LAME @ 320 Vs. Other mp3 Encoders @ 320
Reply #10 – 2004-06-15 23:56:33
Better either go down to -V0/preset extreme...... or go lossless. 320kbit is bloat for listening but not enough to make the audio technically the same as the original. This isn't really directed at a specific person, since I've heard this explanation way too many times lurking around here. Yes, for most tracks there is no perceivable difference between -APE and -API, does this mean you shouldn't use the insane preset? No. I don't understand what is wrong with being sure to a higher degree of certainty that your tracks will be transparent, even if only rare problem cases. I believe 'you mind as well just go lossless' line of thinking is flawed. Short explanation: - "preset medium" is the preset at which normal music sounds transparent for joe-average - "preset standard" is the preset at which normal music sounds transparent for people with golden ears - "preset extreme" is for people with golden ears who want to have "more than enough" (the extra headroom) So, by using "extreme" you ARE already using the extra headroom. If you don't even trust this preset, then you basically don't trust lossy codecs in general. In that case, lossless-codecs are a better choice. Basically, its like this - lossy codecs for listening, lossless codecs for archiving and people who don't trust lossy codecs. "Perceived transparency" is already archived at "preset standard". However, because of the working of the mp3-format, no mp3 can make a file "technically the same as the original". So, 320kbit is overkill for listening and "not enough" for making the audio "technically the same as the original". So, its a disadvantageous choice for listening AND archiving. Another point may be interesting. When you read threads in which listening tests happen, then you see samples where preset standard or (more rare) extreme have a problem. However, whats not so obvious is the conditions under which such tests happen: - in those tests "killer samples" are used. This means that from hundreds of songs a few short samples are collected where a difference can be noticed. - even with those "killer samples" the people who attend such tests often need a "training-phase" to notice the difference reliably. So, they listen to the original and the mp3 version of the sample multiple times "to get a feel of them" <--- Compare these methods to normal music listening.Let's say I average 900 kbps encoding my collection in flac and 320 kbps in API vs. 200 kbps for -APS. from my experience with FLAC, it doesn't average at around 900kbit...... but instead more at around 700-800kbit. True, lossless files are bigger - but i guess someone who has room for 320kbit mp3 has a big HD ?For the record...I use my computer as my home stereo and all my ripped cd's are AAC transcoding preset. (~310-330 kbps). Can I hear a difference between this and standard... I doubt it. But was the extra space worth piece of mind? I think so. As i mentioned already - it seems that you mistrust lossy-codecs in general, but think that by going maximum bitrate the disadvatages of lossy codecs magically become nonexistent. If you want placebo-magic, then lossy codecs are the wrong choice - because they are meant for "how the music sounds", not "how the music/bitrate looks like".As a bonus...should I ever need to transcode these tracks to a much smaller file for portables, I can do so with an acceptable loss of quality. At -APS this wouldn't go over nearly as well. Well, exactly for transcoding and archiving purposes lossless-formats exist. As i said, lossy is meant for listening, not for transcoding. Lossless instead is meant for just that: having the audio technically as a perfect copy compared to the original. Anyways, it seems that most of your reasoning comes from placebo-magic. The reason why you do the things the way you do them is not "because you can hear it", but instead "because it just feels better". In that case, every discussion about mp3 has no foundation, and lossless is instead the only logical step. Lossy is about what one can actually hear - your reasons are not about what you can actually hear -> lossless - Lyx