Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: which 320kbps setting is better? (Read 1723 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

which 320kbps setting is better?

hey guys new here i'm looking to convert my wav files down to mp3 but im slighty confused on which setting to use for mp3

i have noticed the mp3s i purchase from bandcamp are different to the ones sent out on dj mailout promo pools

bandcamp 320 = - m j - V 4 - Q 3 -lowpass 20.5


DJ Maillout MP3 320 = - m j - V0 - Q0 -Lowpass 20.5


 

Re: which 320kbps setting is better?

Reply #1 –
Here's a good starting point if, instead of specific settings, you're after specific quality
But as usual, only your ears can tell you that after an ABX test.
• The older, the lossier
• Listen to the music, not the media it's on.
• "União e reconstrução"

Re: which 320kbps setting is better?

Reply #2 –
Quote from: Tek98012 on
i'm looking to convert my wav files down to mp3 but im slighty confused on which setting to use
Any specific reason?  I'm sure there are better ways than MP3, unless you specifically need MP3.
It's your privilege to disagree, but that doesn't make you right and me wrong.

Re: which 320kbps setting is better?

Reply #3 –
The photos provided might not be helpful.  They both show the mp3s were encoded at CBR 320Kbps and they're both the same size, yet supposedly encoded with different VBR settings.  The file encoded with -V4 should be smaller.   Afaik, levels 0 - 4 for the -q option would behave the same.

Re: which 320kbps setting is better?

Reply #4 –
There surely are those who employ stupid settings thinking they are clever, spending a lot of file size on empty space.
And I am not sure if all those properties utilities can actually give good answers in those cases.

Quote from: includemeout on
But as usual, only your ears can tell you that after an ABX test.
ABX will test whether you can reliably tell A from B. If you can, but don't have access to the original, you don't know for sure which one is closer - we know that some people actually prefer some compression artefacts on some songs.

(And, if you are to put an encoding algorithm (format, setting, the whole shebang) into production - then a few ABXes are just not enough.)

Re: which 320kbps setting is better?

Reply #5 –
You probably won't hear any difference.  If you don't care about file size you can use the 320kbps CBS "insane" settings (from the link given by includemeout).

Personally, I use VBR V0 because I don't care too much about file size but I don't see any reason to waste 320kbps on silence or "simple sounds".

Joint Stereo is almost always "best".   That is, it makes the best utilization of the "bits", giving a smaller file or better quality, IF it makes any difference.  It should never be worse.  It's the default.

I would also leave lowpass (and any other "tweaks") at their defaults because I assume  the LAME developers have have chosen whatever works best with most music.

Re: which 320kbps setting is better?

Reply #7 –
Quote from: davehawkin63 on
Quote from: includemeout on
Here's a good starting point if, instead of specific settings, you're after specific quality
But as usual, only your ears can tell you that after an ABX test.

I agree there's no better way than by way of ABX testing to determine best setting

Repeating that which has sorta become this community's mantra, that's about the only way. Scientifically; objectively.

Anything else is subjectivism, placebophilia or, directly translating an expression where I'm from, "suppositionism".
• The older, the lossier
• Listen to the music, not the media it's on.
• "União e reconstrução"

Re: which 320kbps setting is better?

Reply #8 –
This is what I use for MP3 in LAME

-b 320 -q 0 -m j --lowpass -1 --priority 4

Re: which 320kbps setting is better?

Reply #9 –
Tek98012 became a member, asked the question and disappeared. Actually, it is not right to write more answers to such people. Since he is still working with mp3, I don't think he/she really understands these things. Forget about it.

Re: which 320kbps setting is better?

Reply #10 –
Quote from: genuine on
Tek98012 became a member, asked the question and disappeared. Actually, it is not right to write more answers to such people. Since he is still working with mp3, I don't think he/she really understands these things. Forget about it.

Disappearing is not forbidden. There's still lots of reasons to use MP3, for example many hardware players only support MP3 or MP3 and WMA as lossy codecs.

Re: which 320kbps setting is better?

Reply #11 –
Getting lost is not forbidden but it is a great disrespect.
The mp3 era must end now. Hardware manufacturers must be lagging behind like many users. They should add newer and more powerful codecs to their hardware. We are not in the 90s anymore.

Re: which 320kbps setting is better?

Reply #12 –
Quote from: genuine on
Getting lost is not forbidden but it is a great disrespect.
The mp3 era must end now. Hardware manufacturers must be lagging behind like many users. They should add newer and more powerful codecs to their hardware. We are not in the 90s anymore.

Many people have working hardware from the time that newer codecs was not well-known (or not existed) and have no reason to change them.

Adding support for another codec to products can still be a bad-idea because of the additional license fees and the additional engineering required. And, LC-AAC and Vorbis were not a lot better than MP3, they were just slightly better.

Also, how can you know he/she is able to post?

Re: which 320kbps setting is better?

Reply #13 –
Quote from: Klymins on
Many people have working hardware from the time that newer codecs was not well-known (or not existed) and have no reason to change them.

Quote from: Klymins on
Adding support for another codec to products can still be a bad-idea because of the additional license fees and the additional engineering required. And, LC-AAC and Vorbis were not a lot better than MP3, they were just slightly better.
I'm not talking about the technologies, codecs or hardware from the 90s. If some people are happy with these, they can continue. There is much more powerful and newer hardware available today. And of course, more powerful and newer codecs are needed for these.