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: Free Audio Converter: High Quality Joint Stereo vs Lame Insane Quality (Read 13628 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Free Audio Converter: High Quality Joint Stereo vs Lame Insane Quality

Hi, first post here. So, I always use Free Audio Converter to convert files to MP3. I always have it set to "High Quality Joint Stereo", which says "320Kbit/s, 48kHz, Stereo". I'm wondering if I should instead have it set to "Lame Insane Quality", which says "320Kbit/s, 48kHz, Stereo". My question is: Which one is actually true stereo and which one is joint stereo? I would also appreciate if anyone would correct any grammar mistakes that I may have made. Thanks.

Re: Free Audio Converter: High Quality Joint Stereo vs Lame Insane Quality

Reply #1 –
For content that is intended to be heard from both channels at the same time, joint-stereo is preferred over not allowing the use of both L+R and M+S frames.

People who choose to limit the Lame encoder to only L+R frames typically do this based on the names of the modes with zero understanding about what they are and how they are used.  Hopefully you don't fall into this category.

If you're interested in advice about how to configure Lame without any regard to file size vs. audible quality, use -V0.  No other switches related to actual encoding are necessary and likely only serve to be detrimental in the event that they result in an audible difference.

Since you are new and are interested in sound quality, this community has an expectation that you know something about this:
https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,16295.0.html

The link is also available from our Terms (#8).  The community also has an expectation that they be read and followed.

Re: Free Audio Converter: High Quality Joint Stereo vs Lame Insane Quality

Reply #2 –
Also, please read http://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Joint_stereo ... particularly the "Additional information" section.

Basically, joint stereo got a bad reputation due to poor implementation in early MP3 encoders, so it's not hard to find outdated advice to avoid it. Modern encoders smartly switch between frame types based on which one will provide best quality (or best size if quality is not an issue).

If you don't believe me, use ABX testing to confirm that it works well at your desired MP3 VBR quality level or CBR bitrate. You can also use ABX testing to figure out what level or bitrate you really need (it's likely going to be way lower than you expect, way lower than 320 kbps). ABX testing is easy to do in the foobar2000 audio player for Windows; just select two items in the playlist, Shift+RightClick > Utilities > ABX tracks.

If you are converting from material sourced from CD then you will want 44.1, not 48 kHz.

Re: Free Audio Converter: High Quality Joint Stereo vs Lame Insane Quality

Reply #3 –
Quote from: greynol on
If you're interested in advice about how to configure Lame without any regard to file size vs. audible quality, use -V0.  No other switches related to actual encoding are necessary and likely only serve to be detrimental in the event that they result in an audible difference.

It is equally hilarious and saddening to read the command line options recommended on various forums, for LAME and other encoders. People will nitpick and tweak every single little parameter, in the belief that they can tweak the encoder through random experimentation, to be better than the developers' defaults. Especially when they insist on combining the options in mutually exclusive ways such as "-b 320 -B 320 --preset 320 -V 0", which is just mindboggling.

Re: Free Audio Converter: High Quality Joint Stereo vs Lame Insane Quality

Reply #4 –
Quote from: KozmoNaut on
[...] Especially when they insist on combining the options in mutually exclusive ways such as "-b 320 -B 320 --preset 320 -V 0", which is just mindboggling.

That is not mindblowing, although it probably doesn't deserve a recommendation per se. (although i hadn't seen it written with the "--preset 320 " part. Also, I no longer remember if the order of the parameters had an influence.).

Concretely, the intention of that line is to create a CBR 320kbps file, but using the VBR engine instead of the CBR engine.
It was found that they produce different results, and in specific cases it was found that the VBR one was better.
I no longer remember when was that... if around 3.99.2 or what.

Re: Free Audio Converter: High Quality Joint Stereo vs Lame Insane Quality

Reply #5 –
I remember discussing -b320 -V0, but I don't recall either --preset 320 or -B 320 being any part of it (I don't recall any concern over the order of parameters, either.)  I'm not sure whether -B 320 would have any affect on VBR mode.  Can --strictly-enforce-ISO make a difference when used in VBR mode?

--preset 320 with -V 0 is a new one for me.  Will this show up in a search on the forum?

Re: Free Audio Converter: High Quality Joint Stereo vs Lame Insane Quality

Reply #6 –
I don't remember where I saw it originally, but it wasn't on this forum. Probably on Head-Fi or Computer Audiophile. It was a thread full of crazy LAME command lines.

Thanks for the info on -b320 -V0, I didn't know that.

Re: Free Audio Converter: High Quality Joint Stereo vs Lame Insane Quality

Reply #7 –
Thanks for the replies. I always convert from FLAC to MP3 in Free Audio Converter, since I like to have both FLAC and MP3 albums whenever possible, so I can listen to the FLAC albums on my computer and put the MP3 files in my cell phone. My question was actually which one of these options is actually joint stereo, but thanks for all the info. My current method sounds great though. What I should really try is which one sounds better. Thanks.

Re: Free Audio Converter: High Quality Joint Stereo vs Lame Insane Quality

Reply #8 –
Not knowing exactly what commands are sent to the encoder gives me pause.  The software you're using, insofar as you have described it, doesn't inspire much confidence.

Re: Free Audio Converter: High Quality Joint Stereo vs Lame Insane Quality

Reply #9 –
Quote from: greynol on
Not knowing exactly what commands are sent to the encoder gives me pause.  The software you're using, insofar as you have described it, doesn't inspire much confidence.
Yes, exactly. I'm going to use foobar from now on.

I tested the same song in both conversion commands and they both appear to be exactly the same. According to TagScanner, they're both just "stereo". Both files are exactly the same size and I couldn't recognise any audible difference. I haven't had any particular problem with Free Audio Converter, but foobar is much faster, and I'm guessing more trustworthy.

Re: Free Audio Converter: High Quality Joint Stereo vs Lame Insane Quality

Reply #10 –
I use lame.exe with a script, but fb2k will do the job just fine.  What does foobar2000 say about the encoding mode?

I've used TagScanner over the course of a few years or so and don't really remember it doing anything particularly bone-headed, but I wouldn't go to a tag editor to give me technical information about an mp3 file.  Maybe your reliance on this program was the problem all along(?).