[TzeYang]

Regardless of file size, what's the craziest settings to encode the best quality Mp3 using lame?

You see, i'm using the NW-A1000 and it does not support lossless. So i think i'll just go for the best mp3 quality until i get my hands on Cowon's A2.

Thanks in advance.

 

[krmathis]

I am pretty sure -V0 would be your best option: Code:

[left]lame -V0[/left]

Or the insane 320Kbps CBR: Code:

[left]lame --preset insane[/left]

 

[Febs]

http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index....hort_answer.29

 

[Chri5peed]

Regardless of file size its undoutedly 320kb/s.

V0 is regarding file size.

 

[GreatDane]

I used -V 0 --vbr-new for most of my CDs. I came to the conclusion that it offers the same high quality compression results as 320 CBR while saving space.

 

[Xakepa]

Fixed 320kB/s is no guarantee that LAME will use maximum iteration noise shaping algorythm. The default is 3 or 5 AFAIR. One have to set -q0 switch for that.

According to one of the creators of LAME (I lost the link), for 3.97b2 best quality settings are

-V0 --vbr-new -b128 --lowpass 19.7 -q0

Not sure on that, but AFAIR -b128 negates "stripping" of overtones and lowpass keeps artefacts like pre-ringing from appearing in certain situations. Of cource, those were responses on specially generated test signals, and it's all but impossible to face those problems in real situation.

I have never been able to hear a diffrence b/w those settings and RedBook, and the best setup on which I tried that comparison was "top of the world" Krell DAC->SP ES-1->Orpehus. If you can find anyone who can make 9/10 - 8/10 correct ABs with any music on any equipment, please report

 

[NiceCans]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chri5peed Regardless of file size its undoutedly 320kb/s. V0 is regarding file size.

technically I imagine this to be correct, but my ears tell my that the V0 encoding actually sounds better than 320
perhaps something tailored into the presets? (much like what Xakepa is saying)

 

[Chri5peed]

Quote:

Originally Posted by NiceCans technically I imagine this to be correct, but my ears tell my that the V0 encoding actually sounds better than 320 perhaps something tailored into the presets? (much like what Xakepa is saying)

Did no one read the OP?

Regardless of file size

V0 is not better than 320kbps in any strange world.

 

[NiceCans]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chri5peed Did no one read the OP? Regardless of file size V0 is not better than 320kbps in any strange world.

Excuse me, but yes I did read the OP.
When I said to my ears -V0 sounds better than 320 I am not considering size but quality.

Simply because 320 is a higher number than those created by V0 is not a true indicator of sound quality as "more is better" does not always hold true. Perhaps the psychoacoustics tailored into the VBR algorythms has something to do with it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chri5peed V0 is not better than 320kbps in any strange world.

I personally have found (in my strange world)

the VBR setting to sound better (have better quality) than CBR-320 to my ears, and IMHO V0 is the best audio quality for mp3, "regardless of file size".

so question what I say if you disagree or do not understand, but Please do not use my post as an example of ignorance. I did read the OP and did respond directly to what was asked. thanks

 

[jiiteepee]

Is there a bitrate limit for .mp3 -format data in NW-A1000 (their own data compression format (Atrac3plus) seems to be limited into 256kbps)?

If not then, maybe --freeformat -b 640 w/ some additional switches.

(I have an old DVD-player here which can play 'any' mp3 data (I have tried this w/ some >500kbps mp3 audio) but the output quality is max 320kbps).

jiitee

 

[Chri5peed]

'More is better' is completely true for bitrate.

Its not even opinion. Whether its 'noticeably' better is another matter, but the OP did mention crazy and 320CBR used to be called API, insane is another word for crazy.

 

[TzeYang]

thanks, i didnt expect to have so much warm and helpful replies.

Anyway, i'm going to try this

-b 320 --noath

Jiteepee, thanks for your freeformat suggestion, i will try it later.

Thank you All!!

 

[facelvega]

By the time you hit 320, is there really any reason not to just go lossless instead, apart possibly from having an old player that won't support it?

ps, I support nicecans on the dispute above. Various lossy files are lossy in different ways, and the information that remains can be quite different. You can hear the difference between an mp3, a wma, an aac, etc., when they are recorded at the same bitrate, so why should we assume that bitrate is the only absolute qualitative difference? Not that it particularly matters with such big files, where it's very difficult to demonstrate that anyone can reliably tell the difference in a blind test.

 

[Chri5peed]

Oh god, there are a bunch of morons in this thread.

The OP asked what the highest quality mp3 lame setting was;

REGARDLESS OF FILE SIZE

Perhaps my eyes are decieving me, but that pink line represents quality and the two highest squares represent V0 & 320kb/s.
Again I may be being blind but it looks to me like the 320kb/s is higher than the V0 one!

 

[Corrupt^]

Quote:

Originally Posted by facelvega By the time you hit 320, is there really any reason not to just go lossless instead, apart possibly from having an old player that won't support it?

there is, high frequencies are distorted when using mp3, I had encountered a site which had test sounds to proof this but I lost the link in a format, I'll post it if I can find it again.

I use OGG vorbis, it's open source and the high frequencies are less distorted and the bass compression is better.

The file size is slightly higher then with mp3 but it's not much.