[kelesh]

Audigy 2
Kx drivers
Foobar 2000(24bit/48khz, crossfeed)
Sennheiser HD580's
Mid-High Meta42

Classical and Rock music will be listened to.

I'll be getting a 4gig ipod, so space is kind of important, but I'd rather have better sounding mp3s for use at home. (320 kbps is out of the question though).

I'm just wondering where the sweet spot on the bitrate is.

alt--preset-standard, extreme or 224 or 256 are basically what I am deciding between. will there be noticable difference with my setup?

 

[Stephonovich]

I haven't done any ABX tests [yet], but to me, --aps sounds fully transparent. Also, some people say --aps sounds better than --ape, or even --api (equal to 320 CBR) due to the large amout of tuning donw on --aps. To each his/her/its own.

(-:Stephonovich

 

[kelesh]

any difference between alt preset standard and alt preset fast standard?

 

[Stephonovich]

blessingx says no; I'm not sure myself. Actually, I'm encoding some tracks into --aps (and then with -fast added) right now, and I'm going to load them into WinABX, so if you don't mind waiting awhile, I'll post my findings then. I'm also going to try the -Y tag (lowpass filter at 16 KHz), which lowers the filesizes, and is said to be fine for portable use. No instruments even touch 16KHz (even playing really high on a guitar is 6KHz or something like that), other than harmonics, or maybe string noise, so I can't see there being much difference.

(-:Stephonovich

 

[kelesh]

well this is for my iPod and for my computer(audigy 2 --> meta42 --> HD580's), so I want a better-than-portable-quality.

and I'm using cdex so there is no -Y option.

 

[Stephonovich]

Most rippers usually have a custom command line option you can invoke; so it'd be --alt-preset standard -Y. As for quality issues, if you're really concerned about quality, you could always encode into MPC (or FLAC/APE if HD space isn't an issue) for your computer, and MP3 for the portable. But then it'd be a bit of a hassle when synching things.

I'm fairly certain you aren't going to have a problem with either -fast or -Y, but I'll see... still encoding.

(-:Stephonovich:_)

 

[Stephonovich]

Results using WinABX .42b, encoded in LAME 3.90.3 using --aps and --apfs. Tracks used were The Winner Takes It All (Abba), Down In A Hole (Alice in Chains), Drive (Incubus), Lithium (Nirvana), and 1969 (The Vines). All were ReplayGained to 89dB.

Bear in mind this is through a fairly crappy SB Live! X-Gamer (albeit with KX Audio drivers) and HD 280's, unamped. YMMV.

1. Abba: I couldn't tell any difference. On the first run, I thought the barely audible muted picking during the beginning was clearer in one sample, but I was proven wrong. I couldn't tell any difference on the second run, so I just stopped it.

2. Alice in Chains: The first two runs, I got it right, due to the crash cymbals. They were lacking a bit of sustain. Most lossy encoders have trouble with cymbals, and it seems the -fast tag may amplify this somewhat. However, on my 3rd run, later in the song, where there's more guitar work and vocals going on, (masking the cymbals some) I couldn't tell a difference. In any case, the difference was very slight, and not likely to notice it unless you're listening for it.

3. Incubus: I correctly identified them on all three runs, again, due to cymbals. The guitar (very well recorded acoustic) work is perfect in both, even squeaks from sliding. But again, the only difference is a bit less sustain.

4. Nirvana: The first run, I ID'd them due to cymbals, a tapping on the hi-hat. Again, just not as much sustain. However, when the guitar kicked in and Kurt started yelling, I couldn't tell a difference

5. The Vines: Correctly ID'd, again, due to cymbals.

Conclusions? If you're really anal about sound quality, (ME!) don't use -fast. It removes a bit of sustain from cymbals, and likely other high frequency noises. However, remember in portable useage, you're not likely to be focusing on the quality as much as you are the music. (unless it's a 128 rip, of course)

Oh, and I haven't done -Y. I have other things I need to do tonight as of yet, and I'm already starting to get tired. I may do it tomorrow, dunno. Try it out yourself, see what you like.

(-:Stephonovich

 

[blessingx]

Normally I'd say lossless for home and a newer codec for your portable (AAC or Ogg depending on your player), but I assume if 320 kb/s isn't an option for your home setup it's because of size, so forget the lossless.

If you're ending up with an iPod mini, I'd consider 192 AAC as a compromise with your two outlets. If you have Nero or would consider purchasing it, you can use it's VBR presets to bring the bitrates down even further. Unless additional compatibility is a issue, I'm not sure MP3 should be your only option. Do a few tests and see what you think, but at least consider AAC. Also if you're curious about what is lost as you move down the bitrate ladder, see some of the sound links here (note though the MP3 encoder used is iTunes not LAME, so those comparisons shouldn't really be used).

Thanks for the interesting test results Stephonovich.

 

[Stephonovich]

Yeah, same here. I've got everything as FLAC on my HD, and when I get a portable, I plan on encoding everything into Ogg (GT3B1 at -q6).

However, for ease of use, having the files in the same format on both computer and portable are easiest. But anyway, yes, try --aps, and also AAC, as blessingx suggested. I've never tried it out, but I've heard it to be quite good quality, above MP3 even.

Oh, and welcome for the tests. I get bored at night, have nothing to do, start reading Head-Fi; makes for interesting results

(-:Stephonovich

 

[Distroyed]

Under more demanding music, I'd recommend staying away from vbr, but rock music is pretty much the same volume all throughout, so the parts that are encoded at the lower end of the spectrum won't be noticed. Personally, with such music, I don't think you'd be able to tell the difference between 224-320 mp3 (though certainly between 224 and a flac/ape).

 

[blessingx]

Quote:

Originally posted by Distroyed Under more demanding music, I'd recommend staying away from vbr, but rock music is pretty much the same volume all throughout, so the parts that are encoded at the lower end of the spectrum won't be noticed.

I'm curious, why? Understandably for extremely quite music, VBR schemes without reasonably high minimums can have problems, but with LAME's presets this isn't really an issue in most cases, and certainly fine for most genres (with less rock being the exception than classical for the opposite). In fact most newer codecs seem directed towards VBR. Anyway curious why you feel that way?

And yeah I agree. The difference between 224 to 320 is miniscule compared to 320 versus lossless or uncompressed.

 

[tigre]

Since you'll get an ipod - why don't you use AAC instead of mp3? It has no issues like pre-echo that can't be avoided with mp3, no matter what encoder/settings used and should give comparable - better quality at the same bitrate. Recommendable Encoders are Nero's and Quicktime/Itune's.

--alt-preset fast standard is worse than plain --a-p s on very few problem samples, but otherwise results should be identical.

edit: Seems like I haven't read previous posts closely enough before posting - so nothing really new said ...

 

[kelesh]

is the difference noticable between aps and ape?

 

[tigre]

Quote:

Originally posted by kelesh is the difference noticable between aps and ape?

In all cases where I was able to ABX aps, I could also ABX ape. In a part of these cases, ape was better.

About the difference between original and aps/ape there are 3 cases for me:

1. There's no difference at all, or it is noticable only after spending several minutes on comparing a few (e.g. 2) seconds. When listening to the whole song, I can't tell (=ABX) the difference.
   90-99% of music I listen to regularly.
2. On music containing strong transients (e.g. percussion) the transients are smeared (=pre-echo, e.g. "castanets" problem sample). The difference is easy to hear under ABX conditions and still somewhat audible with headphones/quiet environment/focussing, but not under 'portable use' circumstances (e.g. in the car)
   10-1% of music I listen to.
3. 'Pathologic' problem cases: Clear differences that are easily audible once you've noticed them the 1st time, even in the car, e.g. 'fatboy' problem sample.
   I know ~5 samples like this, but I haven't found a single one in my own music yet.[/list=1]

 

[Stephonovich]

Well, ABX'd a few things today... -aps and -aps -m s (forces true stereo as opposed to joint stereo), and then -k. (My bad; -Y turns on the lowpass filter, but with -aps, it's already enabled) The same settings and tracks were used as in my first test, near the top of this thread.

Between joint stereo and true stereo, for the most part, I couldn't tell the difference. However, there were a few small parts in some songs (Drive (Incubus), Lithium (Nirvana), and 1969 (The Vines)) where I could.

Drive: at the beginning of the song, there's an acoustic guitar playing mainly in the right channel, and what I presume to be breath noises, very faint, in the left channel. This was more pronounced with true stereo.

Lithium: Right when the guitar is kicking into distortion, and Kurt is singing "'Cause I found God...", there's a fair bit of stereo seperation. Again, with true stereo, it was more pronounced.

1969: At the beginning, there's just a drumset playing. Again, as the others, stereo seperation of the different drums and cymbals being hit was greater with true stereo.

I also decided to try out Pink Floyd's Interstellar Overdrive in joint and true stereo. For those of you haven't heard it, about 8:40 in the song, there's some really wild panning that starts up. It sounds really awesome with headphones. Anyway, I figured it would really torture joint stereo, and I was right. It just wasn't as deep as true stereo.

Does it matter? Not really. I really had to listen to hear any differences. If you want to save about .5-1MB per song, go ahead, use joint stereo.

Now, for the -k option. I used -aps -m s (to avoid having the slightly reduced stereo seperation bias me), and decided to keep Interstellar Overdrive in, as I thought some of the synth noises might sound different with out the lowpass filter.

Abba: I could only tell near the beginning of the song (~30 seconds), where there's a very soft muted guitar picking. There was more detail in the one encoded with -k.

Alice in Chains: At the beginning of the song, where there's a tapping on the hi-hat, there was more detail and sustain in the one encoded with -k. Once the music picked up, I couldn't tell much of a difference.

Incubus: Since this song is almost entirely acoustic guitar (some cymbals occasionally), it was very difficult to make out any differences. There was a crash cymbal where I was able to identify the -k encoded file. Again, more detail, more sustain.

Pink Floyd: Again, cymbals gave it away. There's just more detail on them with -k. None of the guitar work or synth sounds made a difference with -k on, however.

Nirvana: The cymbals at the beginning were easy to pick out, as always. However, the distorted guitar mentioned above (that's only in the right channel) was more detailed with
-k on. Not much, but there was a difference.

The Vines: There was slightly more detail in the drums overall with -k on. Nothing really worth noting.

Conclusions: I would turn on -k if you're concerned about audio quality, or more importantly, if you're going to ever be listening in a fairly quiet enviroment, where these details will be heard. It just adds that last 1% to the music. As for joint stereo and true stereo, make your own decisions. I'll have it turned on just because I'm that way, but it really doesn't make much difference at all. Think of as the difference between a 192 and 256KBPS file. Only during some particular passagescontaining high amounts of stereo imaging will you notice it. And keep in mind it does add another .5-1MB or so (for average song lengths, of course) per file. -k adds a hardly noticeable amount; about .1-2MB in my experience.

Enjoy.

(-:Stephonovich