if I want to save an edited file in soundforge into the best possible mp3 bitrate,do i choose 320kbps or “Highest Quality VBR Stereo Audio” ? thank u for your assistance…
I would personally use 320kbps.
vbr would choose the necessary framesize for each sample, so a sample with little music would use less space.
if space is an issue, vbr=good. otherwise, use 320.
Just remember that the larger the bitrate…the larger your mp3 will be in filesize. Hence the fewer you can fit on 1 disc
Personally, I can’t really hear the difference between one encoded at 192 vs 320…but I’m not exactly an audiophile either…Heck, I only just started dabbling with EAC this month as opposed to my good ole standby Audio Catalyst. Alot of this may have to do with the kinds of music I tend to rip also…Live backroom blues bar cd’s have a different need than club mixes
I can clearly hear a difference between 128 and 192, but on my hardware…past 192 I don’t really gain any significant quality…
If you are archiving for professional use…you may wish to consider a lossless format as opposed to mp3:eek:
SoundForge uses old Xing encoder, go for LAME instead.
Although VBR have smaller file size as compared with CBR, I found that it actually produce lesser quality, consider VBR use lesser bitrates when in
low compexity portion of the recording in order to save space; one could possibly argue that low bitrates are what is required in such situations, but IMO since those instants are actually having simpler music/vocal composition, the quality of such
simpler instances are more important in listening. Just consider how it would be important in hearing a single instrument than a orchestra as a whole, the quality of that individual instrument is much more important when listened to in the former situation.
CBR has much higher quality, avoid VBR unless space conservation is a higher priority.
LAME @ 320kbps (CBR) is probably the best quality you can get but I don’t think you’ll notice any difference using VBR in extreme mode and you’ll save space too.
the experts using the most expensive audio equipment out did a test and found that at 256kbps mp3 using lame there was no difference in sound quality whatsoever to the origional cd. they said at 192 kbps they could tell a slight difference in the feel of the song but that doesnt mean it was better or worse than the cd. at the end of the day alot of the origional recordings of the music are analogue then converted to cd format, i feel personally that 192k cbr using lame encoder is perfect the experts could only tell a difference when actually sitting for hours scrutinising and comparing and that wasnt even in the sound quality. also i was reading about cd and if there are any erros on the cd as there always are with any cd usually thousands the song cuts off 1/70th or something like that of a second off the song i dont know about mp3 but this proves all formats have a weakness and there has to be a limit to how many kbps is needed i think anyone who says over 192 is just looking for attention and if they can tell a diffrence they should go and get a job as 1 of the experts. no offence to anyone who says they can but i dont believe you but i dont want any arguments thanks.
Thank you MrBrownstone…
Law of diminishing marginal return strictkyl applies here, 128 is average Joe`s good choice, non audiophiles could not notice the difference, 256Kbps or above is only noticeable in close scrutiny; but something that is noticeable irrespectable of the bitrate used due to the inborn limitations of MP3. Rocketeer should make a tour to AAC camp.
While I agree with you in general…and MrBrownstone…take a bite of issue about 128bit…
I’m not an audiophile…as posted earlier…and many of my self ripped mp3’s are at that rate…but even my old ears can hear a difference in quality between 128 and 192…
I also find the player has a big impact if on pc…for example, dloads played with grocksters native player at 128…sounded like crap… Same file played by winamp…huge difference and much better…
Point being…I believe unless an audophile…192 is enough, and if playing back on the pc…if at 128+…your player and pc hardware has more to do with the quality of the music than the bitrate…
Being at 128Kbps there are a quite a few improvements, such a MP3pro, which codec aims squarely at low to mid bitrates and produced better qualities. Another one could be AAC-SBR codec. Remember AAC is aimed at coding much better sounds at 128Kbps than MP3.
If you’re thinking about using a high bitrate as 320 I suggest to have a look at the MPC audio format unless -portable player- compatibility be an absolute priority for you.
or ogg vorbis for that matter
johnny_t…if sound quality is a primary concern, then your first step is to find an editing program that will allow you to use the Lame encoder for mp3 encoding.
Once you are encoding with Lame, then experiment with various bitrates and try to judge by your ear with regard to sound quality. You are the one who has to be the ultimate judge here. There are as many opinions as people. So decide what sounds best to your ears and stick with it.
But, to answer your question more directly…yes…320kbps CBR is the highest quality sound which mp3 compression is capable of. Theoretically at least.
yeah, well ik believe lame can encode up to 640 kbps
This would of course not be up to spec
correct me if i’m wrong.
LAME --alt-preset standard is the best choice.
It will create VBR MP3s which fluctuate between 128 and 320kb/s, while always preserving perfect sound quality but keeping the bitrate as low as possible to conserve disk space.
Bottom line: Your MP3s will average out to around 190-210kb/s, and they will be transparent (perfect quality)
–alt-preset extreme is a fine choice, but the developers maintain that extreme likely does not help much on samples that ‘standard’ can not handle, and the differences between the two are mostly theoretical.
–alt-preset extreme is a fine choice, but the developers maintain that extreme likely does not help much on samples that ‘standard’ can not handle
Yeah, Dibrom stated that –alt-preset standard should be the setting of choice for general listening.
ik believe lame can encode up to 640 kbps
I’ve never heard of it.
I think it’s possible to encode with LAME above 320kb/s but technically it wouldn’t be an MP3 anymore.
i prefer lame 3.90.3 with --alt preset extreme
which gives you vbr with high quality and decent file size
but it is more because it gives me a good feeling i think
the prob with sounds is…every one likes it different…