Best mp3 encoding?
I know that this was discussed (sort of) before, but I'm curious about mp3 encoding methods. I'm in the process of re-encoding a ton of my cds from back when HD space was at a premium, so my bitrates were generally low, like 160 (or even 128 on some <img src="graemlins/surprised.gif" border="0" alt="[Surprised]" /> ). But now with more plentiful HD space, I'm going higher.
I had be using VBR encoding through iTunes, but is that the best out there? I've heard about LAME, but I really don't know what that is. Finally, will non-iTunes encoded mp3 play on my iPod? Thanks.
I had be using VBR encoding through iTunes, but is that the best out there? I've heard about LAME, but I really don't know what that is. Finally, will non-iTunes encoded mp3 play on my iPod? Thanks.
Comments
different encoders are supposed to be better for different types of mp3's. you can search around on google, there are a lot of scattered reviews.
that said, i've encoded my entire collection at 292kBit, and it sounds great. i don't notice any degredation.
of course, lower bitrates means a longer battery life for minutes of music, 'cause you can put more of 128 in memory than 292.
lame is the best encoder i.e. the best implementation of the mp3 specification. It gives the best sound in the least space and allows more configuration than a simple bit rate. Why would you want this, well...
High quality is not simply a matter of higher bitrates. For example, mp3 needs more bits to encode high frequency sound than low frequency sound. You can tell the encoder to ignore sound above a certain frequency. This obviously lowers sound quality but mainly for inaudible frequencies. The space savings can then be used to encode the audible frequencies at higher bitrates and so two songs encoded at the same bit-rate can have different quality levels. There are many such options all with trade-offs and interrelationships that affect quality and bit-rate to different degrees. This is one reason why ogg vorbis uses quality levels rather than bitrates.
So how do you know what settings (not bit-rate) to use? You don't. Simply pass '--alt-preset standard' to lame as an option and you will have archival quality mp3s. The bit-rate will vary with the ease of encoding different types of music but will give about 192kbps (192kbps VBR is the equivalent of 256kbps CBR). Note that you cannot simply compare the quality of this encoded file by bitrate, the next quality level up (--alt-preset (e)xtreme) is simply the best quality you will get and it comes in about 250kbps VBR. Anything else is just wasting space for no quality gain.
For all the info about this you will ever want have a look at the <a href="http://www.audio-illumination.org/forums/"; target="_blank">hydrogen audio forums</a>
edit: just thought I'd say my TiBook's never sounded so good. I always thought it was my shitty speakers, but it's not entirely their fault apparently.
[ 08-27-2002: Message edited by: torifile ]</p>
<strong>Eugene: I seem to remember you saying that you compiled LAME with the new gcc and got a speed boost. Do you have a binary somewhere or your configure options so I can compile it myself? I'm only getting around 3x when I can usually get 8x or higher on my TiBook.</strong><hr></blockquote>
setenv CFLAGS "-mcpu=7450 -mtune=7450 -faltivec -mdynamic-no-pic -fstrict-aliasing" is what I used.
I get an 8% speed increase vs using no special optimizations.
[ 08-27-2002: Message edited by: Eugene ]</p>
<strong>Ok, so I got LAME working and I'm encoding (thanks, guys!), albeit slowly (what's up with that?), at 192, abr. What are the best settings for balancing quality and size? I'm willing to sacrifice some size for better quality. TIA.
[ 08-27-2002: Message edited by: torifile ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm not convinced that you want to be using ABR rather than VBR. With ABR you specify a bitrate and lame will squeeze the music into that bitrate. This means the quality will go up and down throughout the song as the song changes in 'complexity' (though not as much as CBR).
VBR on the other hand allows you to specify a quality level. It maintains this quality but allows the bitrate to vary (again this depends on 'complexity' in the song).
I can't think of many reasons to not use --alt-preset standard (or maybe --alt-preset (e)xtreme for classical music) if quality is your goal.
Also, the speed difference is because lame uses more precise algorithms. There is the option to use a range of less precise but faster algorithms but that defeats the purpose if you are seeking high quality. I doubt gcc 3.1 will give more than a 5 or 10 percent speed boost which may not be worth the effort. Perhaps ripping to AIFF and encoding overnight with a batch file may be less work?
Try entering "lame --alt-preset help" in the terminal for some good info.
[edit: added last hint]
[ 08-27-2002: Message edited by: stupider...likeafox ]</p>
Now, I'm encoding using --alt-preset standard. I've ripped several cds to my HD and now I'm encoding them. This is a slow process, but I can rip 2 cds at a time with my external burner. I'll just leave it encoding while I got to work. The good thing is, while it's taking more time, the files aren't really any bigger than I was getting with my current 192kbps encoding. Sometimes they are smaller.
<strong>That may be all true but the equipment i.e. your speakers/headphones absolutely matter the most in the sound quality. Listening to the original CD using a $5 headphone/laptop speakers will sound worse than a well encoded MP3/WMA/OGG/etc. file using FH/LAME/WMA/etc codec on a good set of speakers/headphones.</strong><hr></blockquote>
iTunes, AudioCatalyst, MusicMatch encoded mp3s still sound worse than LAME encoded mp3s even on cheap $15-20 headphones.
<strong>That may be all true but the equipment i.e. your speakers/headphones absolutely matter the most in the sound quality. Listening to the original CD using a $5 headphone/laptop speakers will sound worse than a well encoded MP3/WMA/OGG/etc. file using FH/LAME/WMA/etc codec on a good set of speakers/headphones.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Even if this was true, and I'm not convinced, then it will cost you big bucks to get a good audio hardware setup. Good encoding, on the other hand, costs no more than a few moments of your time.
The main point, however, is that there is no compulsion to choose only one or the other. Use none, one or both--the choice is yours. My only comment is that upgrading your speakers/headphones is a hell of a lot easier than re-encoding hundreds of CDs so perhaps good encoding should be the priority.
edit: I've just reread your post and realized that I have no idea what you are advocating. I'll leave my points as I think they stand on their own.
[ 08-29-2002: Message edited by: stupider...likeafox ]</p>
<strong>eh, I always go with 128, it is really good enough...you could also re encode with MP4 but the iPod does not support that, yet</strong><hr></blockquote>
128 may be good enough for some stuff, but I can notice some definite artifacts (it sounds like swirling when I have my headphones on) even with my shitty sony earbuds. 160 is better, but the music just doesn't sound as crisp. I don't listen to cds anymore, I just use them to encoded the music and then I listen on my iPod, through my computer or in my car (aiwa mp3/cd player), so it's important that they sound as good as possible. Still looking for some good headphones that I can afford.
I am advocating that for MOST people the codec used (assuming one is recording at a high enough rate of course) is less important than using good sound reproduction advice e.g. speaker and headphones.
So, if given a choice of a LAME 320 and bad speakers and FH 192 and good speakers - I'd go with latter.
But I have not found a way to rip a SACD yet.
Has anyone seen a SACD compatible drive ?
<strong>So, if given a choice of a LAME 320 and bad speakers and FH 192 and good speakers - I'd go with latter.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, that's what I thought you meant at first but then I couldn't figure out when you would be faced with this decision.
I value my time too, that's why I would rip my CDs right the first time.
By the way, one of the themes I've been trying to get across is that although everyone talks about mp3 bitrates as though they mean something, most of the time they don't.
[edit: thought I would add a smiley]
[ 08-29-2002: Message edited by: stupider...likeafox ]</p>
You and I clearly do not face this problem. Nevertheless, surely you know of people out there who *insist* they can hear the difference between LAME 320 and <whatever codec> 256 pop music with its low S/N, low dynamic range, synthesized music, etc sound with their 1" tiny laptop speakers!
<strong>My SACDs sound a lot better than their CD version.
But I have not found a way to rip a SACD yet.
Has anyone seen a SACD compatible drive ?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Several things will figure into this.
1) The popularity of the rival DVD-Audio format.
2) SACD's current market penetration as a niche, proprietary Sony technology.
3) The fact that SACD has some kind of copy-protection digital-watermark.
Basically, I wouldn't hold my breath.
<strong>Nevertheless, surely you know of people out there who *insist* they can hear the difference between LAME 320 and <whatever codec> 256 pop music with its low S/N, low dynamic range, synthesized music, etc sound with their 1" tiny laptop speakers!
Yeah, I find this phenomenon really intresting. As someone with a passing interest in psychology and audio it is truly frightening the things you hear people say (especially old skool audiophiles that don't 'get' the whole concept of digital audio). My all time favourite is the 'hint' telling you to cover the bottom surface of your CDs in green ink from a marker pen - it really brings out the subtle highs(!).
The ironic thing is that people who know what they are talking about get lower quality because they aren't victims of the placebo effect--everyone else is impressed with the emperor's new threads while we end up looking at a fat old naked guy.
For me you certainly can hear the difference between MP3 and CD at any but the highest bitrates. What I don't understand is why would VBR be better than CBR?
Let's say you rip at 320. This is the highest posible rate for MP3. IF you use VBR, you would only get 320kbps when the audio complexity was at it's highest and less everywhere else. With CBR, you'd get the full 320kbps rate everywhere. How can VBR be better apart from saving space?
Anyone played with AAC yet?