mp3 conversion quality

Tim · Post by **Tim** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 3:34 pm

I've not yet done MP3 for publishing, so I just export from DP at 192.

I can't say that I hear a difference between Standard and Best encoding in DP, though I've not done any extensive testing with multiple sources.

daniel.sneed · Post by **daniel.sneed** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 5:25 am

The AudioFinder guy has told me something a few days ago :
The LAME quality option, as it appears in DP, is intended to save CPU and/or time whenever needed.

You should always use High Quality.

In AudioFinder Lame menu, it's fixed. Any other option just doesn't appear.

gearboy · Post by **gearboy** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 7:32 am

I've started using the iTunes LAME converter and I find the results to be great. For the record, I'm using it to simply get mixes to folks over the internet when AIFF or WAV bandwidth isn't an option. The standard iTunes MP3 conversion leaves much to be desired, although I have found that high bit-rate AAC is decent for the iPod, car, etc. Nothing except for Apple Lossless replaces AIFF or WAV for CD-quality, however I find that the MP3 conversion algorithms in the LAME encoder are far superior to other things out there.

Anyway, install the iTunes LAME converter and play around with the settings. My work flow now involves mixing in DP, converting to 16-bit in Peak LE using MBIT+ Dither in Ozone, and then importing those AIFF files into iTunes for easy playback and organization. Once in a play list in iTunes, fire up the iTunes LAME converter, get your settings in order, and hit the "import" button on the LAME converter. Your play list will now batch convert to MP3.

Jeff

bongo_x · Post by **bongo_x** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 9:35 am

I use 192 AAC for myself, 192 VBR mp3's when I need mp3's. LAME always sounded good to me, but I find that even using itunes it makes a big difference to use VBR instead of CBR.

bb

FMiguelez · Post by **FMiguelez** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 9:55 pm

bongo_x wrote:I use 192 AAC for myself, 192 VBR mp3's when I need mp3's. LAME always sounded good to me, but I find that even using itunes it makes a big difference to use VBR instead of CBR.

bb

Ok. I can figure out what VBR or CBR mean by their name, but I've never fully understood what the difference between those 2 are, and which is the best (and why). Come to think of it, when I bounce to an MP3, one of those 2 settings is selected by default, so I never tweak those. I just select either 192 or 256 with high quality, and that's it.

Could you please tell me about VBR and CBR?

Thank you for enlightening

bongo_x · Post by **bongo_x** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 6:36 am

FMiguelez wrote:
bongo_x wrote:I use 192 AAC for myself, 192 VBR mp3's when I need mp3's. LAME always sounded good to me, but I find that even using itunes it makes a big difference to use VBR instead of CBR.

bb
Ok. I can figure out what VBR or CBR mean by their name, but I've never fully understood what the difference between those 2 are, and which is the best (and why). Come to think of it, when I bounce to an MP3, one of those 2 settings is selected by default, so I never tweak those. I just select either 192 or 256 with high quality, and that's it.

Could you please tell me about VBR and CBR?

Thank you for enlightening

variable bit rate, or constant bit rate. If you do 192 CBR it is 192 start to finish. If you do 192 VBR it will be different bit rates depending on the complexity of the sound at any particular moment, like DVD's. I believe AAC is always VBR, probably why it always sounds good to me. Some older players may not work with VBR, although that's never happened for me.

A 192 VBR mp3 may be a little bigger than a 192 CBR, but will sound a lot better and will be smaller than a 256 CBR.

That's just my understanding, I may not know what I'm talking about.

bb

Don T · Post by **Don T** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 9:30 am

Hello,
I've been working on good mixes for MP3. I don't figure it's any different than doing one mix for CD another for vinyl or cassette. Your mixes should always consider the method of distribution and be optimized for that. I'm not saying that I like the sound of mp3 but making it as good as it can get to insure lots of distribution only makes sense. Now we have to get the money to distribute better too. Wouldn't that be nice!

FMiguelez · Post by **FMiguelez** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 10:45 am

bongo_x wrote:
variable bit rate, or constant bit rate. If you do 192 CBR it is 192 start to finish. If you do 192 VBR it will be different bit rates depending on the complexity of the sound at any particular moment, like DVD's. I believe AAC is always VBR, probably why it always sounds good to me. Some older players may not work with VBR, although that's never happened for me.

A 192 VBR mp3 may be a little bigger than a 192 CBR, but will sound a lot better and will be smaller than a 256 CBR.

That's just my understanding, I may not know what I'm talking about.

bb

Thanks, Bongo-X.

Anyone else has another opinion about that maybe?

Don T wrote:I've been working on good mixes for MP3. I don't figure it's any different than doing one mix for CD another for vinyl or cassette. Your mixes should always consider the method of distribution and be optimized for that. I'm not saying that I like the sound of mp3 but making it as good as it can get to insure lots of distribution only makes sense. Now we have to get the money to distribute better too. Wouldn't that be nice!

That makes sense. But what I think would make even more of a positive (and necessary) impact would be if labels also released a DECENT version of the music just for us, for people who actually care about the quality of the music, and not its loudness.
Who cares how good or bad the MP3 is if it sounds like crap anyway (because how loud a track sounds seem to be the only thing that matters these days)?
I spent my entire time during the holidays just listening to tons of music all day long. Anything. I just picked stuff randomly from my collection. Never louder than 80 dBs. Man, listening to 80's stuff and comparing it to late 90's and 00's is worrying. When turning down the volume of the latter to match the former, it just sounds... well, you know how it sounds. I don't want to beat a dead horse, so I'll get away from there...

BUT, I think the damage done to modern music at mastering is worse than the damage a decent mp3 conversion does.

Maybe it would make more sense to worry too much about mp3's AFTER they stop smearing the music senseless

Don T · Post by **Don T** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 12:32 pm

I agree, the high quality option should be available to those who want it. That is a market niche in itself. Besides, the pendulum will swing back towards quality as soon as the technology permits and people's taste mature. We went through he same thing in the 80's when everyone thought 16/44.1 was perfect. It didn't take long before listeners were burned out with the harsh reality of that era. In fact, it spawned a whole genre of music and subculture. Same will come true for what's popular & convenient now. Listening at home on your TV will soon sound better than any other way as audio is improved with blueray etc.

OT:
It does, however, speak to the end of the old way of doing business in music. Why should record labels get over 50% of digital distribution revenue. In the old days the labels had overhead in the production, manufacturing & distribution of music product (as in CD's, cassette's & vinyl). With digital distribution those overheads do not exist yet artists actually get less money from iTunes than CD sales. You can bet that a backlash is brewing and will happen soon.

monkey man · Post by **monkey man** » Wed Jan 09, 2008 4:30 am

I used to use Spark's algorithm.
I've forgotten what they called it, but they had an enhanced mode - it added much time to the process for any given rate, but all renderings seemed to perform well above their weight classes.

There was a sparkliness about the results, and a seemingly more "open" stereo field.

I miss Spark.

Don T · Post by **Don T** » Wed Jan 09, 2008 8:13 am

A lot of that reverb you are hearing is coming from the decoding going on in the listeners computer/player. If there is not enough difference between R & L channels, encoders will sum to mono and then the decoder has to "phony up" the stereo. It's one of my pet peeves, that generic reverb and stereo processing on everything. I go to great lengths to program the best early reflection field I can to preserve the phase relationships of the original tracks (or where I put them while mixing). All that detail and clearity just goes away.

Kawentzmann · Post by **Kawentzmann** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 1:43 pm

monkey man wrote:I used to use Spark's algorithm.
I've forgotten what they called it, but they had an enhanced mode - it added much time to the process for any given rate, but all renderings seemed to perform well above their weight classes.

There was a sparkliness about the results, and a seemingly more "open" stereo field.

I miss Spark.

I recently encoded 12 tracks in iTunes with 192kbs cbr and 8 tracks in Spark with the same setting and the result is very clear - Spark is best. Spark uses the original Fraunhofer Institut codec and that shows. I always listen for the higher pitched percussion transients. To me the Archilles••™ heal of MP3s. Btw. there was a hack for Spark/Tiger. Spark has the batch converter, and I don't think it••™s much slower than LAME, the sound quality is comparable.

monkey man · Post by **monkey man** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:24 am

Correct, Kawentzmann!

I used the hack TC posted on its website - one of the coolest things they've ever done, IMHO.
Unfortunately Spark is dead for me now, as I'm buying a Mac Pro.

Can you remember what the "enhanced" option was called?
Did you ever find out what it was doing to the programme material?

Kawentzmann · Post by **Kawentzmann** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:48 am

Spark••™s save audiofile as mp3 window offers fast and and high quality options. The same in the Batch Converter. That••™s like the LAME export from DP. My version of Spark XL doesn••™t have an enhance option you••™re speaking of.

monkey man · Post by **monkey man** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 3:35 am

Hmm... I remember having 2 or 3 check boxes in the export window, but that was for individual files.
I don't remember seeing the option in the batch converter.
It may well have been for single-file export only, although I've no idea why they'd do this.
Hang on... it might've been that the extra processing time involved made batch conversions in this mode impractical; that would make sense.

I'd love to know whether or not you see it when converting single files.
Take your time, Kawentzmann. I've not unzipped and patched Spark since my last OS install, so I'll rely on your expert detective skills.