Guide to creating high quality MP3s

If you are looking for an easy way to make the best rips on the planet , I suggest you follow the Chris Myden Guide to Creating Amazing MP3s

And don’t forget to take a look at his Guide to Ãœbernet. A community that is sharing high quality MP3s only (pure heaven!)

Read all about it here

Have fun :bow:

Thanks but since I have a Plextor drive I use Plex tools. :stuck_out_tongue:

Do whatever you want to do, but one thing interests me.

What can Plex tools do that EAC cannot? Does this leads to an even higer quality mp3.

Please share your knowledge.

:wink:

plextools is for plextor drives…EAC is for the masses. EAC doesn’t create mp3’s, last i checked…higher quality WAV ? probably not, but i bet it gets the same quality WAV faster than EAC.

Plex tools is the best prog. to use if you own any Plextor drive, and in my modest opinion, after PT comes EAC.

In DAE, Plextools is a very powerful prog, even better than EAC with Plextor drives, mostly in scratched and damaged CD’s. I had a couple of old a seriously damaged Music CD’s that EAC wasn’t truly able to extract (with my Lite-on DVD player), and then I went over Plex Tools and my 12-10-32 Plextor and I finally could extract the audio better than with EAC.

EAC doesn’t create mp3’s, last i checked

You can use Lame under EAC as well as under Plextools.

Plextools is optimized for Plextor drives.

EAC is compatible with nearly all IDE and SCSI drives. Plextools advanced DEA is only available on Plextor drives.

EAC detects errors relying either on C2 infos returned by the drive, not very reliable, or by reading twice the same range, and checking that both reads are correct.

Plextools detects errors using C2 only, but it seems more accurate than EAC, at least with the recent Plextor burners (old Plextor drives are reported unreliable even with Plextools).

So, for recent Plextor burners, Plextools wins. For anything else, EAC wins.

EAC corrects error rereading bad ranges in bunches of 16 passes. If the same info comes more than 8 times, it is considered good.

Plextools rereads also the bad range, but it uses C2 to detect exactly the wrong data. Then it keeps any good data from any reading, and reconstructs the range using all the good data available from all the readings.

So, with recent Plextor burners, Plextools reduces EAC to pulp, with anything else… there is only EAC left.

Among the pseudo competitors :

Feurio : count the number of errors, but does not correct them
CDP32 : shareware : internally detects and corrects errors, but does not tell the user if did so :confused:
CDex full paranoia : detects about 100 times less errors than EAC, Feurio, or Plextools : http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?act=ST&f=20&t=3164

OK guys you have made things clear as the difference between EAC and Plextools is concerned, but that isn’t the goal Chris Myden is aiming for.

His mission is to learn everyone how to make impeccable mp3’s and giving us a place where we can share this high quality stuff.

This discussion is going off topic.

Just putting you back on the track.

I think Chris deserves our support. The world of audio file sharing will become a better place this way.

Chris thinks Lame is the best encoder on the planet.

True , it’s FREE , but that does NOT make it the best.

Frauenhofer still rules in that point of view (but costs a lot of money).

Some results can be found here

Chris is talking about Lame with alt-preset standard. It produces mp3s with a VBR !!

The article you have linked is about Constant Bitrate.

But what is the point? Why is the discussion about encoders always leading to no good.

This one is better, not that one. How about the other, no that one is the clear number one.

No one can here the difference between the best Fraunhofer CBR and the Lame VBR wit alt-preset standard.

Perhaps your dog can but I doubt if he is downloading mp3s.

:wink:

I can advise everyone to use the “Myden Method”. It is low threshold. Anyone can do it. That’s what this is about

Please stop with this “I know better” stuff.

There is no encoder on earth that can make music like the Ketchup Song any good, even Fraunhofer.

:frowning:

Originally posted by Mr. Belvedere
it’s FREE , but that does NOT make it the best.

That’s true

Originally posted by Mr. Belvedere
Frauenhofer still rules in that point of view (but costs a lot of money).
Some results can be found here

In this test, none of the high quality encoding has been tested.
The big problem with Lame, is that all the high quality tweaks were developed by outsiders (mostly Dibrom, Naoki Shibata, and now Takehiro), so that they are not defaulted. They must be called with additional command lines (list here) They were developed from june 2001 to february 2002.

They have been tested in blind ABX tests, with ordinary music, as well as with some hard to encode samples : http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/extra/samples/3.93-Test_Samples/

Originally posted by Redd ears
No one can here the difference between the best Fraunhofer CBR and the Lame VBR wit alt-preset standard.

Those samples don’t stand a chance in regular CBR encoding. Some of them (Drone) can’t even be encoded in MP3 without audible loss, whatever encoder, bitrate or setting is used.
I’ve ABXed drone and Badvilbel (available at http://www.ff123.net/samples.html) from the original, with Lame --alt-preset insane (320 kbps CBR + additional quality tweaks).
(to ABX : to recognize blindly using this method : http://www.pcabx.com/

Anyone can hear the difference, if the sample is difficult enough. Many tracks sound the same as the originals when encoded to MP3, even on very high end audiophile gear. But some are completely butchered, even on PC speakers.

Would you be interested in a blind test ? We could choose a sample or two, and upload decoded versions of different MP3 settings. Then people would give their opinions.

Originally posted by Mr. Belvedere
[B]Chris thinks Lame is the best encoder on the planet.

True , it’s FREE , but that does NOT make it the best.

Frauenhofer still rules in that point of view (but costs a lot of money).

Some results can be found here [/B]

frauenhofer was better… before the lame 3.7x … fhg did invent the mp3 though

FhG is better than Lame at 128 kbps.
BTW, I’ve not tested it myself, this is an info from hydrogenaudio.org forums

Originally posted by Redd Ears
[B]But what is the point? Why is the discussion about encoders always leading to no good.

This one is better, not that one. How about the other, no that one is the clear number one.

Please stop with this “I know better” stuff.
[/B]

It was not meant as arrogance on my behalf , i don’t get a dime or extra ego of this information. It is meant as to oppose misinformation. The thing is , that the internet is full of personal opinions (mine included) and there’s hardly any scientifical evidence done , nor do people care. This often leads to the FUD principle where people take information for granted. And THIS will put the wrong people on a unusual high place of respect.

All i was trying to tell the viewers of Chris’ html files , that his discoveries , opinions and viewings must be taken with caution. There are NO 100% superb products… if that would be the case , no new technologies were developed anymore. It is always right to question technology and it is VERY important to question opinions.

True , the link i showed you does not hold any scientifical evidence as well , but it gives a little more insight not to trust one software package or technology 100%. People can get dissapointed by that.

Lame and OggVorbis are some extremely good inventions , but they are not 100% perfect. Frauenhofer is also updating its technology it is quite safe to assume they still have the upward in their own technology. (Yes , assumption is the mother of all fuckups…).

As i’ve already explained , given the price tag , Lame is perfect for the job , but it’s not the best encoder.

Same thing applies on Personal GPS… that cannot compete with Military GPS. So if i put up a website and told everyone that the latest Palm Pilot is the best in GPS technology… i’d be lying. It may however the best for its price.

I’d like to test Frauhnofer vs Lame, I got mp3enc from Frauhnofer’s site, but the encoder is dated from 1998, is it OK ?

fhg would probably lose cause… you have an old encoder… and btw, if we want to compare encoders… we should use it where it’s best at… if you can’t distinguish a 128kbps from a 192kbps, well then i can’t argue which encoder is better…

i suggest encoding @ at LEAST 160kpbs, i personally encode at 192 if i want to use CBR and i use --alt-preset-standard if i want VBR…

true, there are hacks to lame that make it better… and if those hacks are good… we’ll see them in the next version… and we know and see (in the source code), what has changed… now… if fhg would tell use… we have improved by 20% in terms of quality @ 192kbps… how would you verify that?

I’ve encoded two samples,
An audiophile one : Rebecca Pidgeon, Grand mother.
A killer one : Amnesia (from Amnesia, Ibiza, loco mix version)

MP3enc (3.1 demo) -v -qual 9 -br 192000
Lame (3.91 MMX) --alt-preset standard

Bitrates :
Rebecca : Lame 190 kbps, MP3enc 192 kbps
Amnesia : Lame 317 kbps, MP3enc 192kbps

Listening :
Amnesia is without surprise : artifacts stronger in MP3enc than in Lame. Lame VBR did a good job, the encoded detected a difficult scheme (transients) and adjusted the bitrate accordingly.

Rebecca is difficult to tell from the original. MP3enc seems to have some artifacts. I managed to ABX it from the original 15 times out of 16 (http://www.pcabx.com/), therefore the difference is really audible.
I’m not sure if I can ABX the Lame MP3. It seems closer to the original.

Since MP3enc is old, I’m downloading MusicMatch jukebox in order to redo the Fraunhofer MP3 s.

I give up.

You just don’t get it.:confused:

What, that I’m going off-topic ? No problem, I can start a Fraunhofer vs Lame thread, if you want.
(Quote : This discussion is going off topic.)

That there is no audible difference and I guessed one of the 17 ways to get at least 15/16 among 65536 possible answers just by chance ?
(Quote : No one can here the difference between the best Fraunhofer CBR and the Lame VBR wit alt-preset standard.)

Or that MP3 discussion is unuseful ?
(Quote : what is the point?)

yup, you just don’t get it… re read everything then post… you’ll probably get it… if not, well, you can post here whatever you want, we won’t just reply to you anymore

I read this thread several times and I don’t see why you say Pio doesn’t get it, other than just to be jerks.

This thread was started about Cmyden’s page about how to get the best (at a practical bitrate) quality MP3s. Someone claimed FhG is straight out the best. Pio did a little test, just to check out for himself how they compare at VBR since both encoders support it and frankly, why care about CBR tests if it’s about jusdging quality. If you want quality, at reasonable bitrates, you use VBR.

The only way I see how Pio doesn’t get it is because you say encoder tests are pointless, which is complete BS. If you think that, go use Blade or Plugger.

Pio has been frequenting audio related forums for years (as far as I can remember) and is always takes time to help people. When he posts, he knows what he’s talking about. Think before dismissing what he has to say.