Article added: LAME pushes MP3s further with the upcoming 3.89

vbimport

#1

I just posted the article Article added: LAME pushes MP3s further with the upcoming 3.89.

CD-RW.ORG created a new article called ‘LAME pushes MP3s further with the upcoming 3.89’

LAME, the ultimate MP3 encoder, brought MP3 to a whole new level of quality with the 3.88 version. It…

Read the full article here:  [http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/1901-Article-added-LAME-pushes-MP3s-further-with-the-upcoming-3_89.html](http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/1901-Article-added-LAME-pushes-MP3s-further-with-the-upcoming-3_89.html)

Feel free to add your comments below. 

Please note that the reactions from the complete site will be synched below.

#2

I’ll tell you why I don’t like VBR … it drives me nuts when I see the kps jump up and down in winamp, makes me feel like the mp3 is screwy…


#3

VBR is so much better, who gives a damn if the bitrate jumps around. Ive found that in many cases the 192kbit mp3’s suck off the net.


#4

grifterspawn - that’s obviously because your getting them from the wrong place. If you knew enough about the scene you’d get all your music from proper group releases and they’d be good quality rips. I’m personally not into VBR songs. With a 192 u know what quality it is. it’s 192. With a VBR you have no way of knowing what quality it is. All you know is it’s a VBR. No idea if the moron ripped it at a really bad quality or with a shit VBR Encoder - ie Xing. Oh yeah, and another thing, the MP3 scene doesn’t stick to Fraunhofer, a lot of it is using LAME and EAC now to do their ripping.


#5

The wrong place eh? Well if you a referring to dump sites or 0-sec pubs, I dont hit those much. I dont know about you but I have had plenty of songs ripped by actual groups at 192kbps that just plain sucked ass. Why are you so down on VBR anyways? Do you think that LAME is trying to improve VBR because the method sucks? or that divx can now be encoded in VBR because it sucks? of course not, the whole purpose of it is to minimize size while maximizing quality. 192 will encode even dead air at 192, a real space saver right?


#6

The time also jumps around in winamp. :wink: Why are you talking 192. Isn’t 256 suppose to be cd-quality?


#7

There isn’t much to say other than CD Rips --> EAC w/Lame Encoder 3.88 @ VBR Single Song Rips --> EAC & RazorLame w/Lame Encoder 3.88 @ VBR Decoding back to .wav --> CDex 1.40b3 These are the most quality and flawless methods, proven time and again, and happen to save good space too. CBR sucks, its a waste of space and when it needs to hit -320 on the encode it can’t. I used to encode all my mp3’s with Fraunhofer @ 256 cbr till i realized that quality was equalled if not bested with Lame 3.8 or better @ VBR. Settle for what you want but if you want to do things the right way when you encode use what has been shown through tests time and time again to work best. Just because you get things a certain way doesn’t mean you can’t do it the right way. <a class=“txt” href=“http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/”>here</a>!<BR> <a class=“txt” href=“http://dkutsanov.chat.ru/”>here</a>!<BR> <a class=“txt” href=“http://www.dors.de/razorlame/”>here</a>!<BR> <a class=“txt” href=“http://www.cdex.n3.net/”>here</a>!<BR> :7


#8

Lame VBR mp3’z are the best (if done properly) no argument, some 192kbps are fine but ive heard ALOT that are distorted because the dude encoding them didnt normalise the audio properly.


#9

If you can’t even find the setting in Winamp to not show bitrate changes with VBR, you must really be stupid.


#10

If you are doing a 1:1 mp3 compression then you don’t normalise the audio. By normalising you are changing the audio, making the frequencies differ from the orignals thus not creating a perfect rip.


#11

http://www.mars.org/home/rob/proj/mpeg/ Fellas, don’t forget to check the MAD decoder for WinAmp.


#12

CBR is fine if you are running a streaming server and need to be able to estimate and maintain reasonable throughput for all users. But if you are not running a server, then there is no point in using CBR. With CBR, if an audio segment requires a large sampling rate to maintain quality, either the set rate is good enough or not. If it is too low, then quality is degraded. If an audio segment can encoded accurately with a lower bit rate, CBR doesn’t adjust and just wastes space. VBR can handle both but it is harder for the user to adjust the quality. I once saw a site with a very good comparison of the Xing and Fraunhofer encoders with spectrum analysis charts but I can’t find it now. But try the following: http://www.commvergemag.com/commverge/extras/P178673.asp


#13

I agree with nila. The pompous pompon who wrote this article tries to say that everyone uses Fraunhofer and he is some kind of mp3 savour who will teach us what LAME is. How lame :r Unless he has been living in a cave for a few years. Everyone who is into this knows that VBR can cause some trouble when decoding back to wav or when playing back. If you want to ensure that your mp3 will be 100% ok, CBR is the answer. That’s why VBR gets improved with every new LAME version, because it needs more improvement.


#14

I personally haven’t come across any RNS, EGO or KSI rips that have been bad quality. If anyone in the group releases bad quality releases they stop serving it and re-release it. All your posts about the theory behind VBR is right. Increasing the bitrate when it needs it and decreasing it when it doesn’t is in THEORY the perfect answer. The problem is however that working out a correct algorithm to do this is extremely hard. That’s why so much effort is constantly being put into developing this area. All compression results in loss of quality, once VBR has been perfectly implemented it will be the best solution, for now though it still has some flaws. It’s nearing or maybe even has passed the quality of CBR but it’s very close at the moment and the size saving is minimal when using the proper settings for VBR when compared with 192. And for the guy who said that when it’s empty air it drops the level down, your right, thats the problem though, it might seem like empty air but it could just be a very faint background noise and this might get dropped by the reduced quality. Right now the two qualities between VBR and CBR are super close, it’s a matter of personal preferance. Within a couple of years or maybe even less VBR will be the only proper way of doing it as the algorithms are perfected. At the end of the day, all the encoding is done using maths and maths isn’t exactly known for having a good audio ear.


#15

Oh yeah, and just to test it, I just ripped a track using EAC on my Plextor drive, (Pearl Jam - Go). I then encoded it using Lame v3.88 at both 192 and VBR using these settings: -V1 -mj -h -b128 -q1 192: 4,525Kb VBR: 5,887Kb CBR is smaller and I cant test the quality right now by listening because it’s 5am and everyone else is asleep but I’ll check it out tomorrow.


#16

Nila, With VBR the size varies - that’s the nature of it. If you can’t handle that, then you can try ABR. The size stays under your control and quality outperforms CBR. And the LAME VBR has been intensively tested and found to be far superior than CBR192. Of one desires quality CBR, then there is no choice but to go for 256kbps, and even then the ABR would be an improvement.


#17

I have to agree with Nila. I can’t handle a bad encode. At least with 192 I know what I get. By the way: Is there a program what allows me to transfer my id-tag’s the day that vbr is the answer and I have to re-encode my mp3?


#18

VBR is defiantely better than CBR. It simply makes no sense to encode a file at the same bitrate all the way through. Anyway when encoding using LAME and VBR the bitrates often exceed 192kbps. For information on encoding quality MP3s go to http://www.r3mix.net :4


#19

However I do understand the point about not being able to tell the quality of a VBR file. Anyway I’ve downloaded 100’s of MP3s in the last few weeks, and not one used VBR :c


#20

Jansemanden, Dont recode mp3s. Unless you mean from the original CD. Any encoding done after the original will ALWAYS result in a loss of quality. Even if you re encode it to a higher bitrate. It can never add missing info, simply loose more.