MP3 encoding options

[Kreeeee]

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.

[Mark]

Switching to FLAC isn't a huge issue for the home system as I've also got a server which I'm about to add 2TB additional storage too, but I do like to copy the library around (e.g. on to a laptop to take to work). FLAC isn't an option for that so I'd have to use the downsampling trick there too, which is a pain.

Whatever I do, it's going to be a compromise. Only one of my portable players supports FLAC so going all-FLAC isn't even close to being an option.

[divine]

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.

[Jonny69]

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.

[Mark]

Well, I've taken the hit and switched to FLAC. Got a MediaMonkey Gold license too so I can rip once and for all and transcode in whatever direction I may choose.

I'm still using CDex to rip the library because I've invested a lot of time in getting a 'just right' CDDB database and I don't want to do that again. I have changed my procedures though so the ripping process should be 50% faster and I'm applying ReplayGain to the finished files instead of volume levelling prior to encoding (no point using lossless encoding on an inherently lossy source).

[Dr. Z]

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.

[Mark]

I'm with the Dr. on this.

Most MP3 encoding software seems to prefer speed over quality by default, and that's where the problems start. What's the rush? Ramp up the quality settings and let it take the few extra seconds. Of course, it does depend on other factors too - quality of the original rip, which encoder you use, and so on.

Anyway, my plan is now thus:

1. Update my homebrew tag validation software so it works without having to do multiple re-rips (done).
2. Rip to FLAC (highest compression setting).
3. Put a transcoder to work to build a portable device compatible library.
4. Consider what I do with the original FLAC files - either a higher bitrate transcode or leave them alone, depending on how big things get.

Due to the amount of crap I've got scattered randomly around all my PCs, I'm a bit disk space challenged currently. I really need to go on a crazy zapping spree and consequences be damned.

[divine]

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