Originally posted by Negative Zero You could also try the --r3mix switch, which results in smaller file sizes while still maintaining pretty good quality for VBR MP3's. Yes, I'm aware that some of you will argue that --alt-preset standard is "much better," but on the majority of music (outside of test samples), the averager listener may be hard-pressed to notice a difference.
Originally posted by mithrandir Although I am committed to Musepack/MPC, if I wanted to make some good MP3s, I'd use "--alt-preset extreme -Y". Very high quality at a rather reasonable bitrate.
Originally posted by guidryp I am seeking a setting that will encode the above mentioned track (nobody's hero) at 160kbps instead of 230kbps. I would think it would sound better than ABR/CBR 160kbps. If not then I question the validity of the VBR models.
Originally posted by mithrandir If you need 160kbps, then use --alt-preset 160. I don't know why you want to dwell on VBR. ABR uses variable framesizes, so it won't "waste" bits or underallocate on some frames like CBR. ABR makes a whole lot of sense if you have a final bitrate in mind..
Originally posted by JohnV Well, I don't know the song, but any such Lame vbr-mode would need to use -Y swithch. VBR setting which would give average 160kbps with metal would probably fall to low very often with different types of tracks or even with quieter sections, because the quality and bitrate is heavily dictated by the masking threshold from the psychoacoustic model (which is far from perfect).
Originally posted by guidryp The problem I have with ABR, is that it looks like a marketers attempt at VBR. It varies frames a bit, but it appears like it is not enough to be significant.Philosophically VBR should deliver the best bang for the bit, so I get stuck on that. Even a low tweaked VBR will still use a number of 320kbps frames that I don't see from ABR 160. When watching them each encode. So it seems that VBR is spending more heavily on the difficult sections. I guess it would be annoying to me that ABR 160 would still use 160 kbps to record silence.
Originally posted by mithrandir make two WAV files of Nobody's Hero: one decoded from a 160kbps ABR MP3 and another decoded from a 160kbps VBR MP3. But until you perform such a test, you shouldn't claim ABR is somehow flawed for various gut-feeling reasons while people here are telling you objective reasons why VBR can falter at lower bitrates and why ABR is the better choice.
Originally posted by JohnV Yes, VBR would use more bits for harder sections, but that kind of Lame vbr mode which would give average 160kbps with metal is going to fall too low pretty often and will introduce clear distortion, especially if -Y (ignoring of SFB21 noise shaping) or very high --ns-sfb21 value (high masking for SFB21) is not used.
Originally posted by guidryp Rush == Metal?? Where does Progressive Rock fit into this scheme (Classic Yes, Rush, Genesis, Jethro Tull)?I don't really think I listen to anything termed metal. I have maybe 1 Iron Maiden album. Is that what you mean by Metal? I hate anything with a wall of loud distortion.Maybe my first test should be to see where -lowpass x makes a difference for me. If I can't hear the difference above 16KHz, there is no point encoding it.
Originally posted by guidryp Well after a bit of testing, I am going with:--alt-preset standard -V3 -b96 --lowpass 16So far the album I am ripping is averaging ~170kbps.
Originally posted by guidryp For whatever reason, I remember --lowpass 16 using less bitrate than -Y. Adding -Y to --lowpass 16 used exactly the same amount of bits. My conclusion was that the lowpass superseded -Y.
Originally posted by JohnV Seems that you didn't understand the SFB21 problem with vbr I was trying to explain. If you use only --lowpass 16, the lower frequencies may still bloat the bitrate because of the SFB21 vbr problem (there still remains few MDCT coefficients over 16kHz which can bloat the bitrate).-Y affects to the bit allocation of all frequencies (SFBs) by disabling over 16kHz noise shaping.
Originally posted by guidryp I had read the theory, but my test result did not hold to it. In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, theory and practice are different. I just repeated my test on a different track with the same result. Not dramatic but still has lowpass 16 doing better than -Y. Perhaps -V3 is affecting things in a way you weren't expecting?Peter
Originally posted by fewtch Just my opinion, but if you're gonna do an abrupt cutoff at 16KHz, make sure the MP3's are for your ears only. Please, don't share (ever!).