[jordanr]

Wait, so you're telling me I need only type the words in manually? The settings aren't something integrated into the lame codec itself? I clearly have no idea what I'm doing here.

 

[necropimp]

actually api is CBR 320Kbps

 

[necropimp]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jordanr Wait, so you're telling me I need only type the words in manually? The settings aren't something integrated into the lame codec itself? I clearly have no idea what I'm doing here.

well if you plan to do conversion from wav files then get a frontend... they should have the option to use the command line parameters or some may have those presets selectable in a menu of some kind...

or if you plan to rip to mp3 you could always use EAC and follow one of MANY setup guides

 

[jordanr]

Necropimp, I understand virtually nothing of what you've written:

"conversion from wav" - I thought most cds were in wav format to begin with.
"Frontend" - What? Is EAC such a thing? I use EAC now.
"command line parameters" - This would be the "command line options" section of EAC's compression settings, right?

And so all I need to do is physically change the command line text?

As for the many EAC setup guides, I have two, and neither provided any indication as to how to alter the command line information.

P.S. "Necropimp" is dark and confusing handle. Is there really a market for such a thing?

 

[necropimp]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jordanr Necropimp, I understand virtually nothing of what you've written: "conversion from wav" - I thought most cds were in wav format to begin with.

wav files... as in if you already ripped a song to wav...

Quote:

"Frontend" - What? Is EAC such a thing? I use EAC now.

frontend is any software that makes using command line based programs easier by giving a GUI with nice menus and buttons that make everything easier EAC is in a way a frontend...

Quote:

"command line parameters" - This would be the "command line options" section of EAC's compression settings, right? And so all I need to do is physically change the command line text?

yes

Quote:

As for the many EAC setup guides, I have two, and neither provided any indication as to how to alter the command line information.

yeah it's just that little box... you type in any command line option needed...

examples:
--alt-preset insane
--alt-preset standard
--alt-preset extreme

Quote:

P.S. "Necropimp" is dark and confusing handle. Is there really a market for such a thing?

possibly... i use the name because it is my word... it's not used anywhere... and it's the name of a music project i'm working on "The Necropimps" first album already has a title (****, Booze, and Zombies) but the songs are the tricky part... still working on those...

...why is p o r n censored?

 

[jordanr]

Okay, very cool. Thanks for the assistance.

I was just being sarcastic about the name. There's not really an appropriate smiley-face figure for sarcasm. I imagine the reason no one else has ever used the word "necropimp" before is because it implies that someone could actually facilitate necrophilia for a profit. But, as a band name, it's sweet.

Sorry to stray from audio topics.

 

[IstariAsuka]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sinbios i honestly doubt anyone, with any sort of equipment, could tell between 320kbps vbr and the cd/wav/lossless.

Well, then you'd be wrong. Plenty of people around here can. I've done it myself with some types of music (with an unamplified HD650!). Whether the differences are significant enough to talk about in the context of portable audio--probably not. Even if you have a coda/overture/ihp-100 setup, you just can fit so much less stuff with lossless that it's probably not worth it for most people.

 

[jordanr]

Well, I wouldn't know about the cd/flac vs. lame difference, but I did just do a blind test with LAME aps and api, and either I or my system cannot discern a difference.

Song tested: DMB, Crash, #41

 

[Oga]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sinbios "quality" is certainly not the same -- digital data must be compressed and cut away, after all. whether you'll notice is another matter entirely. i honestly doubt anyone, with any sort of equipment, could tell between 320kbps vbr and the cd/wav/lossless.

Yes you can. Even just playing music on a laptop and listing in to it on headphones it is not difficult to see that:
- 128 kbps is pretty painful to listen to
- 192 is not as awful, but its like reading a fxed page vs seeing the real document
- 256 is better but still not full
-320 is marginally better than 256, but neither is full-range sound. The richness and fullness are not there
- CD or lossless file like FLAC actually gives you a full rich sound. If you didn't listen to this file type side-by-side, you might not realize what's missing because its subtle. But if once you side by side you see it.

For me its just a matter of quality. If you're listening to music for the love of it, why would you lop half of the material away. Its the richness and fullness that make music something worthwhile.

In that same vein, I cannot understand why anyone would pay for an 128 kbps or 192 kbps MP3 file (even before discussing DRM restrictions). Those things sound awful, in my opinion. They should pay YOU to keep them.



Quote:

Originally Posted by carlosgp Yes, mp3 isn't cd quality, period. With decent equipment (and a normal pair of ears) you must be capable to tell the difference. But... Who cares? Mp3 is convenient and the standard in compressed audio, and lame gets you as far as you can in mp3 audio. Lossless codecs are real fine, but not functional if you go portable.

Not necessarily true.

Players like the karma will play FLAC. And I-Audio players all play OGG FLAC too if I'm not mistaken. Apple plays Apple's own lossless codec.

These days everyone is running around with 40GB hard drive players. Flash players come in 1GB size dirt cheap. Even the Ipod mini is a solid 4GB of music. Even a person who owns a PDA like the Palm Tungsten E or a mobile phone like the I-mate Jam can stick a 2GB SD card in there and play pretty good music on it into real headphones!

MP3 had its time when bandwith was low and storage space was expensive. THAT was the rationale for putting up with low quality music. But its just not there anymore.

So here is no reason why we should be buying 128kbps MP3's from music companies. Or listening to MP3 (reduced quality music) at all. its not at all anyhting like a lossless file. The real reason why MP3 will continue is that record companies want dont want to less lossless music the digital way. What they are doing is in effect taking you back to the days when they sold low-quality files on Cassette. Why would you voluntarily do that?

 

[jordanr]

"If you're listening to music for the love of it, why would you lop half of the material away. Its the richness and fullness that make music something worthwhile"

That's a bit extreme, no? You really think the admittedly "subtle" differences in quality between lossless and 192-256 kbps trump the advantages of saving space on your dap (assuming that you have enough music to make space a contributing factor)?

I think most of us are fairly discriminate listeners - people who listen for the love of it - and it's just silly to assert that music isn't "worthwhile" when not heard under the most optimal of circumstances.

 

[Jmmmmm]

download dbpoweramp, it does all you need it to do. I've had issues with eac and other programs, but db has simplified my life a lot, especially since i'm reripping and then transcoding all my songs again.

 

[Sinbios]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oga Yes you can. Even just playing music on a laptop and listing in to it on headphones it is not difficult to see that: - 128 kbps is pretty painful to listen to - 192 is not as awful, but its like reading a fxed page vs seeing the real document - 256 is better but still not full -320 is marginally better than 256, but neither is full-range sound. The richness and fullness are not there - CD or lossless file like FLAC actually gives you a full rich sound. If you didn't listen to this file type side-by-side, you might not realize what's missing because its subtle. But if once you side by side you see it. For me its just a matter of quality. If you're listening to music for the love of it, why would you lop half of the material away. Its the richness and fullness that make music something worthwhile.

well, i've done comparison between 320kbps vbr mp3's and APE audio with HD580 and AV710, and personally can't tell a difference. the APE wasn't richer, fuller, airier, more chocolaty, more herbaceous, or ten dimensional compared to the mp3. there might be minimal differences, but whether these differences mean "better" is certainly debatable.

 

[NeilPeart]

Depending on the recording (its complexity, its recording quality and most importantly of all, my familiarity with it) I can distinguish a WAV (uncompressed) file from LAME -aps and ape 85-95% of the time (using double-blind testing plug-in of foobar2000). I am using a Benchmark DAC1 and the HD650 driven from the balanced outputs of the DAC1 (the DAC1 is being powered by the PS Audio P300 power regenerator). There is a middle ground, folks. Many albums are so poorly recorded and simple that even the best equipment and ears cannot find a discrepancy. I agree that most people, even those with high-end equipment cannot distinguish the difference between files encoded with well-designed compression algorithms and the original track. However, I also disagree with those that maintain that no human no matter what equipment at their disposal can identify a difference. With the right recordings and decent equipment the differences are noticeable (though subtle, I admit). Finally I disagree with those who claim MP3s sound flat, hollow or whatever other audiophile words they could muster. I challenge anyone to commit to real double-blind tests with any equipment and music they desire and still claim that well-encoded MP3s all sound "lifeless." Well-encoded MP3s come very close to achieving transparency and most users with most equipment will not be able to distinguish any differences in double-blind testing. I encode all of my music losslessly because I have the storage to spare and I own enough albums where I do notice a difference. However, with my portables I use LAME –aps, which is more than enough for my on-the-go-audio needs.

 

[Cthulhu]

I find it difficult to pick standard from CD audio - api is almost impossible to pick.

I usually use either standard to insane for my music on the go, insane for the stuff that gets heavy play, standard for the filler!

 

[easypeasy]

In the end, only what the listener hears matters.

I'm using -alt-preset extreme, but somehow it hangs my N10