Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › WHICH bitrate is better?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

WHICH bitrate is better?

post #1 of 33
2/3/03 at 12:03am
Thread Starter 
hi, I'm not sure if this is the correrct forum but I was wondering how does highest quality variable bit rate on lame encoder compare to 192kbs-320kbs mp3 and others?
Reply
post #2 of 33
2/3/03 at 1:53am
If you are talking about really high bitrate, say around 320, go for MPC.
Reply
post #3 of 33
2/3/03 at 2:14am
Thread Starter 
MPC? What I mean is, lets say I'm using easy cd-da or audiocatalyst and I want VBR highest quality, how does that compare ABR 150,175...250 kbs etc. and 192,256...320kbs constant bit rate etc.?
Reply
post #4 of 33
2/3/03 at 2:19am
At similar bitrates VBR > ABR > CBR ( > means "is better than"), one exception is that 320 CBR is the best of all.
Reply
post #5 of 33
2/3/03 at 2:35am
Thread Starter 
THANKS JahJahBinks, or as I more often say 10q!
Reply
post #6 of 33
2/3/03 at 3:22am
LAME is the best MP3 encoder so I wouldn't bother with other ones.
Reply
post #7 of 33
2/3/03 at 6:03am
yeah if you're using cdda or audiocatalyst you aren't using LAME
Reply
post #8 of 33
2/3/03 at 9:41am
Thread Starter 
SO WHCICH one would you guys reco since I can't get eac to work anymore (don't know if its the firmware or the scisi but at this point I don't care) plus it would always encode my mp3 terribly (checksum problems and the song would say it was 2 min long when it was really 4 and 1/2 min long and....)
Reply
post #9 of 33
2/3/03 at 11:49am
I prefer the Fraunhofer encoder, it seems to minimize the rate of artifacts. Lame is quite good too though.
Reply
post #10 of 33
2/3/03 at 12:50pm
A "simple" question:

If LAME and Fraunhofer encoding is the best, how/where do I get a program that uses these encoding methods? I'm running Windows XP Home, with a 1.7 G P4, 256 RAM, and Santa Cruz sound card. I have been using MusicMatch to rip MP3s from CD using VBR. What's a better method?
Reply
post #11 of 33
2/3/03 at 8:34pm
Use EAC to *RIP* wav's, disable it's functions (and it's use of LAME...) for encoding into .mp3 and you should be fine... and simply use lame with the razorlame front end... two programs but it's worth it!
Reply
post #12 of 33
2/3/03 at 9:20pm
Alternatively you could download just the lame executable and have EAC use that encode wavs it rips. This also makes tagging simple. Here is a good tutorial for beginners.

http://www.chrismyden.com/nuke/modul...&file=painless

Zin
Reply
post #13 of 33
2/3/03 at 11:15pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Zin_Ramu
Alternatively you could download just the lame executable and have EAC use that encode wavs it rips. This also makes tagging simple. Here is a good tutorial for beginners.

http://www.chrismyden.com/nuke/modul...&file=painless

Zin
well, if EAC + Lame isn't working right, than why not try seperating them?
Reply
post #14 of 33
2/4/03 at 12:11am
True if EAC+lame isn't working then 2 seperates may be better. But based on Senor4Qs post, my guess is the problem lies within EAC or incorrectly setting up lame to work with EAC.

I could be wrong of course but his problems seem directly related to EAC other than time display errors (which is most likely decoder related) and checksum errors (not sure how this relates).

Zin
Reply
post #15 of 33
2/4/03 at 7:26am

Very Simple Question

Ok, I downloaded the EMC, installed it, followed directions to the tooth. Downloaded and put the lame.exe file in that EMC installed folder, just like the directions state. Everything looks A-Ok.

Now, for the simple question...By defult it's set to 128 kBit/s with the Lame being used as the external codec (just like the directions say)... and it's set in High Quality mode... now, I never used Lame before, I too usually use MusicMatch, used audiocatalist in the past..back in the napster days.

Now, should I just leave it at 128, is that like the best for lame, or is it a thumbs up... to go with 320 kBit/s... the way I see it, the bigger the number the better. lol... never used lame, who knows, might be some weird thing that is best for a lower bitrate, I don't know.

I'm guessing 320 is better, it's always usually better, but just in case. Just wanting a confirmation here.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Dedicated Source Components
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › WHICH bitrate is better?