Skip to main content

Topic: better Lame 3.98 (bitrate 128) or 3.93 (bitrate 192)? (Read 5640 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • LauraQ
  • [*]
better Lame 3.98 (bitrate 128) or 3.93 (bitrate 192)?
Hi
I found two discographies of the same singer, In the first discography EncSpot (there is a better program? EncSpot is old and not update) tells me that is always
used Lame 3.98 Bitrate 128, in the second there are various types:

Lame 3.93 Bitrate 256
Lame 3.93 Bitrate 192
Lame 3.93 Bitrate 160
Lame 3.92 (alpha) bitrate 192
FhG (fastenc or mp3enc) 160

Can you tell me what should I keep?

Thanks!

  • mjb2006
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
better Lame 3.98 (bitrate 128) or 3.93 (bitrate 192)?
Reply #1
Apples and oranges. There is no way to know. You don't even know if the same masterings of the source material were used. You don't know if these particular pieces of music would benefit from the improvements in later versions of the encoders. You don't know if, at these high bitrates, it even matters to your ears. You can only listen (preferably at matching volume levels; use ReplayGain) and see which one you prefer. There may be an obvious difference that makes you prefer one over the other. But it doesn't mean one encoder/version/bitrate is always going to be superior.

  • LauraQ
  • [*]
better Lame 3.98 (bitrate 128) or 3.93 (bitrate 192)?
Reply #2
Too bad
Thanks for the explanation. ReplayGain tell me where to download? I tried but can not find it
  • Last Edit: 15 April, 2014, 03:58:14 AM by LauraQ

better Lame 3.98 (bitrate 128) or 3.93 (bitrate 192)?
Reply #3
Hi
I found two discographies of the same singer

If by "found" you mean that's all the peer-to-peer (cough) legal (cough) download could come up with, and as mjb2006 pointed out, you can never really tell what the source was like, your best bet is actually buying their CD, in order to be 100% certain about it.
Listen to the music, not the media.

Best,
Nilson

  • probedb
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
better Lame 3.98 (bitrate 128) or 3.93 (bitrate 192)?
Reply #4
Too bad
Thanks for the explanation. ReplayGain tell me where to download? I tried but can not find it


You don't download ReplayGain. If you use something like foobar2000, it has a scanner built in and will apply it to the files. Then, you can use it on any device or software that supports ReplayGain, like foobar2000.

  • birdie
  • [*][*][*]
better Lame 3.98 (bitrate 128) or 3.93 (bitrate 192)?
Reply #5
Decode them to WAV/PCM and run `auCDtect.exe -mS0` on them.

Leave the one which has the biggest hi-cut frequency - at least you'll be able to preserve more frequencies.


  • LauraQ
  • [*]
better Lame 3.98 (bitrate 128) or 3.93 (bitrate 192)?
Reply #6
Too bad
Thanks for the explanation. ReplayGain tell me where to download? I tried but can not find it


You don't download ReplayGain. If you use something like foobar2000, it has a scanner built in and will apply it to the files. Then, you can use it on any device or software that supports ReplayGain, like foobar2000.


don't know foobar, I use Winamp. There is a tutorial that can help me for scan my collection?

better Lame 3.98 (bitrate 128) or 3.93 (bitrate 192)?
Reply #7
don't know foobar, I use Winamp. There is a tutorial that can help me for scan my collection?

Guide

Also, there is a truckload of information on other topics you may find useful (aimed either at beginners or experts alike) as long as you're willing to search for it.
Listen to the music, not the media.

Best,
Nilson

  • LauraQ
  • [*]
better Lame 3.98 (bitrate 128) or 3.93 (bitrate 192)?
Reply #8
thanks

Having said that I realized that I can not answer, can you tell me if lame from 3.93 to 3.98, there have been major improvements?
  • Last Edit: 15 April, 2014, 01:42:05 PM by LauraQ

  • pdq
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
better Lame 3.98 (bitrate 128) or 3.93 (bitrate 192)?
Reply #9
can you tell me if lame from 3.93 to 3.98, there have been major improvements?

Not enough that Lame 3.98 at bitrate 128 would be likely to be higher quality than Lame 3.93 at bitrates of 160 or higher.

  • Mach-X
  • [*][*][*][*]
better Lame 3.98 (bitrate 128) or 3.93 (bitrate 192)?
Reply #10
can you tell me if lame from 3.93 to 3.98, there have been major improvements?

Not enough that Lame 3.98 at bitrate 128 would be likely to be higher quality than Lame 3.93 at bitrates of 160 or higher.

That. The tuning done between those versions was mostly to deal with troublesome sounds such as castanets, not general music. It is unlikely you would hear any difference between samples using abx testing.

  • LauraQ
  • [*]
better Lame 3.98 (bitrate 128) or 3.93 (bitrate 192)?
Reply #11
ok, I tried to do the simplest thing, I have taken many mp3 and I listen to them, to my limited ears and my limited stereo speakers  , I did not notice any difference, so I kept the ones that are smaller than 3.98 size
Thank you all for the help!

  • birdie
  • [*][*][*]
better Lame 3.98 (bitrate 128) or 3.93 (bitrate 192)?
Reply #12
ok, I tried to do the simplest thing, I have taken many mp3 and I listen to them, to my limited ears and my limited stereo speakers  , I did not notice any difference, so I kept the ones that are smaller than 3.98 size
Thank you all for the help!


The worst possible choice.

  • probedb
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
better Lame 3.98 (bitrate 128) or 3.93 (bitrate 192)?
Reply #13
The worst possible choice.


Why? If she can't hear any difference it makes perfect sense if you're trying to save space.

  • mjb2006
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
better Lame 3.98 (bitrate 128) or 3.93 (bitrate 192)?
Reply #14
The worst possible choice.

She has listened and can't hear a difference in these files, so there's no reason to choose anything but the smallest one. They're all the same, for this music, for this person's ears. Does that mean whatever the smallest file uses will be the ideal encoder & settings for all pieces of music, and all listeners? No, of course not. But for this situation, the ideal choice was made. That is, all things being equal, in her ears, the only distinguishing factor is the file size, so why not choose the smallest one.

Quote from: birdie link=msg=0 date=
Leave the one which has the biggest hi-cut frequency - at least you'll be able to preserve more frequencies.

She can't hear those frequencies, in this instance, so why should she choose the MP3s that preserve them? Is she not better served by knowing that the encoder didn't have to deal with the sfb21 problem, i.e. it didn't have to make sacrifices in the lower frequencies in order to accommodate the rarely audible, noisy 16+ KHz range?

http://www.mp3-tech.org/content/?mp3%20limitations
http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=LAME_Y_SWITCH

  • mjb2006
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
better Lame 3.98 (bitrate 128) or 3.93 (bitrate 192)?
Reply #15
don't know foobar, I use Winamp. There is a tutorial that can help me for scan my collection?

Guide


That guide is for foobar2000; it won't help at all with Winamp.

@LauraQ, ReplayGain is a system where you scan your files and add special tags to them to indicate how loud they are. Then, your player, if it supports those tags, automatically adjusts the volume during playback in order to make all things be the same average loudness on a per-track or per-album basis. It is similar to iTunes Sound Check, which uses a different algorithm and tags, but has the same effect.

In Winamp, go to Preferences > Playback > Replay Gain. Here are my settings:
  • [X] Use Replay Gain
  • Amplification mode: Apply Gain / Prevent Clipping
  • Preferred source: Album
  • Adjustment for files without Replay Gain: -6.0 dB
  • [X] Ask before writing Replay Gain to analyzed files
  • [X] Ask after all files are scanned
For the purpose of removing volume differences as a factor when comparing individual files to see if you hear any differences between them, you will want to set the Preferred source to Track. Otherwise, you probably want Album.

To scan files in Winamp, select some file(s) in the playlist window, right-click, and choose Send To > Calculate ReplayGain. It will scan and give you a choice of writing album gain tags (plus track gain tags) or just track gain tags by themselves.

Consider a set of files to be an album if you have all the tracks from the album, and they all came from the exact same source (same mastering, same pressing): i.e., the same rip of the same physical CD, LP, or one side of a 12" single. Otherwise just consider them to be loose tracks.

If you have complete albums, and each album is in its own folder, you can scan all the files at once, then write the album tags. If you have complete albums, but they're all together in one folder, you have to scan each album separately, writing album tags after each one. If you have just assorted loose tracks, scan them in any combination you want, and only write the track tags.

The dB values it gives you after the scan are what the volume change will be during playback when Use Replay Gain is enabled. Files louder than the ideal average will have a negative adjustment (i.e., will be played with the volume turned down), and quiet files will have a positive adjustment. Files scanned as an album will have identical values for album gain, and different values for track gain. Files scanned separately will have the same value for both track & album gain.
  • Last Edit: 16 April, 2014, 06:18:58 AM by mjb2006

  • LauraQ
  • [*]
better Lame 3.98 (bitrate 128) or 3.93 (bitrate 192)?
Reply #16
mjb2006:
Fantastic your guide for Winamp, definitely will use it!

Also thanks to all others who have helped me, in fact I have stated that I'm not a music expert though I like to have good quality mp3



better Lame 3.98 (bitrate 128) or 3.93 (bitrate 192)?
Reply #17
don't know foobar, I use Winamp. There is a tutorial that can help me for scan my collection?

Guide


That guide is for foobar2000; it won't help at all with Winamp.


Doh! Where did I have my mind to have overlooked that? 

I stand corrected. Thank you mjb2006!
Listen to the music, not the media.

Best,
Nilson

  • birdie
  • [*][*][*]
better Lame 3.98 (bitrate 128) or 3.93 (bitrate 192)?
Reply #18
Everyone's so smart, huh?

What if she buys better acoustics? What if her current setup is so lousy it cannot faithfully reproduce the frequency range of her songs?

Always aim for the best practical quality (I'm not talking about digitizing your audio at 24bit/192KHz and storing it as WAVs, but 192Kbit vs 128Kbit is a no-brainer - nowadays that everyone has gigabytes of storage I see no reason of not choosing a higher bitrate). You never know what the future will bring.

  • julf
  • [*][*][*][*]
better Lame 3.98 (bitrate 128) or 3.93 (bitrate 192)?
Reply #19
Always aim for the best practical quality (I'm not talking about digitizing your audio at 24bit/192KHz and storing it as WAVs, but 192Kbit vs 128Kbit is a no-brainer - nowadays that everyone has gigabytes of storage I see no reason of not choosing a higher bitrate). You never know what the future will bring.


If you go for the vague "everyone has gigabytes of storage" and "you never know what the future will bring" arguments, the only conclusion is to use a lossless format. If you go for perceptual encoding, choose the bit rate that is good enough for *your* perception, not some obscure future scenario.



better Lame 3.98 (bitrate 128) or 3.93 (bitrate 192)?
Reply #20
Am I wrong to think that perhaps, given this thread's own title it sort of belongs to the last decade and we've been expanding on it more than we should and/or it deserves? Because many want to feel they're helping the (apparent) lady in distress, perhaps!?   

Not to mention the OP's question has been already answered several posts back and the latest ones have been more or less in a crash course towards TOS8's own rules.
Listen to the music, not the media.

Best,
Nilson

  • pdq
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
better Lame 3.98 (bitrate 128) or 3.93 (bitrate 192)?
Reply #21
ok, I tried to do the simplest thing, I have taken many mp3 and I listen to them, to my limited ears and my limited stereo speakers  , I did not notice any difference, so I kept the ones that are smaller than 3.98 size
Thank you all for the help!


The worst possible choice.

This from the person who recommended keeping as much as possible of the highest, inaudible frequencies, which steal bits away from the lower frequencies, possibly decreasing overall quality. 

  • Mach-X
  • [*][*][*][*]
better Lame 3.98 (bitrate 128) or 3.93 (bitrate 192)?
Reply #22
I recommend keeping the 128, as at least the same encoder/settings were used throughout. And having done the Philips golden ears test myself, even 128 is difficult to abx. The second set using different encoder/settings is bothersome to me.

  • probedb
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
better Lame 3.98 (bitrate 128) or 3.93 (bitrate 192)?
Reply #23
nowadays that everyone has gigabytes of storage I see no reason of not choosing a higher bitrate).


Then you wouldn't use MP3 for storage would you? It's still transparent to her. How do you know she has gigabytes of storage?

You never know what the future will bring.


What does it matter if she buys a new stereo in the future, why will that make it show more artifacts?

Why are you confusing frequency range with bitrate?

  • birdie
  • [*][*][*]
better Lame 3.98 (bitrate 128) or 3.93 (bitrate 192)?
Reply #24
If you go for the vague "everyone has gigabytes of storage" and "you never know what the future will bring" arguments, the only conclusion is to use a lossless format. If you go for perceptual encoding, choose the bit rate that is good enough for *your* perception, not some obscure future scenario.


Why are going off-topic? The OP asked about certain bitrates, let's stay there. The person has no access to source audio.