<strong>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?</strong><hr></blockquote>
If I was feeling cheeky I would say "How can mp3 be better than AIFF/WAV apart from saving space?" but I'm not so I'll say that you are completely correct using lame CBR at 320 is the best possible quality for mp3.
"--alt-preset standard" This preset should generally be transparent to most people on most music and is already quite high in quality.
"--alt-preset extreme" If you have extremely good hearing and similar equipment, this preset will generally provide slightly higher quality than the "standard" mode.
For CBR 320kbps (highest quality possible from the --alt-preset switches):
"--alt-preset insane" This preset will usually be overkill for most people and most situations, but if you must have the absolute highest quality with no regard to filesize, this is the way to go.
For ABR modes (high quality per given bitrate but not as high as VBR):
"--alt-preset <kbps>" Using this preset will usually give you good quality at a specified bitrate. Depending on the bitrate entered, this preset will determine the optimal settings for that particular situation. While this approach works, it is not nearly as flexible as VBR, and usually will not attain the same level of quality as VBR at higher bitrates.</strong>
<hr></blockquote>
At any other rate than 320 (i.e. the maximum) VBR is better than ABR which is better than CBR because VBR and ABR go above and below the average bitrate when it encounters simple and complex passages respectively. CBR fails to take this variation into account.
Normally, I set it to 320k and highest VBR for ripping CD and store them in the local hard drive. Two days ago, I got my iPod and I started to use 192k and highest VBR to make it 210k. Well, iTunes is my default MP3/Internet radio anyway.
Is there any All-In-One DVD player, which can play SACD/DVD-Audio/HDCD format? I have a bunch of CD in HDCD format here.
If one does use "The Best MP3 Encoding", are there any tools that will reformat the file to a lower quality encoding?
I like to keep all of my original rips in 320. However, I would like a way to run them through a "Filter" to reduce them to say 128 for long trips when I want as many songs as possible on my player.
Additional though...
As long as the MP3 player has Audio out and not Digital Audio out, some distortion will be heard when played through a High Fidelity Home stereo.
TEST: Get a test CD with a blank track. Rip the track. Play that track at high volume on your MP3 player. Any audio that comes from the player is unwanted noise/distortion. I have tested a few players, some produced as much as 30 dB output while playing the blank track.
Point: High quality audio with a bad quality player is a waste of good music.
<strong>I like to keep all of my original rips in 320. However, I would like a way to run them through a "Filter" to reduce them to say 128 for long trips when I want as many songs as possible on my player.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Re-encoding a very high quality mp3 into a medium quality mp3 for portable listening shouldn't cause too many problems. I wouldn't try it with two separate codecs though (ogg to mp3 or vice versa). Interestingly, ogg vorbis has the capability of 'stripping' an audio file to reduce its file size without re-encoding. I don't think they have released the tools to do it yet, though.
I don't know if the gui front-ends support this directly but you can certainly do it with a script.
[quote]Originally posted by MrBillData:
<strong>As long as the MP3 player has Audio out and not Digital Audio out, some distortion will be heard when played through a High Fidelity Home stereo.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This almost certainly has nothing to do with mp3s or digital versus analog outs specifically. Any amp will produce a slight hiss or hum if there is no signal. Try it with a portable CD or Minidisc players or just your hi-fi.
<strong>Matsu, SACD lives because it's arguably the 'better sounding' format. It enjoys the same niche existence than BetaMAX enjoys/enjoyed.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I would say SACD enjoys the says niche existance as Apple does( High Prices for High Quality ).
(especially old skool audiophiles that don't 'get' the whole concept of digital audio).</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree. I would also add to that - kids who have yet experienced high fidelity audio equipment nor attended many live nonamplified performance and are immensely impressed by a Logitech 5 piece system.
Oh, I believe JVC made a player that do both SACD and DVD-A. Crutchfuield and J&R both carried it I think.
Before we get too deep into this, I feel obliged to share that depending on who you ask, the benefits of SACD and DVD-A over plain-jane CD can be anywhere from significant, minor, merely different but not better, to nonexistent. You can imagine what little room there is left between SACD and DVD-A to sound different from each other then. True, the new formats are certainly superior by paper specs, but one must go to great lengths to really show that the CD format we now use is indeed lacking to any degree significant to typical human hearing. It is merely "old", but there has been little to substantiate that it is actually inferior. Ultimately, it is the mastering and quality control therein that is making the real differences from one format to another. This is the case with any new format that is getting the TLC treatment and intro. As with any mainstream format, SQ will plunge to "normal QC levels" once the new format goes mainstream. Basically, you end up with the same CD we have now, except on the few projects that receive great care in the making- essentially what we already have.
One thing you can be sure of- whatever format that does prevail will be a much desired opportunity from the record companies to sell all of your favorite music to you all over again. Easily, it is possible that the "need" for these new formats is more about money and copyright protection than superior sound.
Comments
<strong>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?</strong><hr></blockquote>
If I was feeling cheeky I would say "How can mp3 be better than AIFF/WAV apart from saving space?" but I'm not so I'll say that you are completely correct using lame CBR at 320 is the best possible quality for mp3.
[quote]from the lame help:
<strong>For VBR modes (generally highest quality):
"--alt-preset standard" This preset should generally be transparent to most people on most music and is already quite high in quality.
"--alt-preset extreme" If you have extremely good hearing and similar equipment, this preset will generally provide slightly higher quality than the "standard" mode.
For CBR 320kbps (highest quality possible from the --alt-preset switches):
"--alt-preset insane" This preset will usually be overkill for most people and most situations, but if you must have the absolute highest quality with no regard to filesize, this is the way to go.
For ABR modes (high quality per given bitrate but not as high as VBR):
"--alt-preset <kbps>" Using this preset will usually give you good quality at a specified bitrate. Depending on the bitrate entered, this preset will determine the optimal settings for that particular situation. While this approach works, it is not nearly as flexible as VBR, and usually will not attain the same level of quality as VBR at higher bitrates.</strong>
<hr></blockquote>
At any other rate than 320 (i.e. the maximum) VBR is better than ABR which is better than CBR because VBR and ABR go above and below the average bitrate when it encounters simple and complex passages respectively. CBR fails to take this variation into account.
[ 08-30-2002: Message edited by: stupider...likeafox ]</p>
Is there any All-In-One DVD player, which can play SACD/DVD-Audio/HDCD format? I have a bunch of CD in HDCD format here.
Kenneth
If one does use "The Best MP3 Encoding", are there any tools that will reformat the file to a lower quality encoding?
I like to keep all of my original rips in 320. However, I would like a way to run them through a "Filter" to reduce them to say 128 for long trips when I want as many songs as possible on my player.
Additional though...
As long as the MP3 player has Audio out and not Digital Audio out, some distortion will be heard when played through a High Fidelity Home stereo.
TEST: Get a test CD with a blank track. Rip the track. Play that track at high volume on your MP3 player. Any audio that comes from the player is unwanted noise/distortion. I have tested a few players, some produced as much as 30 dB output while playing the blank track.
Point: High quality audio with a bad quality player is a waste of good music.
<strong>I like to keep all of my original rips in 320. However, I would like a way to run them through a "Filter" to reduce them to say 128 for long trips when I want as many songs as possible on my player.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Re-encoding a very high quality mp3 into a medium quality mp3 for portable listening shouldn't cause too many problems. I wouldn't try it with two separate codecs though (ogg to mp3 or vice versa). Interestingly, ogg vorbis has the capability of 'stripping' an audio file to reduce its file size without re-encoding. I don't think they have released the tools to do it yet, though.
I don't know if the gui front-ends support this directly but you can certainly do it with a script.
[quote]Originally posted by MrBillData:
<strong>As long as the MP3 player has Audio out and not Digital Audio out, some distortion will be heard when played through a High Fidelity Home stereo.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This almost certainly has nothing to do with mp3s or digital versus analog outs specifically. Any amp will produce a slight hiss or hum if there is no signal. Try it with a portable CD or Minidisc players or just your hi-fi.
<strong>Matsu, SACD lives because it's arguably the 'better sounding' format. It enjoys the same niche existence than BetaMAX enjoys/enjoyed.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I would say SACD enjoys the says niche existance as Apple does( High Prices for High Quality ).
<strong>
(especially old skool audiophiles that don't 'get' the whole concept of digital audio).</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree. I would also add to that - kids who have yet experienced high fidelity audio equipment nor attended many live nonamplified performance and are immensely impressed by a Logitech 5 piece system.
Oh, I believe JVC made a player that do both SACD and DVD-A. Crutchfuield and J&R both carried it I think.
<strong>While Beta was clearly better than VHS, the differences between SACD and DVD-A are much more slight.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Slight? They're pretty different if you ask me.
SACD originated as a 2-channel super duper ultra mega high fidelity format utilizing s 1-bit signal at at an insanely high 2.8 MHz sample rate.
DVD-Audio on the other hand is almost like an evolution of the original CD, 24-bit signals sampled at 96 KHz for 5.1 surround systems.
Of course later on SACD gained 5.1 (6) channel support as well.
SACD vs DVD-A is much much more complex that BetaMAX vs VHS ever was.
One thing you can be sure of- whatever format that does prevail will be a much desired opportunity from the record companies to sell all of your favorite music to you all over again. Easily, it is possible that the "need" for these new formats is more about money and copyright protection than superior sound.
[ 08-30-2002: Message edited by: Randycat99 ]</p>