IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Transcoding MP3, CBR at 320kbps, Need some help
auldyin
post May 5 2009, 13:29
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 252
Joined: 29-September 01
Member No.: 48



Hi,
I fully understand why transcoding/reencoding is not a great idea but my ears are not too good (sat in front of too many crazy drummers for too many years), so the process is unlikely to be an issue.
I have inherited a bunch of MP3 files (about 1000), encoded using lame 3.97 at 320kbps and I want to transcode/reencode them to save some space.

Can someone please advise as to the best format for such a project and provide me with some settings? I apologise in advance to the audiophiles who may be squirming at the thought of transcoding/reencoding!

Cheers
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
pdq
post May 5 2009, 13:39
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 3422
Joined: 1-September 05
From: SE Pennsylvania
Member No.: 24233



The first thing is to do some listening tests to find out which -V setting is transparent enough to your ears after transcoding from the 320 cbr files.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
shadowking
post May 5 2009, 14:23
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 1527
Joined: 31-January 04
Member No.: 11664



In my experience, 320k lame is not bad for transcoding. Just convert to V4 / V5 or whatever you wish.


--------------------
Wavpack -b450s0.7
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
2t0nEg
post May 5 2009, 15:01
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 88
Joined: 25-March 09
Member No.: 68370



Over the weekend I transcoded some 320k CBR MP3s I had to -V5 and some using Nero AAC -q 0.40, and they sound great to me..Playing them on the wifes Ipod and my Rockbox Sansa player...
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
2Bdecided
post May 5 2009, 15:17
Post #5


ReplayGain developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 5176
Joined: 5-November 01
From: Yorkshire, UK
Member No.: 409



Transcoding makes subtle problems in either codec far more audible.

In this case, both codecs are "mp3" so listen out for pre-echo / time domain smearing, and artefacts on "difficult to encode" sounds like "spikey" synths, harpsichords, trumpets etc. Content above 16kHz will also be trashed (probably with added ringing), but I'm guessing you won't be able to hear it (me neither!).

Adding --lowpass 16 will remove everything above 16kHz, which is probably preferable - unless the setting you choose already has a lower low pass by default.


Most things will still sound fine. Not always perfect, but good enough (IMO - YMMV!).

Cheers,
David.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
auldyin
post May 5 2009, 19:37
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 252
Joined: 29-September 01
Member No.: 48



Thanks chaps!!

I have just taken a couple of files and used Lame V4 and V5 and AAC -q 0.45 and 0.40 and quite honestly I cannot tell the difference (admittedly, not in a blind test).

Subjectively, and I mean subjectively, Lame encodes don't seem as "bright" but I'm not sure I would pick them out on a blind test!

Does anyone know where to get new ears????????

Cheers
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: 23rd October 2014 - 06:40