IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
better Lame 3.98 (bitrate 128) or 3.93 (bitrate 192)?
LauraQ
post Apr 15 2014, 08:08
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 24-January 14
Member No.: 114189



Hi smile.gif
I found two discographies of the same singer, In the first discography EncSpot (there is a better program? EncSpot is old and not update) tells me that is always
used Lame 3.98 Bitrate 128, in the second there are various types:

Lame 3.93 Bitrate 256
Lame 3.93 Bitrate 192
Lame 3.93 Bitrate 160
Lame 3.92 (alpha) bitrate 192
FhG (fastenc or mp3enc) 160

Can you tell me what should I keep?

Thanks!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mjb2006
post Apr 15 2014, 08:43
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 827
Joined: 12-May 06
From: Colorado, USA
Member No.: 30694



Apples and oranges. There is no way to know. You don't even know if the same masterings of the source material were used. You don't know if these particular pieces of music would benefit from the improvements in later versions of the encoders. You don't know if, at these high bitrates, it even matters to your ears. You can only listen (preferably at matching volume levels; use ReplayGain) and see which one you prefer. There may be an obvious difference that makes you prefer one over the other. But it doesn't mean one encoder/version/bitrate is always going to be superior.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
LauraQ
post Apr 15 2014, 08:58
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 24-January 14
Member No.: 114189



Too bad sad.gif
Thanks for the explanation. ReplayGain tell me where to download? I tried but can not find it

This post has been edited by LauraQ: Apr 15 2014, 08:58
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
includemeout
post Apr 15 2014, 10:14
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 282
Joined: 16-December 09
From: Maringá, Brazil
Member No.: 76067



QUOTE (LauraQ @ Apr 15 2014, 04:08) *
Hi smile.gif
I found two discographies of the same singer

If by "found" you mean that's all the peer-to-peer (cough) legal (cough) download could come up with, and as mjb2006 pointed out, you can never really tell what the source was like, your best bet is actually buying their CD, in order to be 100% certain about it. wink.gif


--------------------
Listen to the music, not the media.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
probedb
post Apr 15 2014, 10:16
Post #5





Group: Members
Posts: 1270
Joined: 6-September 04
Member No.: 16817



QUOTE (LauraQ @ Apr 15 2014, 08:58) *
Too bad sad.gif
Thanks for the explanation. ReplayGain tell me where to download? I tried but can not find it


You don't download ReplayGain. If you use something like foobar2000, it has a scanner built in and will apply it to the files. Then, you can use it on any device or software that supports ReplayGain, like foobar2000.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
birdie
post Apr 15 2014, 10:22
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 108
Joined: 3-March 06
From: this planet
Member No.: 28235



Decode them to WAV/PCM and run `auCDtect.exe -mS0` on them.

Leave the one which has the biggest hi-cut frequency - at least you'll be able to preserve more frequencies.

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
LauraQ
post Apr 15 2014, 10:24
Post #7





Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 24-January 14
Member No.: 114189



QUOTE (probedb @ Apr 15 2014, 11:16) *
QUOTE (LauraQ @ Apr 15 2014, 08:58) *
Too bad sad.gif
Thanks for the explanation. ReplayGain tell me where to download? I tried but can not find it


You don't download ReplayGain. If you use something like foobar2000, it has a scanner built in and will apply it to the files. Then, you can use it on any device or software that supports ReplayGain, like foobar2000.


don't know foobar, I use Winamp. There is a tutorial that can help me for scan my collection?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
includemeout
post Apr 15 2014, 12:53
Post #8





Group: Members
Posts: 282
Joined: 16-December 09
From: Maringá, Brazil
Member No.: 76067



QUOTE (LauraQ @ Apr 15 2014, 06:24) *
don't know foobar, I use Winamp. There is a tutorial that can help me for scan my collection?

Guide

Also, there is a truckload of information on other topics you may find useful (aimed either at beginners or experts alike) as long as you're willing to search for it.


--------------------
Listen to the music, not the media.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
LauraQ
post Apr 15 2014, 18:41
Post #9





Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 24-January 14
Member No.: 114189



thanks smile.gif

Having said that I realized that I can not answer, can you tell me if lame from 3.93 to 3.98, there have been major improvements?

This post has been edited by LauraQ: Apr 15 2014, 18:42
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
pdq
post Apr 15 2014, 18:52
Post #10





Group: Members
Posts: 3420
Joined: 1-September 05
From: SE Pennsylvania
Member No.: 24233



QUOTE (LauraQ @ Apr 15 2014, 13:41) *
can you tell me if lame from 3.93 to 3.98, there have been major improvements?

Not enough that Lame 3.98 at bitrate 128 would be likely to be higher quality than Lame 3.93 at bitrates of 160 or higher.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Mach-X
post Apr 16 2014, 05:31
Post #11





Group: Members
Posts: 275
Joined: 29-July 12
From: Windsor, On, Ca
Member No.: 101859



QUOTE (pdq @ Apr 15 2014, 12:52) *
QUOTE (LauraQ @ Apr 15 2014, 13:41) *
can you tell me if lame from 3.93 to 3.98, there have been major improvements?

Not enough that Lame 3.98 at bitrate 128 would be likely to be higher quality than Lame 3.93 at bitrates of 160 or higher.

That. The tuning done between those versions was mostly to deal with troublesome sounds such as castanets, not general music. It is unlikely you would hear any difference between samples using abx testing.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
LauraQ
post Apr 16 2014, 07:32
Post #12





Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 24-January 14
Member No.: 114189



ok, I tried to do the simplest thing, I have taken many mp3 and I listen to them, to my limited ears and my limited stereo speakers happy.gif , I did not notice any difference, so I kept the ones that are smaller than 3.98 size
Thank you all for the help!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
birdie
post Apr 16 2014, 09:42
Post #13





Group: Members
Posts: 108
Joined: 3-March 06
From: this planet
Member No.: 28235



QUOTE (LauraQ @ Apr 16 2014, 12:32) *
ok, I tried to do the simplest thing, I have taken many mp3 and I listen to them, to my limited ears and my limited stereo speakers happy.gif , I did not notice any difference, so I kept the ones that are smaller than 3.98 size
Thank you all for the help!


The worst possible choice.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
probedb
post Apr 16 2014, 10:13
Post #14





Group: Members
Posts: 1270
Joined: 6-September 04
Member No.: 16817



QUOTE (birdie @ Apr 16 2014, 09:42) *
The worst possible choice.


Why? If she can't hear any difference it makes perfect sense if you're trying to save space.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mjb2006
post Apr 16 2014, 10:29
Post #15





Group: Members
Posts: 827
Joined: 12-May 06
From: Colorado, USA
Member No.: 30694



QUOTE (birdie @ Apr 16 2014, 02:42) *
The worst possible choice.

She has listened and can't hear a difference in these files, so there's no reason to choose anything but the smallest one. They're all the same, for this music, for this person's ears. Does that mean whatever the smallest file uses will be the ideal encoder & settings for all pieces of music, and all listeners? No, of course not. But for this situation, the ideal choice was made. That is, all things being equal, in her ears, the only distinguishing factor is the file size, so why not choose the smallest one.

QUOTE (birdie)
Leave the one which has the biggest hi-cut frequency - at least you'll be able to preserve more frequencies.

She can't hear those frequencies, in this instance, so why should she choose the MP3s that preserve them? Is she not better served by knowing that the encoder didn't have to deal with the sfb21 problem, i.e. it didn't have to make sacrifices in the lower frequencies in order to accommodate the rarely audible, noisy 16+ KHz range?

http://www.mp3-tech.org/content/?mp3%20limitations
http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=LAME_Y_SWITCH
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mjb2006
post Apr 16 2014, 11:17
Post #16





Group: Members
Posts: 827
Joined: 12-May 06
From: Colorado, USA
Member No.: 30694



QUOTE (includemeout @ Apr 15 2014, 05:53) *
QUOTE (LauraQ @ Apr 15 2014, 06:24) *
don't know foobar, I use Winamp. There is a tutorial that can help me for scan my collection?

Guide


That guide is for foobar2000; it won't help at all with Winamp.

@LauraQ, ReplayGain is a system where you scan your files and add special tags to them to indicate how loud they are. Then, your player, if it supports those tags, automatically adjusts the volume during playback in order to make all things be the same average loudness on a per-track or per-album basis. It is similar to iTunes Sound Check, which uses a different algorithm and tags, but has the same effect.

In Winamp, go to Preferences > Playback > Replay Gain. Here are my settings:
  • [X] Use Replay Gain
  • Amplification mode: Apply Gain / Prevent Clipping
  • Preferred source: Album
  • Adjustment for files without Replay Gain: -6.0 dB
  • [X] Ask before writing Replay Gain to analyzed files
  • [X] Ask after all files are scanned
For the purpose of removing volume differences as a factor when comparing individual files to see if you hear any differences between them, you will want to set the Preferred source to Track. Otherwise, you probably want Album.

To scan files in Winamp, select some file(s) in the playlist window, right-click, and choose Send To > Calculate ReplayGain. It will scan and give you a choice of writing album gain tags (plus track gain tags) or just track gain tags by themselves.

Consider a set of files to be an album if you have all the tracks from the album, and they all came from the exact same source (same mastering, same pressing): i.e., the same rip of the same physical CD, LP, or one side of a 12" single. Otherwise just consider them to be loose tracks.

If you have complete albums, and each album is in its own folder, you can scan all the files at once, then write the album tags. If you have complete albums, but they're all together in one folder, you have to scan each album separately, writing album tags after each one. If you have just assorted loose tracks, scan them in any combination you want, and only write the track tags.

The dB values it gives you after the scan are what the volume change will be during playback when Use Replay Gain is enabled. Files louder than the ideal average will have a negative adjustment (i.e., will be played with the volume turned down), and quiet files will have a positive adjustment. Files scanned as an album will have identical values for album gain, and different values for track gain. Files scanned separately will have the same value for both track & album gain.


This post has been edited by mjb2006: Apr 16 2014, 11:18
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
LauraQ
post Apr 16 2014, 11:49
Post #17





Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 24-January 14
Member No.: 114189



mjb2006:
Fantastic your guide for Winamp, definitely will use it!

Also thanks to all others who have helped me, in fact I have stated that I'm not a music expert though I like to have good quality mp3 wink.gif


Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
includemeout
post Apr 16 2014, 15:13
Post #18





Group: Members
Posts: 282
Joined: 16-December 09
From: Maringá, Brazil
Member No.: 76067



QUOTE (mjb2006 @ Apr 16 2014, 07:17) *
QUOTE (includemeout @ Apr 15 2014, 05:53) *
QUOTE (LauraQ @ Apr 15 2014, 06:24) *
don't know foobar, I use Winamp. There is a tutorial that can help me for scan my collection?

Guide


That guide is for foobar2000; it won't help at all with Winamp.


Doh! Where did I have my mind to have overlooked that? rolleyes.gif

I stand corrected. Thank you mjb2006!


--------------------
Listen to the music, not the media.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
birdie
post Apr 17 2014, 09:20
Post #19





Group: Members
Posts: 108
Joined: 3-March 06
From: this planet
Member No.: 28235



Everyone's so smart, huh?

What if she buys better acoustics? What if her current setup is so lousy it cannot faithfully reproduce the frequency range of her songs?

Always aim for the best practical quality (I'm not talking about digitizing your audio at 24bit/192KHz and storing it as WAVs, but 192Kbit vs 128Kbit is a no-brainer - nowadays that everyone has gigabytes of storage I see no reason of not choosing a higher bitrate). You never know what the future will bring.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
julf
post Apr 17 2014, 09:32
Post #20





Group: Members
Posts: 275
Joined: 14-January 12
Member No.: 96426



QUOTE (birdie @ Apr 17 2014, 10:20) *
Always aim for the best practical quality (I'm not talking about digitizing your audio at 24bit/192KHz and storing it as WAVs, but 192Kbit vs 128Kbit is a no-brainer - nowadays that everyone has gigabytes of storage I see no reason of not choosing a higher bitrate). You never know what the future will bring.


If you go for the vague "everyone has gigabytes of storage" and "you never know what the future will bring" arguments, the only conclusion is to use a lossless format. If you go for perceptual encoding, choose the bit rate that is good enough for *your* perception, not some obscure future scenario.


Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
includemeout
post Apr 17 2014, 12:52
Post #21





Group: Members
Posts: 282
Joined: 16-December 09
From: Maringá, Brazil
Member No.: 76067



Am I wrong to think that perhaps, given this thread's own title it sort of belongs to the last decade and we've been expanding on it more than we should and/or it deserves? Because many want to feel they're helping the (apparent) lady in distress, perhaps!? tongue.gif

Not to mention the OP's question has been already answered several posts back and the latest ones have been more or less in a crash course towards TOS8's own rules.


--------------------
Listen to the music, not the media.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
pdq
post Apr 17 2014, 13:41
Post #22





Group: Members
Posts: 3420
Joined: 1-September 05
From: SE Pennsylvania
Member No.: 24233



QUOTE (birdie @ Apr 16 2014, 04:42) *
QUOTE (LauraQ @ Apr 16 2014, 12:32) *
ok, I tried to do the simplest thing, I have taken many mp3 and I listen to them, to my limited ears and my limited stereo speakers happy.gif , I did not notice any difference, so I kept the ones that are smaller than 3.98 size
Thank you all for the help!


The worst possible choice.

This from the person who recommended keeping as much as possible of the highest, inaudible frequencies, which steal bits away from the lower frequencies, possibly decreasing overall quality. rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Mach-X
post Apr 18 2014, 04:03
Post #23





Group: Members
Posts: 275
Joined: 29-July 12
From: Windsor, On, Ca
Member No.: 101859



I recommend keeping the 128, as at least the same encoder/settings were used throughout. And having done the Philips golden ears test myself, even 128 is difficult to abx. The second set using different encoder/settings is bothersome to me.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
probedb
post Apr 18 2014, 07:26
Post #24





Group: Members
Posts: 1270
Joined: 6-September 04
Member No.: 16817



QUOTE (birdie @ Apr 17 2014, 09:20) *
nowadays that everyone has gigabytes of storage I see no reason of not choosing a higher bitrate).


Then you wouldn't use MP3 for storage would you? It's still transparent to her. How do you know she has gigabytes of storage?

QUOTE (birdie @ Apr 17 2014, 09:20) *
You never know what the future will bring.


What does it matter if she buys a new stereo in the future, why will that make it show more artifacts?

Why are you confusing frequency range with bitrate?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
birdie
post Apr 18 2014, 18:09
Post #25





Group: Members
Posts: 108
Joined: 3-March 06
From: this planet
Member No.: 28235



QUOTE (julf @ Apr 17 2014, 14:32) *
If you go for the vague "everyone has gigabytes of storage" and "you never know what the future will bring" arguments, the only conclusion is to use a lossless format. If you go for perceptual encoding, choose the bit rate that is good enough for *your* perception, not some obscure future scenario.


Why are going off-topic? The OP asked about certain bitrates, let's stay there. The person has no access to source audio.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
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 October 2014 - 16:27