IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Is 320kbps enough for everybody?
scooterfrog
post Mar 23 2006, 19:06
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: 23-March 06
Member No.: 28776



ok i have read a bunch of stuff.
here is what I am doing
rip with audiograbber
tag with mpgtag cover art etc
normalize with mp3gain (89db)


settings lame 320 joint stereo
blade 320 I have read that lame is better than blade so I switched. will it really make any differecne at 320.

I chose 320 bacuase I can use it on my ipod and to me it sounds as good to me as flac .if I use flac I have to transcode to use my ipod. it seemd like a good compormise of actually lossless vs compatibility.

I know people who thought 128 was good enought but are now reripping. am I lilkely tofeel that way about 320.

This post has been edited by scooterfrog: Mar 23 2006, 19:08
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
scooterfrog
post Mar 23 2006, 19:11
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: 23-March 06
Member No.: 28776



more questions


more questions I say it is possible to use itunes with lame. any way to chain the rip and mp3 gain (track) portions

that seem like it would rip tag and get album art in one step not 2 steps
alternatively is it possible to chain the rip and mp3gain steps with audograbber.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Garf
post Mar 23 2006, 19:14
Post #3


Server Admin


Group: Admin
Posts: 4884
Joined: 24-September 01
Member No.: 13



QUOTE (scooterfrog @ Mar 23 2006, 08:06 PM)
blade 320 I have read that lame is better than blade so I switched.  will it really make any differecne at 320. 


Yes, a big difference even.

QUOTE
I know people who thought 128 was good enought but are now reripping. am I lilkely tofeel that way about 320.
*


No way to tell. However, a modern MP3 encoder is transparent 65% of the time on difficult samples for a variety of listeners. At 320kbps, you'll be hard pressed to find any problem samples.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
scooterfrog
post Mar 24 2006, 14:26
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: 23-March 06
Member No.: 28776



QUOTE (Garf @ Mar 23 2006, 02:14 PM)
QUOTE (scooterfrog @ Mar 23 2006, 08:06 PM)
blade 320 I have read that lame is better than blade so I switched.  will it really make any differecne at 320. 


Yes, a big difference even.

QUOTE
I know people who thought 128 was good enought but are now reripping. am I lilkely tofeel that way about 320.
*


No way to tell. However, a modern MP3 encoder is transparent 65% of the time on difficult samples for a variety of listeners. At 320kbps, you'll be hard pressed to find any problem samples.
*



should I rerip the the blades with lame.
in audiograbber waht settings should I use. assuming 320 I think Joint stereo. what else. it seems like most of the lame discussions is about vbr and abr. not cbr

This post has been edited by scooterfrog: Mar 24 2006, 14:35
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
alive
post Mar 24 2006, 14:33
Post #5





Group: Members
Posts: 81
Joined: 3-March 05
Member No.: 20311



QUOTE (scooterfrog @ Mar 24 2006, 02:26 PM)
QUOTE (Garf @ Mar 23 2006, 02:14 PM)
QUOTE (scooterfrog @ Mar 23 2006, 08:06 PM)
blade 320 I have read that lame is better than blade so I switched.  will it really make any differecne at 320. 


Yes, a big difference even.

QUOTE
I know people who thought 128 was good enought but are now reripping. am I lilkely tofeel that way about 320.
*


No way to tell. However, a modern MP3 encoder is transparent 65% of the time on difficult samples for a variety of listeners. At 320kbps, you'll be hard pressed to find any problem samples.
*


should I rerip the teh blades with lame.
in audiograbber waht settings should I use. assuming 320 I think Joint stereo. what else
*


With LAME, it is suggested that you use the presets.
I suggest that you listen to some music encoded in -V0 --vbr-fast, and see if you can hear a difference between that and your 320kbps sample.
Not only will you save some space on your iPod compared to 320 CBR, but you probably also will not be able to tell a difference.

If you believe that the samples encoded in Blade sound bad, then rerip them. If not, dont.

Only you decide what sounds good wink.gif


--------------------
Pusk is the new Start.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
scooterfrog
post Mar 24 2006, 14:35
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: 23-March 06
Member No.: 28776



QUOTE
With LAME, it is suggested that you use the presets.
I suggest that you listen to some music encoded in -V0 --vbr-fast, and see if you can hear a difference between that and your 320kbps sample.
Not only will you save some space on your iPod compared to 320 CBR, but you probably also will not be able to tell a difference.

If you believe that the samples encoded in Blade sound bad, then rerip them. If not, dont.

Only you decide what sounds good wink.gif
*


I am not really concerend with size I was using flac before but i didnt want to transcode every time I wanted to move music to the ipod.
are there presets for 320

as an interna coder in audio grabber I can choose
mono joint stereo/ stereo/ dual stereo
and voice/low/normal/high

I think I want JS and high

Moderation: Fixed quote.

This post has been edited by Gambit: Mar 24 2006, 23:44
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
scooterfrog
post Mar 24 2006, 19:23
Post #7





Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: 23-March 06
Member No.: 28776



ok like this

audio grabber
calls this batch file with %s %d

___
"c:\program files\audiograbber\lame\lame.exe" %1 %2 --alt-preset insane
"c:\program files\audiograbber\lame\mp3gain.exe" /rc %2
__

lame extreme
then mp3 gain track allow clipping

then all i need to do is add album art.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
AtaqueEG
post Mar 24 2006, 20:42
Post #8





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 1336
Joined: 18-November 01
From: Celaya, Guanajuato
Member No.: 478



QUOTE (scooterfrog @ Mar 24 2006, 12:23 PM)
lame extreme
then mp3 gain track allow clipping

then all i need to do is add album art.
*


If you are using LAME 3.97b2 (which you definitely should -- it is faster) I don't think the alt presets are supported anymore.

And really, you should try to find your transparency threshold before any mass-encoding. If you have the FLACs stored, re-encoding later on (for example, if AAC catches on) should be very easy.

I would be very surprised if you could ABX between v4 and FLAC. And I don't mean that as an insult. Almost no one can.


--------------------
I'm the one in the picture, sitting on a giant cabbage in Mexico, circa 1978.
Reseņas de Rock en Espaņol: www.estadogeneral.com
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Andavari
post Mar 25 2006, 23:35
Post #9





Group: Members
Posts: 935
Joined: 3-June 02
From: USA
Member No.: 2204



QUOTE (AtaqueEG @ Mar 24 2006, 01:42 PM)
I don't think the alt presets are supported anymore.
*

They work, or at least --preset fast standard does, also if using lame_enc.dll with CDex or EAC all that is available are the old preset names. The lame tag info when looking at a file with Mr Questionman clearly shows that it's mapped to the new recommended settings.


--------------------
Complexity of incoherent design.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dreamliner77
post Mar 26 2006, 00:25
Post #10





Group: Members
Posts: 2150
Joined: 29-June 02
From: Boston
Member No.: 2427



I'd just suggest that the OP read the stickies in the mp3 forum.


--------------------
"You can fight without ever winning, but never win without a fight." Neil Peart 'Resist'
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
scooterfrog
post Mar 27 2006, 04:55
Post #11





Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: 23-March 06
Member No.: 28776



QUOTE (dreamliner77 @ Mar 25 2006, 07:25 PM)
I'd just suggest that the OP read the stickies in the mp3 forum.
*



not sure what the above means
I have read much of the stickies and done a bunch of searches.
almost all of the lame seetings are about which vbr settings

for simplicity I am looking for the best quaity mp3 I can get.


I am using different settings on my batch script now

"c:\program files\audiograbber\lame\lame.exe" %1 %2 --preset insane
"c:\program files\audiograbber\lame\mp3gain.exe" /r /c /s r %2

lame 3.97b2
note no alt preset.
allow clipping and clear analysis
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
saratoga
post Mar 27 2006, 08:35
Post #12





Group: Members
Posts: 4923
Joined: 2-September 02
Member No.: 3264



QUOTE (scooterfrog @ Mar 26 2006, 08:55 PM)
QUOTE (dreamliner77 @ Mar 25 2006, 07:25 PM)
I'd just suggest that the OP read the stickies in the mp3 forum.
*



not sure what the above means
I have read much of the stickies and done a bunch of searches.
almost all of the lame seetings are about which vbr settings

for simplicity I am looking for the best quaity mp3 I can get.
*



QUOTE (sticky)
# Quick Start:


Best Quality: archiving
-b 320 - This is the strongest setting for MP3, with the lowest risk of artifacts.
With the exception of a few situations, quality is rarely better than the highest VBR profiles described below.
Alternative: Lossless formats like WavPack, Flac etc allow true archiving bit for bit like on original CD.


High Quality: HiFi, home or quiet listening
-V 3 --vbr-new (~175 kbps), -V 2 --vbr-new (~190 kbps), -V 1 --vbr-new (~210 kbps) or -V 0 --vbr-new (~230 kbps) are recommended.
These settings will produce transparent encoding (transparent = most people cannot distinguish the mp3 from the original in an ABX blindtest).
Audible differences between these presets exist, but are extremely marginal.


Portable: background noise and low bitrate requirement, small sizes
-V6 --vbr-new (~115 kbps), -V5 --vbr-new (~130 kbps) or -V4 --vbr-new (~160 kbps) are recommended for this use.
-V6 --vbr-new produces an acceptable quality, while -V4--vbr-new should be close to perceptual transparency.


wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
scooterfrog
post Mar 27 2006, 13:59
Post #13





Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: 23-March 06
Member No.: 28776



Moderation: Removed unnecessary quote

thanks for making that clear. this is not nealy as straign forward as I would like. I wll change my script from --insane to --b 320.

This post has been edited by Synthetic Soul: Mar 27 2006, 14:19
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
PoisonDan
post Mar 27 2006, 14:16
Post #14





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 678
Joined: 10-December 01
From: Belgium
Member No.: 622



QUOTE (scooterfrog @ Mar 27 2006, 02:59 PM)
I wll change my script from --insane to --b 320.
*

Just to make sure it's not a typo: note that you have to use a single dash (-b) instead of a double-dash (--b)!


--------------------
Over thinking, over analyzing separates the body from the mind.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
scooterfrog
post Mar 27 2006, 14:34
Post #15





Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: 23-March 06
Member No.: 28776



QUOTE (PoisonDan @ Mar 27 2006, 09:16 AM)
QUOTE (scooterfrog @ Mar 27 2006, 02:59 PM)
I wll change my script from --insane to --b 320.
*

Just to make sure it's not a typo: note that you have to use a single dash (-b) instead of a double-dash (--b)!
*


already figured that our.
I used the doubel dash and got nothing but errors.
changed it to a single dash and all is good
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Leo 69
post Mar 27 2006, 14:42
Post #16





Group: Members
Posts: 121
Joined: 16-May 04
From: UK - Russia
Member No.: 14117



According to my recent ABX tests, I may conclude that MP3@320 kbps (LAME 3.97b2) is not that transparent, I can often find differences on pretty normal, but clear music (Dire Straits - Money for Nothing, Walk of Life) I ABX some samples
with the result of about 8\10 and 9\10 but I'm sure to be able to completely ABX them if I'll be more concentrated. Although, I'm not able to ABX these samples with
Ogg Vorbis@192 kbps, it sounds absolutely transparent. I'd say, Vorbis@160 kbps has the same quality
as MP3@320.
The reason for saying all this is that I'm a bit disappointed with the latest LAME, I thought I wouldn't be able to tell the difference at the highest possible bitrate but it's not the case. I can provide ABX logs and samples if needed.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
cabbagerat
post Mar 27 2006, 14:46
Post #17





Group: Members
Posts: 1018
Joined: 27-September 03
From: Cape Town
Member No.: 9042



QUOTE (Leo 69 @ Mar 27 2006, 05:42 AM)
The reason for saying all this is that I'm a bit disappointed with the latest LAME, I thought I wouldn't be able to tell the difference at the highest possible bitrate but it's not the case. I can provide ABX logs and samples if needed.
*
Please do provide samples and logs. I am sure both the lame devs and other forum members would find samples where LAME is easily beaten by other codecs very useful.


--------------------
Simulate your radar: http://www.brooker.co.za/fers/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Leo 69
post Mar 27 2006, 15:49
Post #18





Group: Members
Posts: 121
Joined: 16-May 04
From: UK - Russia
Member No.: 14117



QUOTE
Please do provide samples and logs. I am sure both the lame devs and other forum members would find samples where LAME is easily beaten by other codecs very useful.


Here we go. I've just done the test for the second time to ensure my hearing abilities.

You can download а 7sec sample and an ABX log
from here

edit: everything was done with all DSP off in Foobar.
I've got an X-FI Elite Pro soundcard @ default Entertainment mode with 24-bit Crystalizer OFF and set to 2 speakers. No EQ either.
Headphones are Audio-Technica ATH M-30.
Setting for MP3:
-b 320

A cymbal at 00:02:150 is simply smeared. If I were a native speaker I would explain it in more details.. smile.gif

This post has been edited by Leo 69: Mar 27 2006, 16:14
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Madrigal
post Mar 27 2006, 18:10
Post #19





Group: Members
Posts: 344
Joined: 8-December 01
From: Indiana, U.S.A.
Member No.: 608



QUOTE (scooterfrog @ Mar 24 2006, 08:26 AM)
Should I rerip the the blades with lame?
It depends.

If you mean rerip literally (i.e. you have the original CD's and can actually rerip them), then yes, you should rerip them. The increase in quality with Lame is definitely worth the time and trouble.

If you mean rerip loosely (i.e. decode the Blades to wav and re-encode with Lame (=transcode)), then no, you should not, since you will lose even more quality.

Regards,
Madrigal
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
scooterfrog
post Mar 27 2006, 21:17
Post #20





Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: 23-March 06
Member No.: 28776



QUOTE (Madrigal @ Mar 27 2006, 01:10 PM)
QUOTE (scooterfrog @ Mar 24 2006, 08:26 AM)
Should I rerip the the blades with lame?
It depends.

If you mean rerip literally (i.e. you have the original CD's and can actually rerip them), then yes, you should rerip them. The increase in quality with Lame is definitely worth the time and trouble.

If you mean rerip loosely (i.e. decode the Blades to wav and re-encode with Lame (=transcode)), then no, you should not, since you will lose even more quality.

Regards,
Madrigal
*



I meant rerip, as in from the physical media.
I know not to transcode. I may be new here but I am not stupid.
i am reripping with the above settings -b 320 chained to mp3gain track ingnore clipping. (mp3gain mosly end up LOWERING the level of my mp3s so if I dont ignore clipping it on something that clips to begin with it either does nothing ro lowers it too much.
I sit at a computer all day and I have a spare under my desk. it doesnt take much effort swap disks.
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: 30th August 2014 - 06:33