320kb MP3, encoders really matter?

[Jakets]

So i have been reading around and there is a few places that say what you use to encode your music will also affect it. While i never really thought about that, i guess it makes sense. So far i have encoded about 50% of my cds using easy cd-da and the other 50% using itunes. Both are set to rip to 320kb mp3, other than that i choose nothing special. Will i still be getting good sound like this, or is it going to effect the sound enough that i should re rip all 120ish cds using EAC?

I hope for some good news guys, but dont lie to me.

 

[South_Korean]

how do u set the ripping bitrate thingy? i think mine is set to 192 at the moment but i want it higher.

 

[wanderman]

if the ripper you are using has a secure mode then your porbably fine, or if your cd is realtively new you'll proably be fine because scratches cause defects in audio. Actually as long as you cds are in good shape there shouldn't be a significant difference.

 

[jmb]

In terms of sound quality, when encoding Variable Bitrate mp3s (VBR) LAME is considered the best available.

As for Constant Bitrate mp3s (CBR), I have not reasearched the best encoder. Can anyone point to the right one? I am curious as well.


Your main concern should be listening experience. If you Hear no errors and the sound quality is good, I see absolutely no reason to re-encode 120 CD's.

A WAV file (quantitatively CD quality), for instance, is far more superior to say a 320kbps mp3, but can you actually HEAR the difference on the equipment you are using? I certainly can't on the budget equipment I use.

I listen to 192kbps VBR mp3s and I find them just as enjoyable to listen to as the original CD.

 

[scorpian007]

I use the LAME codec with VBR-Old 192-320kbit, VBR1 setting

 

[Stupor]

Quote:

Originally Posted by South_Korean how do u set the ripping bitrate thingy? i think mine is set to 192 at the moment but i want it higher.

Google is your friend.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jakets So far i have encoded about 50% of my cds using easy cd-da and the other 50% using itunes. Both are set to rip to 320kb mp3, other than that i choose nothing special. Will i still be getting good sound like this, or is it going to effect the sound enough that i should re rip all 120ish cds using EAC?

As someone said previously, on most people's equipment you cannot hear the difference between WAVE and 192kbps VBR, let alone the difference of 320kbps songs between different encoders. You do not need to worry about that.

Your main concern is error detection/correction, which is what EAC is used for. If your music collection has no skips/hisses, then bravo for your good luck. However, I recommend using EAC in the future just to make sure that your music collection remains hiss/skip free.

 

[blessingx]

For rips although EAC is likely better overall for problematic discs, and the hardware portion of the equation is at least as important as the software used, I find I sometimes get better audibly perfect rips from iTunes (with error correction on). It really depends on the types of problems with the discs. For CDs without scratches, etc. both should be fine.

Conventional wisdom for encoding of MP3s is FhG for low bitrates, LAME for high. I haven't seen a recent 320 kbps comparison though. Once you get that high in the bitrates it probably matters less. I won't recode unless you want to take advantage of LAMEs VBR presets.

 

[Febs]

And I believe that LAME has improved its low bitrate performance in some of the new 3.97 alpha versions.

In any event, to the original poster, you might want to give LAME's --alt-preset standard setting a try (--alt-preset standard is also known as -V 2 in LAME 3.96.1 and higher). APS will use frame bitrates of 32kbps for silence, and anywhere in the range of 128kbps to 320kbps for musical content. Thus, the 320kbps setting that you currently use is available to the encoder when using APS, but lower framerates are also available for frames that don't require the full 320kbps. The result is an MP3 that should be significantly smaller than the files that you are currently encoding, with (to the great majority of the population) no perceptible change in quality.

 

[philodox]

All you need to know can be found at www.bestmp3guide.com

320kbps MP3's encoded with default settings in a mass market program [iTunes, MusicMatch, etc] sound significantly worse than LAME APS MP3's encoded using the methods discussed at Chris Myden's site [linked above].

Bitrate isn't everything.

 

[blessingx]

Quote:

Originally Posted by philodox 320kbps MP3's encoded with default settings in a mass market program [iTunes, MusicMatch, etc] sound significantly worse than LAME APS MP3's encoded using the methods discussed at Chris Myden's site [linked above].

philodox have you seen tests that indicate the programs you mention (which don't use the same encoder) "sound significantly worse" than LAME at -aps? I've never heard that claim before.

 

[philodox]

Quote:

Originally Posted by blessingx philodox have you seen tests that indicate the programs you mention (which don't use the same encoder) "sound significantly worse" than LAME at -aps? I've never heard that claim before.

I've just found that from my own experience. How do you encode your MP3's? I used MusicMatch for quite some time and then switched to EAC/LAME APS and had a noticable difference... and smaller files. I was ripping at 320kbps CBR with MusicMatch. I'm not sure about iTunes, but I expect it is much the same... especially after the rumours I've heard about how they purposely make their codecs sound better [anyone know if this is true?].

 

[blessingx]

I use either 224 AAC or --alt-preset standard (through an iTunes plugin) depending on use. The thing is I don't use 320 kbps because of the battery hit on the iPod so I want to take advantage of the presets for VBR. However just as it gets more difficult to clearly hear the advantages of Vorbis or AAC over LAME MP3 as you move up the bitrates, it likely is the same between MP3 encoders. Also why there's so few intra or inter formats tests at high bitrates. I agree bitrates aren't everything, but it might be problematic grouping all "mass market" encoders. Also if you accept the standard statement that Vorbis and AAC is capable of equal quality of MP3 (likely not LAME specific) at a 30% reduction in bitrate, saying LAME -aps is significantly better than other MP3 encoders at 320 kbps would roughly calculate as LAME is better than AAC and Vorbis, right? And no one says that.

Course these are generalities, but I hadn't heard that dramatic of a comparison before and to be honest doubt that's the case. If I'm really going out on the limb, if there are dramatic differences between 320 kpbs iTunes branched FhG MP3 encoder (for example) and 320 kbps/-api LAME MP3 encoder, and you can hear it, you probably should be using lossless. That is all said by someone who's never tested the various MP3 encoders against each other at 320 though.

As for Apple sabotaging their MP3 encoder to show off the advantages of AAC (partially because the branched FhG encoder performs worse than FhG it came from), I'm not sure. In their defense like iTunes and the iPod, Apple tends to take other things into account such as encoding speed and makes compromises. But again those comparisons tend to be around 128 kbps. I haven't heard many comparisons at 320, etc. except this guys. He doesn't have an -aps comparison though. He seems to think 320 performs equally (at least in comparison to AAC and using the iPods DAC) which would likely indicate ~200 kbps VBR wouldn't sound better. Not the most scientific test though, but worth a read.

 

[philodox]

Interesting read.

I must admit that I have done no scientific comparisons between my new MP3's and the old ones. I went from all my music ripped/encoded/played in MusicMatch to all of the same music ripped as per Chris Myden's site and played in WMP. Looked at that way I suppose there are more variables than just LAME APS vs. 320 CBR.

However, if you examine all of the tweaks and refinements that are included in the standard preset it is not too huge of a leap to think that these could make more of a difference than 320 CBR. After all, if the detail/information is there, APS will go as high as 320 kbps will it not?

 

[Febs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by philodox After all, if the detail/information is there, APS will go as high as 320 kbps will it not?

Yes, indeed.

 

[blessingx]

Yeah, but keep in mind before psycho-acostic modeling there's almost always more than 320 kbps of information, and there's a reason LAME offers -aps, -apx and -api. Different responses to the same over 320 kpbs info. The other MP3 encoders obviously are modeling too, just maybe not as good. How possibly less good at each of their best is the best question.