IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Ripping old CDs to MP3 using LAME - Resample?
BFG
post Oct 17 2012, 02:54
Post #1





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



Quick question to those who know a LOT more about high-quality lossy rips than I do.
Is there any perceivable benefit (or, perhaps, disadvantage) to upsampling CDs--which typically are encoded at 44.1khz - to 48khz?

I've compared a handful of tracks at both sample rates and, so far, can't tell any difference between the two.
Right now I'm running LAME 3.99.5 -v -V0 -q0 --replaygain-accurate.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
AndyH-ha
post Oct 17 2012, 03:16
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 2223
Joined: 31-August 05
Member No.: 24222



Upsampling adds nothing but an increased storage space requirement. Since the normal reason for lossy encoding is to decrease bandwidth and storage requirements, upsampling could be said to be a "bad" idea or at least a not very bright idea.

As far as effecting audio quality, it is probably a total null, but it is possible that the codec works better for 44.1kHz than for 48kHz. I don't recall reading anything about that, it probably isn't true, but having no interest in it, it is the sort of thing that might go in one ear and out the other for me.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
BFG
post Oct 17 2012, 03:30
Post #3





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



QUOTE (AndyH-ha @ Oct 16 2012, 21:16) *
Upsampling adds nothing but an increased storage space requirement. Since the normal reason for lossy encoding is to decrease bandwidth and storage requirements, upsampling could be said to be a "bad" idea or at least a not very bright idea.

As far as effecting audio quality, it is probably a total null, but it is possible that the codec works better for 44.1kHz than for 48kHz. I don't recall reading anything about that, it probably isn't true, but having no interest in it, it is the sort of thing that might go in one ear and out the other for me.

Hmm...that does make sense. Since the original recording was at 44.1khz, you're really only converting that to 48khz, or 96khz, or whatever, rather than actually creating a 48khz etc. recording out of what you started with.
I suppose it's a bit like creating a 320kbps MP3 from a 192kbps MP3--you don't gain anything, and just use more storage space.

I do wonder if LAME would better handle preecho issues (and other rare problems) at a 48khz sample rate while encoding than at 44.1khz, but considering it's mostly keyed to 44.1khz I'll probably leave it set as is.

Thanks for the info.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
halb27
post Oct 17 2012, 10:05
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 2439
Joined: 9-October 05
From: Dormagen, Germany
Member No.: 25015



QUOTE (BFG @ Oct 17 2012, 04:30) *
...I do wonder if LAME would better handle preecho issues (and other rare problems) at a 48khz sample rate ...

Yes, in principle pre-echo issues should improve a bit. However tonal issues get worse a bit. With this in mind I wouldn't allow for an additional audio process at the highest VBR quality level.
If you care about highest possible VBR quality you might consider using -V0+ or similar with my 3.99.5z variant.


--------------------
lame3100m -V1 --insane-factor 0.75
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
BFG
post Oct 17 2012, 17:17
Post #5





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



QUOTE (halb27 @ Oct 17 2012, 04:05) *
If you care about highest possible VBR quality you might consider using -V0+ or similar with my 3.99.5z variant.

Thanks for the tip. The changes you implemented for -V0+ (and -V0+eco) do seem interesting. I'll have to give it a spin.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic


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 November 2014 - 03:24