1. Join Now

    AVForums.com uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Best quality MP3

Discussion in 'Headphones, Earphones & Portable Music' started by Lex, Dec 28, 2004.

  1. Lex

    Lex
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    4,089
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    61
    Location:
    Cornwall
    Ratings:
    +4
    I am a bit of an MP3 newbie so any advice appreciated... :blush: :)

    Are there good and bad ways of creating MP3s? I am using Audiograbber set to "direct rip and encode to MP3 file"

    I just don't want to spend all week ripping my cd collection only to find that I need to do it all again in better quality...

    thanks.
     
  2. Mep

    Mep
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2004
    Messages:
    9,532
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Ratings:
    +468
    I use sonic rcord now version 7 which allows you to select between 96 and 320 kbps when ripping your cd's so you can chose the quality you want...I find 128 perfectly acceptable.
     
  3. woodmeister

    woodmeister
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Not sure there are any 'good or bad ways' to create MP3s. I guess the consideration is what quality do you want and how much space do you have to store them?

    If you have the space go for as good a bit rate as posssible... :smashin:
     
  4. Dfour

    Dfour
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2004
    Messages:
    3,998
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Location:
    Bracknell
    Ratings:
    +85
    I prefer to use 192 or 256 or varaible rate for my ripping.
     
  5. Lex

    Lex
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    4,089
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    61
    Location:
    Cornwall
    Ratings:
    +4
    I am curretnly set at 128k/bit - I will try it at a higher rate and see what the difference is like... thanks for the replies, I didn't even realise there were different rates! :blush: :rolleyes: :suicide:
     
  6. extremelydodgy

    extremelydodgy
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,219
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +61
    192K is a good balance betwen space and quality. If you have an iPod (s you posted elsewhere), just use iTunes... set it to MP3/192K. While AAC is better I don't want to be limited to iPod,
     
  7. probedb

    probedb
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2003
    Messages:
    2,653
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Location:
    Sheffield
    Ratings:
    +181
    exact audio copy for ripping the cds tied to LAME for encoding, I use high quality VBR and it's brill :)
     
  8. fraggle

    fraggle
    Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2002
    Messages:
    1,441
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Location:
    Milton Keynes
    Ratings:
    +29
    I just got an ipod and am re-encoding 2500 tracks from high quality OGG to 256k VBR MP3 using lame. lame is the only thing that lets you choose the overall quality level (and VBR quality level) I've seen, it rocks :)
     
  9. Gliese 581c

    Gliese 581c
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    7,806
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    On AVForums
    Ratings:
    +519
    i use audiograbber using the lame encoder set to high quality 192k - very nice indeed. -- If your going to use AAC then dont, i repeat dont use anything less than 160k, its awful.
     
  10. doctorjuggles

    doctorjuggles
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2004
    Messages:
    743
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    21
    Location:
    London
    Ratings:
    +17
    The general consensus is that the best way to rip MP3s is using EAC (Exact Audio Copy) in conjunction with LAME 3.90.3, encoding at 192-320VBR in the --alt preset standard or --alt preset extreme mode (extreme takes far longer, so --alt preset standard is more common)

    There are several online guides to setting up EAC and LAME.
     
  11. probedb

    probedb
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2003
    Messages:
    2,653
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Location:
    Sheffield
    Ratings:
    +181
    you are re-ripping from cd again right ?
     
  12. Gliese 581c

    Gliese 581c
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    7,806
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    On AVForums
    Ratings:
    +519
    Lex, when your ripping from auidograbber and encoding to mp3, the settings I use to get good results are..

    1.Direct Rip and encode to mp3
    2.Lame encoder v3.96
    3.Constant rate 192k
    4.Joint Stereo
    5.High Quality
    6.Bitstream flags (only copyrighted and original ticked)
    7.I use a buffered burst rip method and let audiograbber use 300mb of my ram

    Click grab and your away. Job done, and as close to cd as you'll get. Some people prefer variable rate instead of constant and maybe a higher bitrate, but remember, the higher the bitrate you set it to the bigger the mp3 gets in size.
     
  13. Lex

    Lex
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    4,089
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    61
    Location:
    Cornwall
    Ratings:
    +4
    Thanks for the replies guys... I will have a play around :smashin:
     
  14. Lex

    Lex
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    4,089
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    61
    Location:
    Cornwall
    Ratings:
    +4
    Hmmn - I am confused and frustrated now! :suicide:

    I have tried every different settings on both audiograbber & itunes, I tried it exactly as you said aRCaM - I even tried it at 320k/bits but could not really detect any great improvement... I used the track "Good Luck" by Basement Jaxx which sounds particularly bad, and even encoded at 320kb (file size of 11mb) it was distorted and horrible at full volume on my iPod (I don't have any speakers attached to my PC at the mo so my iPod is my only reference)...

    Maybe I am expecting too much from MP3? I was under the impression that it was 'near' cd quality? I am a little disappointed if this is as good as it gets.

    The only other issue of course is the headphones, but the Basement Jaxx track sounds fine through them via my cd player.

    I was hoping to connect my Ipod to my amp (don't have a lead yet) but I can only imagine that the quality would then seem even worse...

    :( :confused: :lease:
     
  15. Gliese 581c

    Gliese 581c
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    7,806
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    On AVForums
    Ratings:
    +519
    there's no way you should have distortion/sounding awful .... is there anyway you can attach a small sample of the mp3 you encoded and I will do the same so that you can compare ?
     
  16. Gliese 581c

    Gliese 581c
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    7,806
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    On AVForums
    Ratings:
    +519
    I have added a track to my homepage, you can listen to it by clicking here

    Its 6.2mb in size...Let me know what you think.

    p.s. For all you legal people out there, I know copyright can come into this, but this is for test purposes to distinguish track quality and nothing else, and will be removed once testing is done.

    :smashin:
     
  17. Lex

    Lex
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    4,089
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    61
    Location:
    Cornwall
    Ratings:
    +4
    Nice one aRCam :smashin: Downloading now... (56k modem!!) :(
     
  18. Lex

    Lex
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    4,089
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    61
    Location:
    Cornwall
    Ratings:
    +4
    Thanks for taking the time to do that aRCam, much appreciated... the track sounds fine on my iPod...

    I think what I am starting to notice is that it is only certain types of song which are problematic... for instance rock songs sound fine (eg the new U2 album sounds really sharp) but other types of music just don't sound good however I encode them - the Basement Jaxx album is very heavy on bass and I guess that is the root of the problem. :confused:

    I could upload the Jaxx track 4 u to listen to but I don't know how as I don't have a website.
     
  19. Gliese 581c

    Gliese 581c
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    7,806
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    On AVForums
    Ratings:
    +519
    thats weird lex, I'm not sure how to rip the file without encoding using audiograbber so im useless there, i think the source needs to be CD so im stuck on that one or I could have tried to encode the file myself on my system and sent it to you to compare :(

    have you dropped down the menu and tried another encoder ? although I think LAME should be fine.

    What to try is itunes (i know, i know) but try encoding it to AAC but please use 160k+ and see how that encodes......let me know how you get on. once encoded your music will be stored on your drive here....My Documents\My Music\iTunes\iTunes Music

    If you want to send me the track youve already done, then you could email it to me, I'll PM you my email address....

    p.s. The track that was being used for test purposes is now deleted from my site.
     
  20. Rob.Screene

    Rob.Screene
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2001
    Messages:
    1,124
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Location:
    Berks, England
    Ratings:
    +45
    Didn't hear your track and haven't use audiograbber for a while, but you could try setting audiograbber to rip before encoding, in case the encoding if effecting the ripping accuracy.

    I certainly used LAME and Audiograbber for hundreds of 225Mbps CBR tracks before VBR encoding became as good.

    I now use exact-audio-copy (EAC) and flac (lossless) for home, but still use LAME --alt -preset 96 to get 96Kbps VBR (dynamically up to 320Kbps peaks) which usually sound great on the move.

    Actually, I still use Audiograbber to ape (lossless) for copy protected CD's which eac doesn't handle.

    I'm sure LAME --alt -preset standard is indistinguishable to 320Kbps to most (including myself, on some pretty nice kit) and works out to about 220Kbps on most tracks.

    cheers,
    Rob.
     
  21. OldSkoO1

    OldSkoO1
    Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2004
    Messages:
    565
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +30
    Definatly recomend EAC and lame combination. Always 192 and higher. I prefer 256kbits... there seems to be no difference between that and 320 at least to my ears. You start to loose the quality through the midtones and upper frequencies when you fall below 192kbps. And everything below 128 is too compressed to listed to.

    Listen to the symbols and high hats, it can sound wishy washy at lower bitrates and with poor quality codecs. 256 sounds crisp. Then again good quality headphones will make a difference and theres space to consider if you havent got a hdd player.
     
  22. bribixs

    bribixs
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    What is the sense of encoding beyod 160 kbps? Hopefully someone can explain this to me. I am pretty weak in my understanding in this area, but I thought that when a CD is masted that the information on the CD is "encoded" at something approximating 160 kbps. Excuse the lack of technical jargon here. If the information is not captured on the CD above 160 kbps, then why go beyond that range? After ripping, why sample the wave file created at a higher rate than 160?
     
  23. mp3hardplay

    mp3hardplay
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    hi to the boards :hiya:


    as long as you stay away from any Xing engine that's ok !

    if you want to go on the safe side of the road then use the advice of the many people that have already put you on the right way...ad thus the latest LAME encoder with any program that supports it.

    I use CDex , it's freeware.
     
  24. Cloysterpeteuk

    Cloysterpeteuk
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2005
    Messages:
    4,262
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Whitby, North Yorkshire
    Ratings:
    +837
    Can someone plase tell me the diff between CBR and VBR, I use 192k CBR MP3 files, should I switch to VBR?.
     
  25. GETanner

    GETanner
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2002
    Messages:
    572
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    31
    Ratings:
    +76
    Easy layman CBR vs VBR. No technical details required

    Imagine a pint of beer.

    With CBR, regardless of whether or not you have a whole pint of beer served in the glass, you will pay for a pint.

    With VBR, you pay for the amount you get.

    VBR is more ecomonical in terms of overall size of mp3 file.

    Turning to music, If a portion of music requires no more than 125 kbs, using a VBR encode, you will only use/need 125 kbs of file space whereas with CBR set at 256 kbs, you will still need file space of 256 kbs to encode a 125kbs sound, wasting 131 kbs in file size for sound that just does not exist.

    Thus VBR, for the same bit rate will use less overall space than a CBR of the same rate becuase VBR will not encode dead noise (it just does not exist) while CBR will still require file space to say this does not exist.

    Guy
     
  26. GETanner

    GETanner
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2002
    Messages:
    572
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    31
    Ratings:
    +76
  27. Rob.Screene

    Rob.Screene
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2001
    Messages:
    1,124
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Location:
    Berks, England
    Ratings:
    +45
    If my maths doesn't fail me, 16-bits per sample = 2 bytes, x2 channels x44,100 times a second = 176.4Kbytes/sec = 1411.2 kbps.

    So, 160 kbps is about 1/8th of the original rate.
    225 kbps is still under 1/5th of the original rate.

    regards,
    Rob.
     
  28. Cloysterpeteuk

    Cloysterpeteuk
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2005
    Messages:
    4,262
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Whitby, North Yorkshire
    Ratings:
    +837
    So really the quality should be the same between the two, just a way of reducing the file size?.
     
  29. mp3hardplay

    mp3hardplay
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0

    no, not necessarily ! the sound can be better, similar or worst because it depends on how you set the bitrate of the VBR mode.

    but you are right when you say that it's another file reduzing method.

    btw there is another type of mp3 compression called "ABR" (Average Bitrate VBR), this is the compression method i use for my back-ups.

    "ABR" is an evolution of "VBR", and stands between cbr and vbr.

    "ABR" has two important parameters, minimum bitrate and maximun bitrate.

    for example in the encoder settings i choose the minimum bitrate at 128 kbs and then i set the top shelve to 224 kbs, the result will be file having it's Average bitrate around 160/192 kbs. This setting will prevent encoding under 128 and over 224 kbs.

    This sort of compression is good if you don't want unpredicted wild VBR compression, have a decent file size and get the most out of the quality.

    ABR is supported by 99% of portable mp3 players on the market.


    hope that helps you Cloysterpeteuk :hiya:
     

Share This Page

Loading...