Gamingforce Interactive Forums
85239 35211

Go Back   Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis > Garrmondo Music and Trading > Behind the Music

Notices

Welcome to the Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis.
GFF is a community of gaming and music enthusiasts. We have a team of dedicated moderators, constant member-organized activities, and plenty of custom features, including our unique journal system. If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ or our GFWiki. You will have to register before you can post. Membership is completely free (and gets rid of the pesky advertisement unit underneath this message).


Encoding mp3s: min. bitrate advisable for VBR?
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Cellius
Systematic


Member 1343

Level 28.80

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Dec 2, 2006, 06:26 PM Local time: Dec 2, 2006, 04:26 PM #1 of 9
Encoding mp3s: min. bitrate advisable for VBR?

So recently I've taken to specifying an extremely low minimum bitrate in my VBR encoding, along the lines of 32kbps or less. While setting the max bitrate to 320, and even with a quality of 0 or 1, the filesizes are still relatively pretty small.

Is there a drawback to this? Despite the drastically reduced filesize, I can't imagine there'd be any significant quality loss, right? I mean, the 320 is still applied when necessary, but in places of quiet/low dynamics, it can go all the way down to 32 if need be.

I was pretty surprised when I encoded a four-disc recording of one of Wagner's operas and the total size of the collection was less than 200MB. Anyone see a problem with this?

Jam it back in, in the dark.
Sceptre X
\usr\bin\sceptrex


Member 16350

Level 11.01

Dec 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Dec 2, 2006, 10:27 PM Local time: Dec 2, 2006, 10:27 PM #2 of 9
All in the ears. If you don't hear anything wrong, hey, you just won at life. Or at least file encoding...

Personally, I lower bitrates of songs all the time for ones that don't matter. Podcasts, and the skit stuff can all go down. Songs, too, when there isn't anything happening, your ears won't be able to differentiate the low noises that are usually just "filler."

There's nowhere I can't reach.
It turns out that today is opposite day, so all of what you have said is true, so you should probably just go.
tenseiken
Syklis Green


Member 532

Level 7.77

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2006, 12:11 AM #3 of 9
Well, if there's a lot of silence in something, I could definitely see that helping out with the filesize. Sceptre's right though--if it sounds the same to you, who gives a crap?

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


Member 15679

Level 12.01

Nov 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2006, 12:52 PM #4 of 9
What tool are you using to encode your MP3s? I would just totally ignore minimum & maximum bitrate settings. After all, some frames will legitimately need 320Kbps to sound good (limiting the maximum is never a good idea), and the encoder will go as low as 32Kbps where the audio is completely silent. Use the latest recommended LAME (3.97 final) and the setting -V 2 --vbr-new as detailed in my ripping and encoding guide.

There's usually no problem with VBR resulting in lower-bitrate files, assuming you're using a good encoder & setting. The MP3 encoder merely determined those were the bitrates needed to reach the level of quality you specified. I've had -- using -V 2 --vbr-new -- some piano CDs where many of the resulting MP3s' average bitrates dipped slightly below 128Kbps, just because the tonal complexity was that low. Classical recordings can tend to have lowish bitrates as well. Conversely, metal and electronica stereotypically push the bitrates up due to heavy use of distortion and percussion, both of which make the audio more 'noisy' than purely tonal. (Although that's really a simplification.) And there are always exceptions, too, so you shouldn't really worry about the bitrates you end up with in a VBR file.

Most amazing jew boots


Good morning, post-apocalyptia!

Last edited by Moguta; Dec 3, 2006 at 01:22 PM.
Cellius
Systematic


Member 1343

Level 28.80

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2006, 03:43 PM Local time: Dec 3, 2006, 01:43 PM #5 of 9
I'm using a program called Switch. It's handy and a front-end interface. Honestly I don't know if it uses LAME or not since nowhere in the program is it specified what mp3 encoder it uses. I used to use RazorLame, which I enjoyed, but I got a lot of errors with it and pissed me off.

Most of the stuff I encode is orchestral. Otherwise I wouldn't worry about it, but since this includes a lot of very quiet music, it was worth bringing up.

I was speaking idiomatically.
Sceptre X
\usr\bin\sceptrex


Member 16350

Level 11.01

Dec 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2006, 08:33 PM Local time: Dec 3, 2006, 08:33 PM #6 of 9
Originally Posted by Cellius
I'm using a program called Switch. It's handy and a front-end interface. Honestly I don't know if it uses LAME or not since nowhere in the program is it specified what mp3 encoder it uses. I used to use RazorLame, which I enjoyed, but I got a lot of errors with it and pissed me off.

Most of the stuff I encode is orchestral. Otherwise I wouldn't worry about it, but since this includes a lot of very quiet music, it was worth bringing up.
Switch is so awesome. Good for you.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?
It turns out that today is opposite day, so all of what you have said is true, so you should probably just go.
Moguta
Tentacle Extraordinaire


Member 15679

Level 12.01

Nov 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Dec 4, 2006, 11:11 PM #7 of 9
I honestly can't see whether Switch uses LAME having looked throughout the webpage, either. Seeing it's a shareware (or at least upgrade-to-PRO-ware) program, I'd kinda doubt it. That's not what you call a front-end either. Instead, it's a term for applications that merely provide a graphical interface for a program that you must already have, like how RazorLAME requires you to have a version of the LAME encoder.

I love Multi Frontend because it simply acts as a "dock" between your different encoders & decoders. How these formats are transcoded is dependent entirely on the specific encoders/decoders and settings you plug into it. I like having that power, rather than relying blindly on a program that just says "convert to MP3" using whatever unspecified methods and settings were coded into it. There have been some horrible encoders in the past, and who's to say lazy developers might not pick something random as long as it encodes to that magic three-letter MP3 format, not giving much thought to quality.

FELIPE NO


Good morning, post-apocalyptia!

Last edited by Moguta; Dec 4, 2006 at 11:17 PM.
Slogra
Wark!


Member 1085

Level 3.62

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2006, 03:05 PM #8 of 9
I dunno why you are trying. Your mp3 setting WILL be worse quality than the presets (-V0 to -V9).
The presets are created by people who actually know how mp3 works internally (that is not you or me) and tested numerous times by people with good hearing and ability to recognize of mp3 artifacts.

Mp3 encoding is all about trade-offs. You can't have both perfect quality AND a low average bitrate. You have to find some compromise between quality and bitrate (+ the many other settings). The lame developers already did that for each bitrate range with the presets.

If you want low bitrate than you should just use -V4 or whatever.

Btw. All vbr presets already use 32kbps for pure silence.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?
Moguta
Tentacle Extraordinaire


Member 15679

Level 12.01

Nov 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2006, 09:07 PM #9 of 9
Originally Posted by Slogra
Your mp3 setting WILL be worse quality than the presets (-V0 to -V9).
I wouldn't go quite that far... After all, for example, an MP3 encoded at 320Kbps will likely sound exactly the same using nearly any encoder. But using LAME's -V # settings is arguably the most efficient way to encode MP3s, delivering consistently high quality using the least amount of bits.

Originally Posted by Slogra
You can't have both perfect quality AND a low average bitrate. You have to find some compromise between quality and bitrate (+ the many other settings). The lame developers already did that for each bitrate range with the presets.
The LAME developers did not chart out a bitrate range for the presets. Rather, they tried to make each preset deliver similar quality from MP3 to MP3, so the encoder tries to determine the audible complexity of the audio at any given point and adjusts the bitrate based on that. (That was a simplified explanation. It's really a bit more complicated, but not even I have a deep understanding of all the intricacies of the encoding process.) The bitrate charts you may have seen are merely an indicator of what these settings will typically deliver, not any technically-specified bitrate range. Deviations are to be expected. For example, a piano album I encoded in -V 2 --vbr-new results in several tracks with average bitrates at or below 128Kbps, the lowest in the album: 112Kbps, the highest in the album: 158Kbps! That's well outside the typical "170...210" range listed on the chart I linked.

If you didn't mean anything to the contrary of what I said, then I at least want to clarify for others. ^^ And I agree with everything else you had to say.

Jam it back in, in the dark.


Good morning, post-apocalyptia!

Last edited by Moguta; Dec 5, 2006 at 09:10 PM.
Reply

Thread Tools

Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis > Garrmondo Music and Trading > Behind the Music > Encoding mp3s: min. bitrate advisable for VBR?

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.