IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

320 kbps mp3 peaking at 22khz, difference?
xdesirex22
post Sep 10 2012, 02:49
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 25
Joined: 20-April 12
Member No.: 99005



I have always used LAME to encode my 320 kbps MP3s, but I know there are other encoders out there that encode 320s that peak at 22khz. Does this make for an increase in quality or audible difference? I have always thought LAME to be the best option, but I have heard from different people that 320s that peak at 22khz sound better on a large party/concert sound system.

also, what are some of the other lossy encoders out there besides LAME?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
xdesirex22
post Sep 10 2012, 04:10
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 25
Joined: 20-April 12
Member No.: 99005



Not really a fan of the term transparency. First off, it is completely subjective. Different files sound differently to different people. Additionally, it is also VERY dependent on what speakers you are playing your music on and how you have connected. I am connected with an optical audio cable with a decent pair of speakers, and I can tell the difference between 320kbps mp3s and lossless files 100% of the time. I am not exaggerating. I have tested this numerous times and every single time the difference is very apparent for me. Compare that to my $5 headphones. I wouldn't be able to tell lossy vs lossless EVER I'd be willing to bet. So yeah, transparency? Not so much. The only thing "transparent" for me are the lossless files themselves.

I am just wondering if there is at all any difference between a lame encoded 320 which peaks at 20khz and a 320 that peaks at 22khz, and what other lossy encoders are out there besides lame.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kohlrabi
post Sep 10 2012, 11:23
Post #3





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 1004
Joined: 12-March 05
From: Kiel, Germany
Member No.: 20561



QUOTE (xdesirex22 @ Sep 10 2012, 05:10) *
I am just wondering if there is at all any difference between a lame encoded 320 which peaks at 20khz and a 320 that peaks at 22khz, and what other lossy encoders are out there besides lame.
First off, I assume that "peaks at" means, "has a lowpass at". I'd guess the file with the higher lowpass at 22kHz might sound worse, because you use the encoder at fixed bitrate, but force it to encode even more mostly inaudible parts of the spectrum, even if the psy-model violently shakes its head against that. Is that assumption valid?

This post has been edited by Kohlrabi: Sep 10 2012, 11:27


--------------------
Audiophiles live in constant fear of jitter.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
yourlord
post Sep 10 2012, 18:49
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 198
Joined: 1-March 11
Member No.: 88621



QUOTE (Kohlrabi @ Sep 10 2012, 06:23) *
First off, I assume that "peaks at" means, "has a lowpass at". I'd guess the file with the higher lowpass at 22kHz might sound worse, because you use the encoder at fixed bitrate, but force it to encode even more mostly inaudible parts of the spectrum, even if the psy-model violently shakes its head against that. Is that assumption valid?


You are correct, in a way. Forcing the encoder to consider inaudible content will mean it has to use the fixed bitrate to represent more data than otherwise would be necessary to achieve transparency. That means some of the bit budget is wasted encoding inaudible content when it could have been used to more accurately represent audible content. Having said that, 320Kbps should be so far above the needed bitrate to achieve transparency that on the overwhelming majority of music you'd not hear any difference between the 2. So the quality is essentially the same.

I'll join the chorus wanting ABX results because I simply don't believe anyone who claims they can 100% ABX 320CBR mp3 and lossless on a variety of music, unless they are using a severely broken mp3 encoder.




Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic
- xdesirex22   320 kbps mp3 peaking at 22khz, difference?   Sep 10 2012, 02:49
- - Tahnru   If I may make a recommendation, consider your ques...   Sep 10 2012, 03:16
- - xdesirex22   Not really a fan of the term transparency. First o...   Sep 10 2012, 04:10
|- - greynol   QUOTE (xdesirex22 @ Sep 9 2012, 20:10) I ...   Sep 10 2012, 06:03
|- - probedb   QUOTE (xdesirex22 @ Sep 10 2012, 04:10) I...   Sep 10 2012, 07:54
|- - dhromed   QUOTE (xdesirex22 @ Sep 10 2012, 05:10) I...   Sep 10 2012, 08:49
|- - db1989   QUOTE (xdesirex22 @ Sep 10 2012, 04:10) N...   Sep 10 2012, 10:46
|- - Kohlrabi   QUOTE (xdesirex22 @ Sep 10 2012, 05:10) I...   Sep 10 2012, 11:23
|- - yourlord   QUOTE (Kohlrabi @ Sep 10 2012, 06:23) Fir...   Sep 10 2012, 18:49
|- - Dynamic   QUOTE (yourlord @ Sep 10 2012, 18:49) I...   Sep 10 2012, 19:15
- - saratoga   You cannot hear such high frequency so no it doesn...   Sep 10 2012, 04:46
|- - xdesirex22   QUOTE (saratoga @ Sep 9 2012, 20:46) You ...   Sep 10 2012, 06:00
|- - greynol   QUOTE (xdesirex22 @ Sep 9 2012, 22:00) QU...   Sep 10 2012, 06:22
|- - saratoga   QUOTE (xdesirex22 @ Sep 10 2012, 01:00) Q...   Sep 11 2012, 00:54
- - tpijag   Any reason to wait someone else to google lossy en...   Sep 10 2012, 05:06
- - Dynamic   Yes, that assumption is probably valid if a 20 kHz...   Sep 10 2012, 18:27
- - greynol   I think we can safely chalk this discussion up as ...   Sep 10 2012, 18:55
- - Gecko   Also: most of the PA equipment I ever came into co...   Sep 10 2012, 19:22
- - slks   To the O.P. - you seem to be one of those who are ...   Sep 10 2012, 22:33
- - mjb2006   The post by slks inspired me to do something I...   Sep 11 2012, 09:07


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: 25th July 2014 - 00:05