -c"

-h = high quality (best compression in all modes, but slower)
-bn = enable hybrid compression, 'n' is kbits/second (kbps)
-c = create correction file (.wvc) for hybrid mode

The correction file can be kept with the wv file or separate. When this file is in the same folder, the playback will be lossless, when its in a separate file, the playback will be lossy. This way, you will not need a full separate lossless file, which could same space

In theory, the lowpass settings are tuned so that the losses in high frequencies are inferior to the gain in quality that it allows. Consequently, if you take a preset and set a higher lowpass, you will likely get a lower quality.

In practice, I've never heard about someone capable of hearing the lowpasses used in the presets.
There is no high-pass.

If you take into account that lowpass filtering starts at frequencies that no one can hear anyway, I wouldn't be too worried about that. The human ear, in addition, is not very sensitive to phase changes that occur during filtering so I am totally content with the current mp3 preset settings.

@ Evan

Your basic choice will be based on 3 parameters:

1. Compatibility

MP3 is the most compatible format at that time. There is no doubt in that. No one can tell if MPC or OGG ever make it into the market because the music industry most likely will not be interested in formats that sound as good as mp3 (api) with even smaller filesizes ... they tend to always see things from the negative perspective (more piracy with even better quality etc.) so I doubt that MPC/OGG will get broad hardware support.

2. Filesize

Filesizes do not matter anymore since you can get a 120 GB HDD for less than 100 Euro ... If you thus don't care about filesizes, go for lossless compression (FLAC, APE etc.) ... then there won't be any discussions about CoDec sound quality no more ...

3. Sound Quality

MP3 (LAME APS) sounds transparent for the majority of users and test samples at bitrates around 200 kbps which roundabout leads to filesizes of 1,5 to 1,6 MB per Minute (44,1 kHz, 16 Bit) ... OGG sounds better at low bitrates and equals with MP3 at high bitrate settings IMHO.

MPC can achieve transparency for the majority of users and test samples at bitrates around 180 kbps ... this leads to significantly smaller files (a decrease of 10% in Bitrate) when compared to APS ... you can therefore store more music but at this time it is highly questionable if MPC can easily be burned to CDR and played back on your car stereo like MP3 can ...

If I were you (and if I wre to get a real High-End system), there would be only one choice ... lossless compression. You will experience that every lossy CoDec will sometimes fail on a specific test "killer" sample ... if you are concerned about quality and regard the price decay for HDD or other media, there is only one logical decision for archiving music IMO ...

I also suggest you check out Wavpack, for at least your lossless and perhaps also your lossy needs.

For lossy, as Jen pointed out, it gives an excellent lossy file at 320 kbits (leaves LAME standard and insane for dead in my tests, but you need to try it yourself, with your material.) Also with its hybrid mode, you can create the lossy file and the correction file, so that you have the lossy file for everyday use, but can restore it back without loss if you use the correction file also, for only a minor space penalty.

For lossless, Wavpack, either in hybrid or pure lossless mode offers support for higher sampling rates and 24 bit (not sure about 32). Check out www.wavpack.com for further details.

If 320 kbit lossy is too high a bit rate for you, I suggest you switch from LAME to Musepack (MPC). Again you need to test for yourself, but it handles a number of problems better than MP3, especially pre-echo, which you may find more noticeable than the average listener. On average MPC is more transparent that LAME standard at the same and often lower bitrates from my experience.

As for low bitrate stuff, the jury seems to be out on that at the moment, and again, you probably need to try it yourself. To my ears, all the codecs have problems <=128 kbits, but they each introduce different artifacts at the lower rates, so you need to decide which is most acceptable sounding to you. (Unless of course your choice is limited because you need to retain compatibility with specific equipment - mp3).

Hope this helps,

Den.