MP3 encoding options

Mark · 03-08-2009, 18:18

Not sure if this should be in C&C or here, but meh.

I'm currently re-encoding my CD collection (for the umpteenth time) using ABR-256kbit encoding. At home I drive the audio through decent hardware - Denon and KEF in the office, Denon and Mission in the living room. On the move, I use CX 500 headphones. I'm happy with the quality.

However, this format seems to eat MP3 player batteries for breakfast. Newer players seem better than old ones, but still. So, my options are:

Carry on and live with it.
Re-encode (again) at CBR-320. 30% disk space hit, which isn't too bad. But would I notice the quality change, or any difference in battery life?
Use MediaMonkey to downsample to CBR-160 when copying files to MP3 players. I get high quality at home and decent quality on the move (when quality isn't so important anyway) with better battery life. If I do this, is the choice of source encoding (ABR-256 or CBR-320) likely to affect the quality of the downsampled files in any noticeable way?
Encode as FLAC and downsample. I'm no audiophile and I don't think I'll be able to tell the difference. I will however be able to spot the 300% disk space I've lost.

I don't know enough to answer this. Can anyone help?

PS - I do volume levelling and all that jazz. Audiophiles will cry foul but it saves me reaching for the volume control at every turn when I've got the player on shuffle.

Dr. Z · 03-08-2009, 21:11

8/10 people cannot tell the difference between 128k CBR MP3 and CD and 99% of people cannot score better than chance between 192k CBR and CD.

And thats in both a proper listening room and/or at home with their very expensive hifi setups

I'll let that snippet of info allow you to decrypt my feelings on the matter

Kreeeee · 03-08-2009, 22:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Z

8/10 people cannot tell the difference between 128k CBR MP3 and CD and 99% of people cannot score better than chance between 192k CBR and CD.

And thats in both a proper listening room and/or at home with their very expensive hifi setups

I'll let that snippet of info allow you to decrypt my feelings on the matter

8/10 people are deaf then.

Jonny69 · 04-08-2009, 08:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Z

8/10 people cannot tell the difference between 128k CBR MP3 and CD and 99% of people cannot score better than chance between 192k CBR and CD.

That can't be true surely? 128K sounds awful.

Dr. Z · 04-08-2009, 21:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonny69

That can't be true surely? 128K sounds awful.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the 128k you refer to was a poorly encoded MP3 that you got from the net or ripped yourself quickly on your PC using whatever software, rather than a carefully ripped 128k MP3 ripped carefully and properly with expensive software?

Sadly I have lost them now but I did have some test ISOs that you could burn, listen back and then tell me what was what for me to 'score' you. I did it on OcUK and I think only one person passed (rob.something IIRC) and the rest of the "audiophiles" seemed to fail miserably.

The same test was conducted in the multi-million-pound ISO standard listening room at uni, with top drawer kit in double blind conditions and again, people faired badly.

The science behind MP3 is extremely sound, and it does work. AAC is better at getting smaller file sizes for the same data, as is WMA, but the essence is all the same.

divine · 05-08-2009, 00:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Z

Sadly I have lost them now but I did have some test ISOs that you could burn, listen back and then tell me what was what for me to 'score' you. I did it on OcUK and I think only one person passed (rob.something IIRC) and the rest of the "audiophiles" seemed to fail miserably.

If only there was as a method as easy for testing people on their ability to tell cables apart - sadly you can't just download cables

Dunketh · 03-08-2009, 21:18

Always used LAME with --alt-preset extreme here, sounds almost exactly like the CD, CD's sound slightly more alive when I use my Headphones and there is a lot going on in the music, but in all honesty it's barely noticeable.

I must be in that 1% - Anything under 256k just doesn't sound right to me, though a lot of it is dependant on what kit your listening to it on, on an iPod for example, I doubt I could tell.

Dr. Z · 03-08-2009, 21:39

I'm going to bet you're wrong and that its all in your head

Your brain simply cannot hear the missing frequencies even if they were there.

Dunketh · 03-08-2009, 22:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Z

I'm going to bet you're wrong and that its all in your head

Your brain simply cannot hear the missing frequencies even if they were there.

I wish there was some test you could do because I am pretty certain I could tell you the difference.

divine · 03-08-2009, 23:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dunketh

I wish there was some test you could do because I am pretty certain I could tell you the difference.

An ABX test would be the first place - foobar can do it IIRC.

Point it to a pair of 'identical' files but in a different file type and then it will play snippets of each and ask you to identify them.

It will then tell you if your results fall with the realms of guesswork/chance or actual ability to tell.

Description is a bit vague but thats the jist of it, been a while since I used it.

03-08-2009, 18:18	#1
Mark Screaming Orgasm Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Newbury Posts: 15,194	MP3 encoding options Not sure if this should be in C&C or here, but meh. I'm currently re-encoding my CD collection (for the umpteenth time) using ABR-256kbit encoding. At home I drive the audio through decent hardware - Denon and KEF in the office, Denon and Mission in the living room. On the move, I use CX 500 headphones. I'm happy with the quality. However, this format seems to eat MP3 player batteries for breakfast. Newer players seem better than old ones, but still. So, my options are: Carry on and live with it. Re-encode (again) at CBR-320. 30% disk space hit, which isn't too bad. But would I notice the quality change, or any difference in battery life? Use MediaMonkey to downsample to CBR-160 when copying files to MP3 players. I get high quality at home and decent quality on the move (when quality isn't so important anyway) with better battery life. If I do this, is the choice of source encoding (ABR-256 or CBR-320) likely to affect the quality of the downsampled files in any noticeable way? Encode as FLAC and downsample. I'm no audiophile and I don't think I'll be able to tell the difference. I will however be able to spot the 300% disk space I've lost. I don't know enough to answer this. Can anyone help? PS - I do volume levelling and all that jazz. Audiophiles will cry foul but it saves me reaching for the volume control at every turn when I've got the player on shuffle.

03-08-2009, 21:11	#2
Dr. Z I'm going for a scuttle... Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 2,021	8/10 people cannot tell the difference between 128k CBR MP3 and CD and 99% of people cannot score better than chance between 192k CBR and CD. And thats in both a proper listening room and/or at home with their very expensive hifi setups I'll let that snippet of info allow you to decrypt my feelings on the matter __________________

03-08-2009, 21:39	#8
Dr. Z I'm going for a scuttle... Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 2,021	I'm going to bet you're wrong and that its all in your head Your brain simply cannot hear the missing frequencies even if they were there. __________________

03-08-2009, 21:18	#7
Dunketh Long Island Iced Tea Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 178	Always used LAME with --alt-preset extreme here, sounds almost exactly like the CD, CD's sound slightly more alive when I use my Headphones and there is a lot going on in the music, but in all honesty it's barely noticeable. I must be in that 1% - Anything under 256k just doesn't sound right to me, though a lot of it is dependant on what kit your listening to it on, on an iPod for example, I doubt I could tell.