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: EAC compression options with mp3 quality comparison (Read 8776 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

EAC compression options with mp3 quality comparison

I have installed EAC, and prefer MP3 to rip/backup to simply because at a good setting, it find is hard to differentiate from the original. I wanted MP3 320kbps originally, as I thought then I would have reasonable quality backups that I could add to a portable player. Perhaps now a bad choice, but I didnt like the idea of having to do an entire library twice (one for pc use, one for mp3 player)! lol. I noticed however, that my cds werent being ripped to 320kbps, even when I chose it, each would rip at a much higher bitrate. Googling around-I found that it was because the program will always use any added command-line settings over any standard options. I was using Lame 3.98.2 on both of these occassions:-

The default command line setting was:
"%l-V 5%l%h-V 2%h --vbr-new %s %d"

I was told if I wished to try 320kbps constant,
instead of the above I should only use: "-b 320 %s %d"

All other settings within EAC were left untouched as default for both, with high quality selected. The default first command-line setting above gives very high bitrates, well above 320kbps, and strangely enough the result mp3 file is MUCH smaller than the 320kbps mp3s I get when I use the 320 command-line last setting above. I will guess this is because the first is variable (vbr as it states in the setting), but I have been told that I should NOT hear any difference between either settings above. I am certain (!) that the first option gives a slightly clearer sound which I cannot tell apart from the original, and the 320 setting sounds lower/bassier than the cd and the vbr. Am I correct in which is the closest to the cd?  I suppose I should stick to what I think sounds best, but what would you believe to be best technically, even if the human ear could tell the difference?

I have been told I should not use V5 or V2 in the first command-line setting I show above (cant remember which 'V' part) if Im wanting the best quality? Even though I can find many sites stating what all the EAC command-line options do, I am still unsure what I can change and where within it to get the best mp3, time not an issue. thanks for any help at all, especially if you can state which of the 2 command line settings above would be best as backing up to mp3 if I am after closest quality to a cd, mainly for pc use, and what 'V' to change in the first setting for the best mp3 quality conversion. 

I will guess I cannot really get the best of both (a good mp3 for pc or hifi that can also be used on a portable player), as googling around I have heard that variable bitrate formats are not a good choice for portable music players. Surely more devices can now play them, as mp3s have been around for a fair while? thanks for any info on portables using variable mp3 (i am getting an mp3 player soon), and which mp3 command line setting above to use for pc mp3 backup-do I simply need to change one of the 'V' settings in the command line from within EAC to get the best mp3 quality (if the first one i show above is indeed the best)? thanks

EAC compression options with mp3 quality comparison

Reply #2 –
thanks for the link!

quote from the above wiki regarding quality:
"the exception to this is when you choose the highest possible CBR bitrate, which is 320 kbps (-b 320 = --alt-preset insane)"

surely the above doesnt make sense, if I can choose to convert to variable mp3 at a setting which will output to a range or bitrate higher than 320kbps-then surely, the vbr would be better quality? the cds I ripped earlier to mp3 using EAC with the very first command line settings i show, were giving me bitrates of around 350 to 500 kbps! the first command line i was using (default in EAC) shows V5 and V2, not sure which is for quality, but according to the wiki table- my output is well out of the range for the target bitrates I should get? or am i forgetting about something. no doubt !  lol! thanks

EAC compression options with mp3 quality comparison

Reply #3 –
Best CBR settings: "-b 320 %s %d"
Best VBR settings: "-V 0 %s %d".

And, LAME in VBR mode can preserve more frequencies>16 kHz than in CBR/ABR mode.

EAC compression options with mp3 quality comparison

Reply #4 –
Quote
the cds I ripped earlier to mp3 using EAC with the very first command line settings i show, were giving me bitrates of around 350 to 500 kbps!


Windows explorer shows variable bitrate incorrectly.

EAC compression options with mp3 quality comparison

Reply #5 –
lol!  i thought windows properties may have been showing the average bitrate used when i was using it to check each final mp3! i will guess if it shows it incorrectly, then it is perhaps only showing the startup bitrate for the first section of the mp3, or something similar? i still think the vbrs i am getting still sound better than 320kbps constant, despite being of much smaller size, but i am still not 100% on using them if the majority of mp3 players (hifi or portable) will not work with them? or is compatibility alot better now with variable

EAC compression options with mp3 quality comparison

Reply #6 –
320 kbps is the highest cbr rate that is generally supported, and NO vbr file can have any frames higher than 320 kbps.

It is highly unlikely that you are hearing vbr files that sound better than a 320 kbps cbr file (prove this to yourself with ABX testing).

It is prettly rare anymore that anything will fail to play a vbr file. There could still be problems with seeking, but those problems are minor.

EAC compression options with mp3 quality comparison

Reply #7 –
thanks for the info!  since windows does not show the bitrates of any variable mp3 correctly, is there a tool that will, for any file encoded to this format, if what im hearing from what windows will say is a 500kbps mp3 is definately no where near that mark?

I am still certain that the constant 320kbps mp3s sound worse/lower/bassier than the originals and even variable  "%l-V 5%l%h-V 2%h --vbr-new %s %d" using EAC when played in the same player (i tried a test with someone asking me which was which!)  thanks

EAC compression options with mp3 quality comparison

Reply #8 –
Quote from: extent on
I am still certain that the constant 320kbps mp3s sound worse/lower/bassier than the originals and even variable  "%l-V 5%l%h-V 2%h --vbr-new %s %d" using EAC when played in the same player (i tried a test with someone asking me which was which!)  thanks

You need to perform a proper double-blind test with all other variables removed before you can reach this conclusion.

Invariably this turns out to be either placebo effect or else there is something else affecting the sound. You should, for example, compare the original wav file against the mp3 file decoded to wav so as to eliminate such things as an equalizer being applied to one but not the other.

EAC compression options with mp3 quality comparison

Reply #9 –
Quote from: extent on
since windows does not show the bitrates of any variable mp3 correctly, is there a tool that will, for any file encoded to this format


yep, it's called "MP3InfP"

available here:
http://win32lab.com/fsw/mp3infp/

direkt download link:
http://win32lab.com/lib/mp3infp/mp3infp254a.exe

it will not only add additional tabs for ID3v1, ID3v2 and APE into your file properties window that look like this:



Cheers,
Maggi

EAC compression options with mp3 quality comparison

Reply #10 –
if im comparing i should probably switch all equaliser effects off, but i had not changed anything between both occassions with listening on the same player, same effects, with the same levels, to compare. I had first compared each mp3s with the cd, before comparing each other. perhaps with so many posts in audio forums claiming they can hear better quality with mp3s above 320kbps, they may well be using variable format, and believing they are getting a much higher output as a result, but its just a case of windows not giving the right reading in each mp3s properties?

i will need to try and find a tool that will tell me exactly what i have for bitrate with each variable mp3 - perhaps an mp3 editor would give me a better indication if it displayed the bitrate/time for my selected file in a graph format

update:- >>>maggi-thanks!  will give it a go

EAC compression options with mp3 quality comparison

Reply #11 –
from the default EAC command line setting, I found using MP3InfP, that my first outputted vbr mp3 (that windows stated was 347 kbps) is actually 205 kbps. since its variable, is the 205 kbps the highest or the average output of the file as a whole? If im understanding correctly?

from my first post, is it possible the reason that i thought the default first command-line settings ("%l-V 5%l%h-V 2%h --vbr-new %s %d") sounded better than the 320 constant settings ("-b 320 %s %d"), was because the first, which is variable, has a wider range of frequencies? or is it very unlikely that my hearing is that good?! LOL 

im sure there will still be users out there for constant claiming its easy to hear the difference between 320 and anything higher (also constant) if you knew what to look for. I am wondering why with all VBR is it impossible to go higher than 320?

EAC compression options with mp3 quality comparison

Reply #12 –
Quote
is actually 205 kbps. since its variable, is the 205 kbps the highest or the average output of the file as a whole?

Average. And this bitrate is quite typical for "-V 2" settings.

EAC compression options with mp3 quality comparison

Reply #13 –
thanks. from the default setting in my first post, does anyone know what the "%l-V 5%l%h-V 2%h" stands for?

I will guess from your reply that the last part refers to quality (the "V 2") but i was unsure of the rest, even after reading the guides. I was not 100% on it since there is more than one "l" and "V" and "h" included. do they refer to the naming of the file, for example?

EAC compression options with mp3 quality comparison

Reply #15 –
PS: When you signed up to participate on this forum, you agreed to the Terms of Service.

Quote from: extent on
I am certain (!) that the first option gives a slightly clearer sound which I cannot tell apart from the original, and the 320 setting sounds lower/bassier than the cd and the vbr.

This violates #8.

EAC compression options with mp3 quality comparison

Reply #16 –
thanks for the link (using a phone as modem!)  ill try and post samples for people to also give their own opinion on the audio if i can get hold of a proper connection-i wasnt trying to say my own opinion was the only one though (just bad wording on my part perhaps!), and I understand that it can add alot of confusion into the mix if im thinking one is better than the other, when everyone else cant also give their opinion on the same file  who knows, my hearing could be going, i just dont know it yet  i was just trying to put forward what i said earlier-if it was possible for the average human ear to hear the difference in highest quality variable to 320 kbps constant mp3, if the variable version of the same song had a wider frequency range (if variable usually gives a higher range)? perhaps thats why i thought the variable mp3 for the same song sounded better/clearer, despite a smaller file size and (after checking out MP3InfP) smaller average bitrate?

EAC compression options with mp3 quality comparison

Reply #17 –
It's very likely that your opinion is placebo-based.

Please read this link before commenting on this forum about sound quality:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=16295

EAC compression options with mp3 quality comparison

Reply #18 –
haha, yes i guess i would definately need someone to help me out in a real test, i shouldnt really know which mp3 is which beforehand, and then try and work out what i believe is clearer. perhaps try an entire album, if i get them all wrong then its time for an ear checkup at the docs  im all set up for the weekends entertainment....    !! lol

thanks

EAC compression options with mp3 quality comparison

Reply #19 –
Blind tests on lossy files can be done without much hassle.  I have summarized my steps below (I might have forgotten something, which I'm sure the other forum members will check me on).

1.  Download Foobar2000, make sure it has the ABX module.  (does it even come without this, anymore?)
2.  Prepare your lossless and lossy (i.e. FLAC and MP3) files to be compared against each other.
3.  Point the foobar comparison module at the two files.
4.  Perform the test, using the module.

When performing the test, do these things:
1.  Set a number of trials beforehand - 10 to 16 would be best. Stick with this fixed number of trials.
2.  Make sure you use the Foobar option to hide your test results until you have finished the test.

Please post if any of these need clarification.
 

EAC compression options with mp3 quality comparison

Reply #20 –
Quote from: extent on
I am wondering why with all VBR is it impossible to go higher than 320?

Each frame of data in an mp3 file contains a few bits that specify the bitrate for that particular frame. In a vbr file each frame specifies that bitrate independent of the bitrate for other frames or the file as a whole.

There are only a limited number of bitrates that can be specified in these bits, from 32 kbps to 320 kbps. There is also one additional code that can be specified, and that is for "any other bitrate". The problem is that it says that it is not one of the standard bitrates but it can't specify what.

The solution is for the decoder to look at the file as a whole and, assuming that it is cbr, determine the actual bitrate. As you can see, this only works if the file is cbr.

Having said all of that, there are very few programs, and as far as I know no portable players, that will play these files. It is also generally true that there is little or no perceptible improvement in sound quality over a 320 kbps cbr file.