One important factor many seem to miss is that MP3 encoders are not equal.
The best-sounding are probably LAME and Fraunhofer, and the worst probably
Blade and Xing. These all sound different from each other at the same
bitrate.
They are also not equal to themselves. LAME is an ongoing project -- they
are up to v3.93.1. There are several Fraunhofer encoders that do not
behave exactly the same either.
Plus, LAME and Fraunhofer both have settings to trade off between sound
quality and encoding time. Fraunhofer is relatively slow, and LAME
relatively fast.
In terms of overall character, *very* generally, Fraunhofer can sound
artificially crisp, while LAME can soften very crisp or sharp sounds. A
web search will locate a few tests people have done, and some test cases
that encoders can have trouble with.
If you'll forgive a bit of self-promotion:
http://www.burningrome.com/music/sounds
Most of the MP3s are encoded at 128kbps using one of the Fraunhofer
encoders. The choice of 128kbps is for small file size -- quicker
download by modem, and less disk space on the shared server where storage
is limited. The choice of the Fraunhofer encoder is for acceptable sound
at a relatively low bitrate. The tradeoff was longer encoding time.
A few days ago, I posted a 76-minute live performance I did for WNUR 89.3
FM Evanston/Chicago in September, 2001. Those MP3s are encoded at 160kbps
using LAME 3.93.1 at highest encoding quality (-q0). The files are a
reasonable size, encoding was quite fast, and the sound quality is
functionally equivalent to the original recording -- especially as
compared to the FM radio broadcast. If the idea of "ambient digital
brutality" sounds vaguely interesting, please grab the MP3s and enjoy.
--Mark
quoted 1 line
>>>
To: BAlbers@premiereradio.com
From: "alan flood" <guile133@hotmail.com>
Cc: idm@hyperreal.org
Subject: [idm] ATP (ae) track and crappy MP3 encoding
Message-ID: <Law10-F29lrg2nRySLp000078ff@hotmail.com>
Speaking of encoding mp3's .......... who the hell encodes at bitrates
lower than 192?????? Soulseek and the like are filled with tracks and
albums that are encoded at 128 and 160. Pretty moronic if you ask
me......even more moronic are the people who download these low quality
tracks and actually listen to them. It should be a law that you mujst
encode at 192 or higher. I guess some people like listening to there
tracks with the bandwith noise
<<<
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org
For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org