[pds6]

Packgrog says:
Quote:

NOT CBR 320, and DEFINITELY not joint-stereo.

On all setting other than 320 bit, vbr is better. On 320 bit, cbr is better.

 

[cyrus1313]

does any portable player play APE?

 

[budx3385]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Packgrog /img/forum/go_quote.gif http://www.misticriver.net/showthread.php?t=14081 Personally, I use CDex v1.51 with the LAME Encoder (v3.92). I do *NOT* use on-the-fly encoding, as the resulting file seems to have slightly better compression and less risk of artifacting when encoded from a full WAV file. My settings are: Quality: Very High Quality ( q=0 ) VBR Method: VBR-New VBR Quality: VBR 0 Mode: Stereo (VERY important, *DO NOT* use J-stereo) Version: MPEG I Bitrate Min: 32 kbps (good for extended sections of silence) Bitrate Max: 320 kbps I can't tell the difference with my new rips using this method (all from CDs my wife and I own, thank you). I've gone through many different settings, but this seems to be the sweet spot. Give this a shot. It takes longer to encode this way than through something like iTunes, but the resulting files are FAR superior in sound quality.

Thank you for the detailed instructions and the link, packgrog. I have done the comparison too, and I can very definitely hear the degraded audio quality (with SM3V6 or XP-7 and E4s on Imod or HD30GA9) from compression and so I have stored WAV files. Of course, when I can use a vintage pcdp, like the D-303 or D-555, I do!

I will give this a try!

 

[Packgrog]

Must be some serious golden ears here! Though with an iMod and E4's I can imagine that the difference in the highs would be more recognizable. I still don't have an amp, so I'm not quite there yet.

I can't imagine that folks would be able to hear the difference straight from a player headphone jack, though.

 

[Fallingwater]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lavalamp /img/forum/go_quote.gif As an experiment, I stored the same track at 160kbps, 320kbps and WAV. Moving up the resolution, differences appeared slight. However, moving down in resolution, differences were obvious to the extent that undoubtedly, you are missing out on musical detail using MP3 compressed files. It is things such as attack and decay of single notes on acoustic guitars and the high end sparkle of cymbals.

Question: have you done this BLINDLY? With someone changing tracks for you, while you were blindfolded?
There's no easier person to fool than yourself. Your mind needs to be unable to fool itself, otherwise you won't be able to have an objective result.

 

[Carbonman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fallingwater /img/forum/go_quote.gif Question: have you done this BLINDLY? With someone changing tracks for you, while you were blindfolded? There's no easier person to fool than yourself. Your mind needs to be unable to fool itself, otherwise you won't be able to have an objective result.

Blind testing is not the infallible method of determining audible quality it's made out to be. It has usefulness in comparing gross differences between products, but there are some things that don't make themselves apparent in a short term test. Low level artifacts are only noticeable over long term listening sessions. These are the kinds of things that produce listening fatigue, prompting you to turn your music source off after a few hours to just have some silence and rest for your ears (and the areas of your brain trying to compensate for the constant niggling sonic flaw).
Compression is one of those things that various people react to in this way. Some of us don't have any problem with this; some can't stand it.
My expectations from my portable source and IEMs aren't too high, but I doubt that I could stand MP3 sound quality on my home stereo.

 

[freeone-j]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Packgrog /img/forum/go_quote.gif http://www.misticriver.net/showthread.php?t=14081 Personally, I use CDex v1.51 with the LAME Encoder (v3.92). I do *NOT* use on-the-fly encoding, as the resulting file seems to have slightly better compression and less risk of artifacting when encoded from a full WAV file. My settings are: Quality: Very High Quality ( q=0 ) VBR Method: VBR-New VBR Quality: VBR 0 Mode: Stereo (VERY important, *DO NOT* use J-stereo) Version: MPEG I Bitrate Min: 32 kbps (good for extended sections of silence) Bitrate Max: 320 kbps I can't tell the difference with my new rips using this method (all from CDs my wife and I own, thank you). I've gone through many different settings, but this seems to be the sweet spot. Give this a shot. It takes longer to encode this way than through something like iTunes, but the resulting files are FAR superior in sound quality.

This is a great exchange of ideas, and I believe there is very important information by Packgrog. I think we all should take a look at this Thread and all of the replies. I found this link by Packgrog very helpful, for me! BTW this is the Cdex Link.

 

[Packgrog]

DON'T USE THE BETA!!! I had severe problems with the files generated by that version. If you want to use CDex (I find it easier then messing with EAC, though EAC might provide more control and might be a better ripper for scratched CDs), then download v1.51. It can still be found online.

But absolutely do *NOT* use v1.70b2. The VBR LAME files it produced did not play properly on my Cowon A2.

Glad the info is of some use to folks, though. Maybe if more people start using better LAME settings, the stuff I sample from online sources (prior to buying) won't sound so horrible.

 

[joecrouton]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Packgrog /img/forum/go_quote.gif Mode: Stereo (VERY important, *DO NOT* use J-stereo)

Can you please elaborate on where you got this information? According to most things I've read about Joint- Stereo, in most cases it gives a better stereo representation with better compression. Here a good explanation of how it works:http://harmsy.freeuk.com/mostync/

 

[musicmonkey]

I also sing the praise of CDex using Lame ver 1.30/3.92 MMX.

Quality: alt preset standard
VBR Quality: VBR 2
Version: MPEG I
Bitrate Min: 128 kbps
Bitrate Max: 320 kbps


I didn't have a clue about mp3's till a couple of years ago when i bought the set-up in my sig. being particular about my home hi-fi system led me to do a lot of forum trawling to find the optimum trade-off between sound quality vs storage capacity limitations.

I eventually found all requests for info almost allways ending up in the verdict that the above was generally held in very high regard so i started the ripping of 1500+ cd's onto a couple of portable hard drives, over two years later and i'm still ripping albums as i got bored of ripping albums one after the other and now i pick three albums from my collection each week so that when i rip them i actually spend a couple of days listening to that mp3 encode and try discover why i liked the particular artist and whether or not it's worth keeping as i'm trying to downsize my cd collection into something more managable.

If i'd only stop buying new cd's i might stand a chance.

 

[Digitalbath3737]

Don't use 3.92.... that's pretty out dated. Use 3.97 it's a stable version and the Official recommended version of LAME.

If you insist on having your mp3s and such a high bitrate use either the -V 0 switch which provides music around 220…260 or the -b 320 which is 320cbr.

And you may want to consider using EAC. There is a great guide in my thread on how to set it up. I've ripped tons of cds and they are all in great quality with perfect sound.

 

[freeone-j]

Quote:

Originally Posted by musicmonkey /img/forum/go_quote.gif I also sing the praise of CDex using Lame ver 1.30/3.92 MMX. Quality: alt preset standard VBR Quality: VBR 2 Version: MPEG I Bitrate Min: 128 kbps Bitrate Max: 320 kbps I didn't have a clue about mp3's till a couple of years ago when i bought the set-up in my sig. being particular about my home hi-fi system led me to do a lot of forum trawling to find the optimum trade-off between sound quality vs storage capacity limitations. I eventually found all requests for info almost allways ending up in the verdict that the above was generally held in very high regard so i started the ripping of 1500+ cd's onto a couple of portable hard drives, over two years later and i'm still ripping albums as i got bored of ripping albums one after the other and now i pick three albums from my collection each week so that when i rip them i actually spend a couple of days listening to that mp3 encode and try discover why i liked the particular artist and whether or not it's worth keeping as i'm trying to downsize my cd collection into something more managable. If i'd only stop buying new cd's i might stand a chance.

Converted a few songs at this setting, simply amazing! The extention on the highs just comes alive and good instrument separation, detailed, very nice!

 

[Packgrog]

Quote:

Originally Posted by joecrouton /img/forum/go_quote.gif Can you please elaborate on where you got this information? According to most things I've read about Joint- Stereo, in most cases it gives a better stereo representation with better compression. Here a good explanation of how it works:http://harmsy.freeuk.com/mostync/

Joint-Stereo causes VERY NOTICEABLE artifacting when music only plays in one channel. Sometimes Joint-Stereo has better compression, but it definitely effects the sound quality. Never ever use it. I'm having to re-rip a lot of my stuff because of some old rips I'd done with joint stereo that just sound awful.