Bitrates for MP3's?

Soldato
Joined
17 Aug 2003
Posts
20,158
Location
Woburn Sand Dunes
:) if you go EAC >> EAC options >> Tools you'll see an option to start the external compressor in the background. check that and it'll start encoding the tracks in the background as it reads them from the cd instead of read,encode,read ect. It'll speed the process up somewhat:)
 
Permabanned
Joined
26 Aug 2005
Posts
666
james.miller said:
what does that have to do with anything:confused:

best ripper + best encoder = EAC + LAME. sod codec support or fancy menus when playing your music, there is nothing better than EAC and lame. Unless you like using lossless which EAC does support.

EAC - best ripper.period.

Utter rubbish, both Ogg & Musepack are far better codecs then dog old LAME!

But hey if you want your compressed audio twice as big as it needs to be then by all means carry on using LAME... :rolleyes:
 
Soldato
Joined
6 Feb 2004
Posts
20,598
Location
England
Fred_Or_Dead said:
Utter rubbish, both Ogg & Musepack are far better codecs then dog old LAME!

But hey if you want your compressed audio twice as big as it needs to be then by all means carry on using LAME... :rolleyes:

regardless of codecs used you cannot dispute eac is the best ripper. and for those of us with portable mp3 players, codecs such as ogg/mpc are simply not an option. :)
 
Permabanned
Joined
26 Aug 2005
Posts
666
james.miller said:
192-224 vbr lame. nothing more is needed, and id advise you to keep to mp3 for compatibility reasons. its simply the most compatible codec around, and it that rate (224kbps) its just as good as anything else out there.

Stop posting incorrect information then!!

A 192kbs Ogg or Musepack is far better quality than a 192kbs VBR lame, ask any professional audio encoder, decent release group ...etc.

A very good in-depth comparison:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t36465.html
 
Associate
Joined
23 Jun 2005
Posts
387
Location
Scotland
I tend to use .oggs as my iRiver is natively able to play them. But if I do have to use MP3, it will be VBR. I cant remember all the details, as I just do it all from Fubar.
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Aug 2003
Posts
20,158
Location
Woburn Sand Dunes
Fred_Or_Dead said:
Stop posting incorrect information then!!

A 192kbs Ogg or Musepack is far better quality than a 192kbs VBR lame, ask any professional audio encoder, decent release group ...etc.

A very good in-depth comparison:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t36465.html

give over. your arguments are getting boring. If your opinions were so absolute, there would be threads backing up those opinions everywhere. The simple fact is, there isn't because it is entirely subjective. and for every big test you post here, i can show you a new revision of the decoders that means those tests are null and void.

from that article:

Now, we could compare the evolution during one year (between MP3, MPC and Vorbis only).

• Musepack Audio: From an evolution standpoint, MPC is the clear looser: it lost the quality crown, stolen by Vorbis. Last year MPC ends the test by getting an uncontestable first place; now the format is tied with Vorbis (which is better on average) and LAME (worse on average). On 18 samples MPC was ranked first 15 times in 2004; now it’s four times only! Musepack has also lost the efficiency trophy: with classical at least the bitrate is now superior to LAME and Vorbis. I remind that last year, MPC ends at first place with 10 kbps less than MEGAMIX and even 20 kbps less than LAME 3.97 alpha 3.
As a consequence of increased bitrate and stagnant quality, I would say that MPC is loosing its former attractiveness (for classical music). It’s not really surprising considering the low evolution of the format in a world of constant progress. Other format have simply catch up their lost time.

........

• LAME 3.97: LAME vitality defies the common sense. The format is supposed to have reached maturity for years and therefore to stagnate. The tested preset is not only better but is also faster (thanks to –vbr-new) and more efficient (-11 kbps!). The progresses are important. To precisely check them I reencoded all reference files with alpha 3 –V2 and compared them to alpha 11 –V2 –vbr-new. Indeed obvious problems are solved: the audible ringing in orchestra (sample_18) has totally disappeard, the weird distortion on organ (sample_05) is truly lowered… 2005 seems to be an exceptional vintage for LAME, comparable I would say to the release of LAME 3.90 in December 2001.

Doesnt quite hang MPC in the same light you hold it.
 
Last edited:
Caporegime
Joined
25 Jul 2005
Posts
28,851
Location
Canada
I know he's asking about mp3's but as everyone is talking about different compression files i would be interested to know how mp4's fit in there quality wise against all the oher formats?
 
Caporegime
Joined
12 Mar 2004
Posts
29,913
Location
England
marc2003 said:
regardless of codecs used you cannot dispute eac is the best ripper. and for those of us with portable mp3 players, codecs such as ogg/mpc are simply not an option. :)


Quite a few mp3 players also play wma and ogg files nowadays, as do pdas.
 
Soldato
Joined
5 Jul 2003
Posts
16,206
Location
Atlanta, USA
what ive heard. But strait MP3 ripping is still as good as most programs out there. You just cant fine tune the setting as much as some rippers.
But since i wasnt arguing about it being a good ripper, i was merely putting the suggestion of a different ripper forward, the arguement is pretty much void isnt it?

An opinon based in fact and shared by many others, BoomAM. look it up.
No, an opinion based upon opinion. Its a subjective thing, no matter how many people agree with you. Its still subjective.
100 people could agree with you, and 10 could disagree with you. Does that make you right? No, not at all. It simply means that that '10' feels that their solution is better.
Sound is one of the most subjective things around. If not the most subjective thing around.
It'll be interesting to see your reply to the above seeing your other arguement sees you commenting on subjectiveness! :p
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
17 Aug 2003
Posts
20,158
Location
Woburn Sand Dunes
see BoomAM that's the problem. EAC is NOT the encoder - it is only a ripper. It can encode to any format you like that has an encoder with a command line interface. EAC is just the ripper! it has nothing to do with the end result because all it does is rip to wave files. its the encoders job to encode those files.

http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/

EAC has proven to be the most accurate ripper around time and time again. That isnt subjective - it wouldnt be winning the awards if it it wasn't. It is by far the best with scratched or damaged discs, and they explain why on the EAC website:)
 
Soldato
Joined
22 Aug 2005
Posts
8,840
Location
Clydebank
You should rip to FLAC or Apple Lossles from your CD. Then from that .flac file you can easily create mp3s, vorbis, etc are whatever bit rate you feel like. (decent for car mp3 cds, slightly smaller for personal mp3 players, ultra HQ for giving copies to friends (if they don't want the flac))

This way you only need to rip each CD once. What if you rip all you music at 192 and then get better speakers and decide that you should have ripped at 256?
 
Soldato
Joined
5 Apr 2004
Posts
5,445
Location
Bloxham
Energize said:
Most of my songs are 128kbps cbr and sound great on hifi, I guess it just depends on the quality of your setup.
You need to clean your ears out then mate, seriously. I can tell a clear difference between 128 and 192 or above. I play my MP3s through a fairly decent hi-fi setup and 128kbps just won't do.

For optimum quality I'd suggest using VBR with a minimum of 192kbps and a max of 320kbps. The MP3s it knocks out will be bigger than average, but your ears will thank you for it.
 
Soldato
Joined
5 Jul 2003
Posts
16,206
Location
Atlanta, USA
I wish people on here would finally realise, rarther than say that they do, that bit-rates/quality/systems are subjective. Entirely. 128 might be perfect for him, and he genuinely might not be able to hear a difference. Where as others can. No-one is the same. Everyone hears things differently.
 
Back
Top Bottom