Free mass mp3 converter?

Any facts to back this up?

AFAIK this only depends on how the codec is optimized for low bitrates. I don't know if LAME is especially optimized to bitrates lower than 128kBit/s but I'm certain there is a MP3 codec out there that is.

If you want truly low bitrates you could try MP3 with SBR if your player supports it. This was promoted as mp3PRO by Coding Technologies. There is a similar solution for AAC (AAC+SBR) which compresses even better.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

@niki: You also don't provide anything to back this up.

I did a search myself on hydrogen audio, which reveals this:
Results of Public, Multiformat Listening Test @ 64 kbps (July 2007)

So I was right, it's AAC that 'beats' everyone else.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by niki

And you were still absolutely wrong about mp3pro, hehehehe.

I never really used mp3PRO anyway *g*

EDIT:

Originally Posted by Kairi Li

While numbers, waveforms and samples can determine which is techinically better, as long as it satisfies one person's hearing, it doesn't matter too much in the end, unless you're trying to do recording or various pro like sound productions.

I totally disagree. Even with lossy codecs it's the highest priority for the developer of the codec to ensure that the the difference between original waveform and decoded waveform is minimal. And of course 'difference' is measured in a precise mathematical way.
If a lossy codec was only about how 'good' it sounds to the user there would be enormous possibilities to increase compression. This is not related to psycho-acoustics which are based on the concept of human hearing and data processing in the brain (ear only has limited resolution for this frequency band, data processing tends to discard faint sounds followed by loud sound spikes, and so on).

And finally: 'good' is a subjective term. Something that you perceive als 'good' doesn't have to be 'good' for another person (this even depends on the mood the person is in).
Again psycho-acoustics tend to work well for the majority of us humans. There are of course exceptions (like always), but the whole thing is backed up by research.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

She should have said something like:
It doesn't matter that much what codec I choose because the playback chain is limiting.

I totally accept this, because it's true: The decoders on portable players are not really accurate, the DAC is crap (try to fit some high-quality DAC into such small environment...) and the headphones are also crap (when compared to high-quality audio equipment - see shure in-ear phones).

I mean the whole point of this thread is to get more music on a portable. And I hope nobody has the expectations to get everything out of their FLACed albums with a portable *gg*
It simply won't work.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Roph

When I'm out, I just want to hear the music, as I'm sure Kairi Li does, along with probably every portable player owner on the planet. I couldn't care less about hearing an artifact here or there. I don't need to (and probably wouldn't anyway) be able to hear the bassist's eyelids closing while they perform, as I would at home listening on proper equipment.

ack

I was speaking idiomatically.