IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
best possible 320CBR
Charmangus
post May 27 2013, 08:06
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 6
Joined: 27-May 13
Member No.: 108338



Hi

I'm pretty new to the whole EAC and LAME encoding and ripping. I've recently decided to re-rip all of my music in CBR 320 (not fussed about file size or time taken to rip).
But as i'm awfully fresh to the program i'm not entirely sure what to put in the code line for best 320cbr results?

Tips and advice greatly appreciated


Cheers
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kohlrabi
post May 27 2013, 09:11
Post #2





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 1050
Joined: 12-March 05
From: Kiel, Germany
Member No.: 20561



-b 320, 320 kbps is far beyond the level of transparency already.*

*except for problem samples

This post has been edited by Kohlrabi: May 27 2013, 09:14


--------------------
Ceterum censeo Masterdiskem esse delendam.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Charmangus
post May 27 2013, 09:37
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 6
Joined: 27-May 13
Member No.: 108338



so this is what it is at the moment:

%islow%-V 5%islow%%ishigh%-V 2%ishigh% --vbr-new %source% %dest%

I'd just change the vbr-new to b-320?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
AndyH-ha
post May 27 2013, 09:52
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 2207
Joined: 31-August 05
Member No.: 24222



use
-b 320
just that, and nothing more
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
skamp
post May 27 2013, 10:10
Post #5





Group: Developer
Posts: 1443
Joined: 4-May 04
From: France
Member No.: 13875



Or, --preset insane.


--------------------
See my profile for measurements, tools and recommendations.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Nessuno
post May 27 2013, 11:37
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 423
Joined: 16-December 10
From: Palermo
Member No.: 86562



QUOTE (Charmangus @ May 27 2013, 09:06) *
I'm pretty new to the whole EAC and LAME encoding and ripping. I've recently decided to re-rip all of my music in CBR 320 (not fussed about file size or time taken to rip).

First things first: the best that you can do is to rip in a lossless format (e.g. FLAC), save the resulting files and transcode to mp3 later. Ripping directly to lossy is a flawed process and not because of audibility of compression artefacts @320 kpbs, but because a lossy file is not a good starting point for further processing, like for example making a lower bitrate version for portable, maybe using a different codec etc...


--------------------
... I live by long distance.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Charmangus
post May 27 2013, 11:43
Post #7





Group: Members
Posts: 6
Joined: 27-May 13
Member No.: 108338



says


the external compressor returned an error!

Options: -b 320

then the file destination
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
db1989
post May 27 2013, 12:19
Post #8





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 5275
Joined: 23-June 06
Member No.: 32180



To clarify, you always need to have %source% %dest% or the appropriate variant thereof at the end of your command line, regardless of which encoder is being used.

-b320 %source% %dest%

See our Knowledgebase and EAC’s FAQ for plenty of information on other basics like this and more advanced concepts.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Porcus
post May 27 2013, 14:02
Post #9





Group: Members
Posts: 1842
Joined: 30-November 06
Member No.: 38207



QUOTE (Charmangus @ May 27 2013, 09:06) *
(not fussed about file size or time taken to rip)


So why not go lossless? Then you can just make copies for your portable devices or whatever.


--------------------
One day in the Year of the Fox came a time remembered well
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Rollin
post May 27 2013, 14:36
Post #10





Group: Members
Posts: 193
Joined: 5-March 08
Member No.: 51815



"-b 320 -q 0" theoretically gives better quality than simply "-b 320", because by default -q is 2

This post has been edited by Rollin: May 27 2013, 14:36
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
db1989
post May 27 2013, 15:02
Post #11





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 5275
Joined: 23-June 06
Member No.: 32180



If I’m not mistaken, the general advice around here is that such theoretical benefits are not significant enough to recommend that users deviate from the default setting, unless supported by a double-blind test of course. And every time this comes up, I have to say that I seem to recall someone pointing out that -q0 may, at least in the past, possibly provide slightly worse quality. Sadly, I do not have a reference to hand. But again, the default is there for a reason, and there are more pressing things to recommend, such as using VBR to avoid wasting 320 kbps on supposed ‘quality’ that is irrelevant once transparency is attained, which would probably occur at a sizeably lower mean bitrate than 320 kbps.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
pdq
post May 27 2013, 19:07
Post #12





Group: Members
Posts: 3407
Joined: 1-September 05
From: SE Pennsylvania
Member No.: 24233



QUOTE (db1989 @ May 27 2013, 10:02) *
If I’m not mistaken, the general advice around here is that such theoretical benefits are not significant enough to recommend that users deviate from the default setting, unless supported by a double-blind test of course. And every time this comes up, I have to say that I seem to recall someone pointing out that -q0 may, at least in the past, possibly provide slightly worse quality. Sadly, I do not have a reference to hand. But again, the default is there for a reason, and there are more pressing things to recommend, such as using VBR to avoid wasting 320 kbps on supposed ‘quality’ that is irrelevant once transparency is attained, which would probably occur at a sizeably lower mean bitrate than 320 kbps.

Indeed, there was a time when an attempt to increase quality with the -q0 switch apparently was unsuccessful and somewhat buggy. Those days are thankfully long gone, but still the use of -q0 is highly questionable. Appart from being much slower, it gives little or no actual increase in quality.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
BFG
post May 27 2013, 21:29
Post #13





Group: Members
Posts: 206
Joined: 22-July 12
Member No.: 101637



Frankly, I'd recommend using halb27's 3.100i/j tweaked version of LAME, and using -V0+ rather than CBR 320. This will give you nearly 320 kbps (317-320 on average) and yet takes advantage of an improved version of LAME's already pretty good VBR processing.
In general, VBR > CBR at the same overall bitrate because VBR allows bits in a given frame to be "donated" to more difficult adjacent frames, while CBR just wastes space in less difficult frames. -V0+ allows up to 450kbps on short frames, if I remember correctly.


This post has been edited by BFG: May 27 2013, 21:31
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
db1989
post May 27 2013, 22:09
Post #14





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 5275
Joined: 23-June 06
Member No.: 32180



And, once again, I would advise against recommending a specialised fork of LAME to a user who is still coming to terms with the basics. Unless double-blind testing verifies that (1) VBR with a mean bitrate below 320 kbps is insufficient and subsequently that (2) 320 kbps encoded by vanilla LAME is also lacking somehow, i.e. not already overkill, I do not see much purpose to recommending an alternative version.

I do not mean to downplay the work of halb27, as having another option is almost always a good thing, but it strikes me as something for specialised users who know what they are doing with the format and/or are especially worried about the issues it targets—not someone who apparently has not evaluated the drawbacks of 320 kbps CBR when compared to VBR or, indeed, lossless.

Heck, if the concern is securing the beneficial techniques of VBR in a quasi-CBR context, standard LAME already can be made to encode to CBR with the VBR algorithm, but again, I see no point in recommending even this officially possible variant of 320 kbps when no evidence has been proferred that normal 320 kbps is necessary here.

This post has been edited by db1989: May 27 2013, 22:16
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
BFG
post May 28 2013, 04:17
Post #15





Group: Members
Posts: 206
Joined: 22-July 12
Member No.: 101637



QUOTE (db1989 @ May 27 2013, 16:09) *
And, once again, I would advise against recommending a specialised fork of LAME to a user who is still coming to terms with the basics. Unless double-blind testing verifies that (1) VBR with a mean bitrate below 320 kbps is insufficient and subsequently that (2) 320 kbps encoded by vanilla LAME is also lacking somehow, i.e. not already overkill, I do not see much purpose to recommending an alternative version.

That's fair. In all honesty, I find even -V0 -q0 in vanilla LAME 3.99.5 to be more than sufficient, and (for my poor hearing) it is just as transparent as CBR 320. That may be something the OP wants to look into as well.

Philosophically, I think it's better to lay all the options out on the table for a new user, and then let him/her decide which approach is best for their specific need (while asking plenty of questions of the more experienced). But, it's probably best not to get into that topic here, as it could derail the conversation.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post May 28 2013, 05:56
Post #16





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



What promoted you to use -q0 with VBR?


--------------------
I should publish a list of forum idiots.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Aleron Ives
post May 28 2013, 06:12
Post #17





Group: Members
Posts: 189
Joined: 22-March 10
From: California
Member No.: 79208



@ greynol

I assume you meant "prompted"?

@ BFG

There's no reason to use -q 0 with the new VBR mode. It's the default, so the switch is superfluous. If memory serves, multiple q values also provide identical results with --vbr-new, although I don't remember the breakdown of values.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post May 28 2013, 06:22
Post #18





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



Yes, but my phone's auto correction didn't know that.


--------------------
I should publish a list of forum idiots.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
db1989
post May 28 2013, 11:33
Post #19





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 5275
Joined: 23-June 06
Member No.: 32180



An obvious first step would be to tell us whether the same problem occurs when you play the CD itself or rip it to an uncompressed format such as WAV. You do not seem to be doing anything wrong, so we need to explore all possibilities that might be causing the problem, starting with the simplest scenario of the CD being at fault.

QUOTE (BFG @ May 28 2013, 04:17) *
In all honesty, I find even -V0 -q0 in vanilla LAME 3.99.5 to be more than sufficient, and (for my poor hearing) it is just as transparent as CBR 320.
Can I ask whether you tested lower settings and found them to be non-transparent? Most users, find something like -V2 to be fine for most material, and some can go lower than that, so I have doubts that the word “even” is necessary in your statement! You question your hearing, but if settings below -V0 fail to satisfy it, it’s probably better than average. wink.gif

QUOTE
Philosophically, I think it's better to lay all the options out on the table for a new user, and then let him/her decide which approach is best for their specific need (while asking plenty of questions of the more experienced). But, it's probably best not to get into that topic here, as it could derail the conversation.
Whilst I agree with you about derailing, it is still somewhat relevant here. I agree to a point that various options should be noted, but I personally feel that when a user is starting from the beginning, it is best to stick with standard and/or basic features. If those are shown to be insufficient, more specialised approaches can be explored. In this case, I have also been trying to cast a sceptical eye on whether 320 kbps is necessary. I think learning how to use basic settings and then considering VBR and lower bitrates, and the testing methods that could verify them, will be more beneficial to Charmangus than concerns about short blocks, isolated samples of single instruments, and whatnot.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
DonP
post May 28 2013, 12:49
Post #20





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 1471
Joined: 11-February 03
From: Vermont
Member No.: 4955



QUOTE (BFG @ May 27 2013, 16:29) *
In general, VBR > CBR at the same overall bitrate because VBR allows bits in a given frame to be "donated" to more difficult adjacent frames, while CBR just wastes space in less difficult frames. -V0+ allows up to 450kbps on short frames, if I remember correctly.


320 is the highest rate allowed in the mp3 standard. While lame has an option to go higher, you are playing with fire because many (most?) players won't handle it.
If by "donate to adjacent frame" you mean bit reservoir, CBR can do that too.

This post has been edited by DonP: May 28 2013, 12:53
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
halb27
post May 28 2013, 14:37
Post #21





Group: Members
Posts: 2435
Joined: 9-October 05
From: Dormagen, Germany
Member No.: 25015



QUOTE (DonP @ May 28 2013, 13:49) *
QUOTE (BFG @ May 27 2013, 16:29) *
... -V0+ allows up to 450kbps on short frames, if I remember correctly.


320 is the highest rate allowed in the mp3 standard. While lame has an option to go higher, you are playing with fire because many (most?) players won't handle it.

No fire play, just bitreservoir used the maximum possible way so that any usual player can handle it.
The common misunderstanding: frame (container) bitrate is 320 kbps maximum according to the mp3 standard, but locally (due to bitreservoir) bitrate can be more than 500 kbps.

This post has been edited by halb27: May 28 2013, 14:46


--------------------
lame3100m -V1 --insane-factor 0.75
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 21st September 2014 - 07:43