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: encode at 256kbps: best setting or just a waste of time and (Read 5200 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

encode at 256kbps: best setting or just a waste of time and

Its my first time to use LAME and I encoded at 256kbps using mp3 format.  When I finished one song, which took around 15 mins, I compared it with another mp3 of the same song but encoded at 192kbps (using another encoder, just forgot the name).  I couldn't tell the difference between the two.  Please comment on this

encode at 256kbps: best setting or just a waste of time and

Reply #1 –
2 solutions:

1: your hardware is not good enough to allow you to hear any difference

2: your ear is not good enough/trained enough to allow you to hear any difference

encode at 256kbps: best setting or just a waste of time and

Reply #2 –
Doesn't this also depend on the sample he/she tried to encode? Not everything needs to be encoded at 200+ kbps to sound transparent...

encode at 256kbps: best setting or just a waste of time and

Reply #3 –
I have a trained-enough ear to know quality audio but I guess my hardware is not good enough.  I'm using Pentium 3 667mhz with 640 SDRAM running WinME, Yamaha soundcard (DS-XG?), and Altec Lansing ATP3 speakers.  Any upgrade suggestions?  And oh btw, I used --r3mix coz its only now that I knew of --alt-preset extreme

encode at 256kbps: best setting or just a waste of time and

Reply #4 –
Quote
Originally posted by ketam|ne
I have a trained-enough ear to know quality audio but I guess my hardware is not good enough.


Actually, myself and others have found that often times, equipment plays an extremely small role in hearing artifacts.  It's more a matter of training or perhaps some natural ability than anything else.

Keep in mind that being able to discern subtle differences in high end audio systems or something similar to that, is quite different than being able to hear the common artifacts that psychoacoustic audio encoders produce.  Stuff like pre-echo, ringing/dropouts, flanging, noise pumping, etc, are not what you would usually hear in the difference between normally "good" or "bad" audio (whatever that may mean), but they are norm with this type of audio compression.

I suggest you check out the following link if you'd like more information:

http://ff123.net/training/training.html

encode at 256kbps: best setting or just a waste of time and

Reply #5 –
Speaking of own experience, it is much easier to hear artifacts with a decent set of speakers/stereo connected to a decent soundcard. Well, at least the speakers play a big role. I mean, how can you hear MP3 artifacts if you listen to your MP3s on a computer through some crappy speakers?

On one of my computers (with the crappiest audio equipment), I can hardly tell one MP3 that's been reencoded from all the others, while it is very apparent if I listen to it on my other computer (with a stereo hooked up to a very good soundcard).

encode at 256kbps: best setting or just a waste of time and

Reply #6 –
I do have a trained pair of ears to distinguish quality audio from plain music.  I used to be  a car audio buff and I used to compete at Sound-offs (in the quality category, not the SPL part).  And its so ironic that what we triedour darnest to achieve then was easily achieved by a software... DFX.  All those cash spent on speakers, amps, etc...

encode at 256kbps: best setting or just a waste of time and

Reply #7 –
DFX does not really "improve" playback. It may cache some linear flaws of the equipment like frequency response, but there is no chance for DFX to reduce distortions even of 2nd order. Not to speak of alias frequencies generated by your soundcard, frequency modulation introduced by rapid movement of too small diaphragms and so on.
The best way to listen carefully to mp3s is a DVD player with a good mp3 decoder, like Toshiba or Pioneer, connected to a good (home!!) stereo equipment.

P.S. there is a free WinAmp plugin called enhancer which does the same job as DFX, only somehow better. But this also cannot compensate crappy D/A converters and resonating plastic boxed speakers

encode at 256kbps: best setting or just a waste of time and

Reply #8 –
Actually, I already have enhancer.  But what I did was use another WinAmp plugin called MuchFX which enables me to use more than one DSP plugin.  So, right now, I have DFX and Enhancer enabled at the same time.  I configured DFX  to process the ambience and 3D fx to give my mp3's a somewhat live or concert hall effect while Enhancer was tuned to handle the lower frequencies for depth and some *boom* effect.


P.S.  The reason it is only now now that I've posted again is because of my ISP (or cable modem).  I had to  live 3 days w/o the net and frankly speaking frankly, no one would ever want to experience what I've gone through.

*frags withdrawals, download w/drawals, porn withdrawals, etc

encode at 256kbps: best setting or just a waste of time and

Reply #9 –
ketam|ne,

many years ago (late70s I think) there was a device called "boom box" by dbx. It was only analog circuitry, without digital signal processing.

Its purpose was to generate sub-harmonics of the low frequency range (below 100 Hz), becaus many recordings miss this range, even modern ones.

It is quite embarassing with classical music, where the big drum often sounds like a washing-powder-drum.

Unfortunately up to now I could not find some piece of software which makes this.

encode at 256kbps: best setting or just a waste of time and

Reply #10 –
Quote
Originally posted by ketam|ne
porn withdrawals


..from the local sperm bank?

(Sorry. It was simply too tacky to pass up on)

encode at 256kbps: best setting or just a waste of time and

Reply #11 –
Quote
Originally posted by ketam|ne
I configured DFX  to process the ambience and 3D fx to give my mp3's a somewhat live or concert hall effect while Enhancer was tuned to handle the lower frequencies for depth and some *boom* effect.


Not sure if you are aware of this, but post processing of MP3's quite often has the nasty side effect of making artifacts much more audible than before, and in some cases causing artifacts that were completely inaudible before the processing to become audible afterwards.  The main reason for this is because the MP3 encoder calculates all of the masking, etc, from original file "as is", it assumes that this is the context in which the file will be played back (which is a natural and valid assumption).  If you change this context by processing the file after the fact, than the information calculated beforehand becomes invalid, which obviously can lead to distortions.

This isn't nearly as much of a problem with EQ plugins such as Naoki's SuperEQ, but with "enhancers" or various dsp plugins this is not the case and if you are concerned about artifacting it'd probably be best to stay away from them.