=======================================================================algorithm quality selection=======================================================================-q n Bitrate is of course the main influence on quality. The higher thebitrate, the higher the quality. But for a given bitrate,we have a choice of algorithms to determine the bestscalefactors and huffman encoding (noise shaping).-q 0: use slowest & best possible version of all algorithms.-q 2: recommended. Same as -h. -q 0 and -q 1 are slow and may not produce significantly higher quality. -q 5: default value. Good speed, reasonable quality-q 7: same as -f. Very fast, ok quality. (psycho acoustics are used for pre-echo & M/S, but no noise shaping is done. -q 9: disables almost all algorithms including psy-model. poor quality.
Are there any presets that would make the files "better" while keeping a relatively low file size?As for my second issue: Is v2 the best for me? I haven't done any ABX listening tests, and though the wiki suggests v6-v4, I've gathered elsewhere (head.fi) that v2 might actually be the best of both worlds for quality/low file size. Should I be using something different?
Not really, that should be the best way. You could have a look at the quality setting of LAME (the -q switch), if I remember correctly, it defaults to -q 2 which is not the highest quality setting (the best is -q 0)
Check out http://lame.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/lame/lame/USAGE for the additional settings.
Quote from: bernhold on 21 April, 2013, 06:58:46 AMif I remember correctly, it defaults to -q 2 which is not the highest quality setting (the best is -q 0)VBR encoding defaults to -q 0.
if I remember correctly, it defaults to -q 2 which is not the highest quality setting (the best is -q 0)
it depends on your equipment
low quality equipment
“Basic encoding advice” is not the province of MP3 Tech.In fact, both questions basically come down to the usual answer: We don’t know. You need to run a personal double-blind test to assess what is or is not perceptually transparent to you. Any other advice is based upon generalised conclusions or even assumptions. But I could add in response to the first question that (i) LAME’s default settings are default for a reason, and there there is almost never any need to change them unless you have a technically valid reason, and (ii) talk of “presets” is unnecessary as there are no longer any one-switch routes to optimised settings; it has been many years since the --alt-presets and --presets were all folded into mere aliases to normal parameters or combinations thereof.
QuoteI've noticed myself, that just upgrading headphones made previously completely unaudible distortions audible to me.If I replace my Beyerdynamic with a set of cheap erbuds (Sennheiser MX550), several distortion cease to be audible (but not pre-echo, still perceptible). But I'm not fully convinced that a very expensive of headphone (like Stax ones) would really really help me to catch additionnal encoding issues.
I've noticed myself, that just upgrading headphones made previously completely unaudible distortions audible to me.
Are we going to debate the fact that low quality equipment isn't able to reproduce the same frequency range as high quality equipment?
"I hear a difference" when playing music through different kinds of equipment should really not be a controversial statement.
Oh, but it is
simply turning your head can create a vastly different frequency response, unless you're using headphones.
First, sorry about my improper post placement. I was using the (now obviously incorrect) logic of "I'm using mp3, so I'll just put it here.".
Thanks for the reinforcement of the testing. I was going to hold off on it for a while (just shameful laziness, to be truthful), and figured that v2 would be more of a subjective "safe" bet - for now at least.
As for settings, I was more or less talking about the extra settings under Foobar2k's "processing" options - stereo configs/conversions, EQ, PPHS, et al. Being portable I would've assumed extra settings wouldn't truly be necessary, given that (as you've stated and as I've read before) presets are generally the best bet.
Quote from: bernhold on 21 April, 2013, 04:28:08 PMAre we going to debate the fact that low quality equipment isn't able to reproduce the same frequency range as high quality equipment?Sigh. Again(!), you are failing to address masking, the assumptions the encoder makes about it and how is can be broken. Frequency response falls well short of telling the whole story. If it did TOS8 would likely read quite differently.I recommend you read some of the discussions about it that exist on the forum.