Just use MPC, not mp3.. natively its VBR (VBR is different to ABR... its all
about the criteria used to detect whether more or less bitrate is needed..
lame dmpreset VBR is good.. mpc is natively VBR and is highly tuned)
ANyways just try mpc (aka Mpeg+, musepack) unless you need files in mp3 for
portable players its the better format by a long way.. just try encoding Fat
Boy Slim's Kalifornia track to see how poor mp3 is... the first 50 seconds
is ruined, even at 320k CBR (well its far less at this bitrate but still
evident, when its not present at 160k with mpc or ogg for that matter, but
ogg is slow to encode and still behind mpc in the tuning stakes)
Get the encoding/decoding software at
http://www.uni-jena.de/%7Epfk/mpp/
Windows versions of the software you'll need to try it is...
http://www.uni-jena.de/%7Epfk/mpp/bin/mppenc-windows-0.90o.zip the
command line encoder similar to lame in operation
http://www.uni-jena.de/%7Epfk/mpp/bin/mppdec-windows-0.99c.zip the command
line decoder
http://www.uni-jena.de/%7Epfk/mpp/bin/in_mpc_0.90e_en.zip the winamp
decoder plugin
The beauty is using something like feurio or EAC to rip your CDs
Feurio:
http://www.feurio.com/English/index.shtml
EAC:
http://www.exactaudiocopy.de
Feurio being the better ripper for quality but requiring registering after
some usage
And then either encoding directly from these programs or ripping to waves
(if you have a big enough harddrive) and then using monkeys audio to encode
all of the waves in one go (id3 tagging them automatically at the same time
from the filenames of the waves)
http://www.monkeysaudio.com
Monkeys is a lossless codec as in you keep the waves but shrink them
perfectly by 50%.. but it can be used to encode with any other command line
encoder and supports auto id3 tagging and can encode 1000s in different
directories so is ideal for leaving running..
Finally MPC is VERY fast.. not quite as fast as music match jukebox but the
quality out of that is so so... anything close to it quality wise is slower
by a lot (nearly 4x when compared to ogg)
And there you go.. the best audio compression for your electronic music at
the moment...
James
ps. why is this on the idm list???
quoted 96 lines -----Original Message-----
> -----Original Message-----
> From: excm. prin. fuminaro konoye [mailto:fuminaro@yahoo.com]
> Sent: 10 January 2002 20:47
> To: Michael Plump
> Cc: idm@hyperreal.org
> Subject: Re: [idm] VBR vs fixed rate ripping
>
>
> i meant the first generation of the mp3 codec, vs. mp3pro, not
> reencoding, which i agree will degrade the data terribly.
> on the vbr issue, it is my opinion that the relief of the sound may have
> a tinny quality to it, which may be more or less detectable depending on
> how high or low your bitrate is, etc., but i wouldn't want to sustain
> this opinion in a discussion. there are so many other issues to talk
> about besides, for example the number of instruments in a work.
> i will also say that we sometimes get to a point on this topic where
> discussion is really not advanceable without knowledge of engineering,
> programming and mathematics which i simply do not posess. i have only my
> intuition in reading into this topic as a tool. so i will be the first
> to bow out of that part of the discussion. but i will suggest, in answer
> to how "vbr might do that where cbr didn't", that a series comprised of
> one repeated operation is more faithful than a series of different
> operations, on principle of logic.
> as far not accepting anything below 192k, i never said that. i was just
> suggesting guidelines. i'll take what i can get, but i'll always shoot
> for the best. i have had all sorts of experience with files of many and
> diverse characteristics, and what i said is only a reflection of that. i
> will not try to detail this lengthy catalogue of testing, etc. ... of
> course, i have no idea of what you may think is a "better" file, and
> even less so a "good" one.
> what i liked about what you say is your argument for being able to
> recommend better vbr settings for any given cbr settings someone may be
> using. i think this is indeed possible, especially for a specific track,
> although again i do not know what your idea of "better" is... for my
> part i referred my arguments to the standards for psychoacoustics that
> are a part of the mp3 codec; that is my idea or the idea i have accepted
> of what sounds well. the idea of finding the optimum vbr settings is
> nonetheless always tempting.
>
> anyway, this was just to show what sense i think what i said may contain.
> your reply, despite its being intelligent, was somewhat rushed and
> abbreviates where it needed the most support for its arguments... (i
> won't stoop to calling it "a crazy statement", or claiming that "it just
> doesn't make 'logical sense' ", whatever that means, though). i guess
> it's my fault, for not being brief, so i apologize. : )
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thursday, January 31, 2002, at 01:50 , Michael Plump wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 10 Jan 2002, excm. prin. fuminaro konoye wrote:
> >
> >> if you make a VBR file you are punching the midrange of the sound right
> >> in the gut.
> >
> > I'm sorry, that's just a crazy statement. How could VBR do that where
> > CBR
> > didn't? So you refuse to accept that anything lower than 192kbps could
> > possibly be good? Set your minimum compression level to that, and
> > you'll
> > have a better file.
> >
> > If you're using a good encoder and you show me a quality CBR file, I can
> > show you setting that would've produced a better sounding VBR file.
> > Think
> > about what you're saying. It just doesn't make logical sense.
> >
> >> 192 is if you just want a "useful" mp3, but it must be accepted that
> >> the
> >> first generation mp3 must have a higher bitrate than that for real
> >> quality.
> >
> > You really shouldn't ever, ever, ever re-encode your mp3s. All of a
> > sudden you're taking the artifacts that you produced when you encoded it
> > the first time, and forcing your encoder to try and encode those
> > artifacts. You're going to lose a lot of quality.
> >
> > I've never tried this, but I would guess that an mp3 file re-encoded
> > from
> > 256->192 would probably sound worse than one just encoded originally at
> > 128. Does anyone have any experience with this?
> >
>
>
> _________________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org
For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org