Stereo or Joint Stereo? 44100 or 48000?

Originally Posted by Soluzar

...I find that with MP3, 192kbs is about as good as it gets. Above that, I'd rather use lossless.

192k is certainly not as good as it gets. I had a rip of a score in 192k and played it almost every day for a long time. I got used to it and thought it sounded great. I then got the CD and did a re-rip using API. WOW. What a difference! A much better, clearly, fuller sound with more high-end and less artefacts.

192k still cuts off a lot of high end. If it was "as good as it gets", higher bitrate encoding wouldnt have been invented!

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Moguta,

Great avatar by the way!

I hear what you say, but the basic fact is 192 still cuts off a lot of frequencies, whatever encoder you use.

As for the psychological effects, sure, I guess it happens. But when I did that 320k rip of that score, I knew it sounded better without hearing the old 192k rip. Instantly, I was impressed by its quality. It wasnt until I had played a few tracks that I went back to compare a couple and the differences were apparent.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by ArrowHead

When you encode to 192kbps with LAME, it uses a lowpass filter of 19.5kHz. Most CD's are mastered with a lowpass at 20.0kHz. I wouldn't call a measly 500Hz a lot.

But you are assuming all 192k rips have data up to 20Khz. They dont. A lot of dance music I ripped in 192k that was complex with a lot of varying frequencies was cut off at 16khz. It varies, depending on the complexity of the material.

Quote:

Did you make the "old 192k rip" yourself?

Yes, I did. Again, there wasnt much high-end above 16khz or so.

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

I just use 320k for everything.

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

Originally Posted by ArrowHead

And most of the time, it's a waste.

Most? Not all?

Quote:

If you want perfection, don't even use MP3.

I didnt say I wanted perfection.

Quote:

If you want the best tradeoff between compression and quality, use VBR.

VBR takes longer to rip and encode and you get VERY SLIGHTLY better sound with 320k. Its quicker for me to rip in that. Thats the main reason I do it, actually.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by LiquidAcid

That's nonsense. Ripping has nothing to do with the encoding process.

True, my mistake. But encoding does take longer. I did my own test and it took longer.

Quote:

BUT CBR always allocates the full bits for one frame, even if the audio data can be reconstructed using fewer bits.

I know the deal. I just prefer to give every frame the maximum limit. How can ANYTHING but the most basic sound information need less than 320k? I dont care if the files are bigger.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by ArrowHead

Some frames need 320kbps. Some need even more but 320kbps is the most they can be given.

Well as Ive said before, who's to say anything needs less than 320k (unless its silence or really basic material)? So what if a few seconds takes up X-100k as opposed to being a few K of disc space? I want every frame to have the best quality available, even if the encoder programmer/code-writer/someone else says its not needed. Its subjective.

Quote:

You only have to encode once.

I rip from CD using dBpowerAmp. It rips and encodes in one single step. I dont rip to WAV and then encode to MP3. I do it all at once. But its six and two threes, the point is that encoding to APX takes me longer. Its fact, I tested it myself

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Moguta

And Iceboy, I just want to correct what you're stating... most audio does not in fact "need" anywhere near 320Kbps to sound exactly the same as the original

Well unless I see conclusive proof, I cant believe this.

Quote:

The thing is these effects are not consciously felt, they are very subtle and subconscious. You can easily "hear" the 320Kbps songs as higher quality, because in your mind you know that 320Kbps is the highest setting possible, thus it ought to sound better.

Whats your problem with not believing me? It stands to reason a complex piece of 320k orchestral/electronic music will sound better than a 192k rip, because there is more data to play with! For one, the 192k cut off everything above 16Khz or so, whilst the 320k kept everything up to 20khz. The added high end was noticable to me right away!

You know, it is possible for some people to hear differences. Going from what you have said, you dont seem to believe that anything above 192k sounds better. Some people have very sensitive ears. Im one of those people.

I cant do those double blind tests, because I naturally got rid of the 192k and replaced them with the new 320k. But if I ever get the chance again I will compare some files, just for the hell of it.

Quote:

Do more exploration into the subconscious power of mental suggestion... documented studies have been done on some really freaky effects.

Well believe it or not, Ive been a practising magician for 16 years now, and I know a lot about suggestion and all that

Most amazing jew boots

At the end of the day, 320k gives ever so slightly better sound at the expensive of bigger files. I can live with that.

The only thing I cannot believe unless I see (not hear) some sort of statistical data is how ANYTHING but the most basic music can need less than 320k in order to make a sound as close to the original as possible, using VBR. Thats all.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by LiquidAcid

Funny thing is that orchestral and electronic music does compress best in general. FLAC encodes of orchestra music show this very clearly.

Not beint funny but how do you mean? Ive never used FLAC, thats all.

Quote:

The more 'noisy' music gets the harder it is to compress (because of entropy).

What do you mean?

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Thanks for your info, that was quite interesting.

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