WAV -> MP3 encoding with EAC/LAME (192kbps vs variable 192kbps)

[Rhin0]

hey,

I know someone in here will know! I am using EAC and the extenral lame encoder to rip my CD collection and encode them to MP3's. Seems like the sweet spot is 192kbps. I have used the Fraunhofer codec before but this time I am just going to use lame since I have read it is better at bit rates above 128.

-My question is: Theoretically speaking, which should have "better quality" the 192kbps or the variable 192kbps? The size difference for one song was 0.03MB, not a big difference at all. I figure in more complex songs though it might shave some more size off. I guess though if I was concerned with size i'd do all 128kbps.

Please let me know what you think about the 192 bit rate (if you think it is the most well rounded) and what you think about the locked rate vs. variable.

Thank you!
Rhin0

 

[PrincessGuard]

Variable should sound better since it can use >192kbps when needed. The whole purpose of VBR is to increase quality without sacrificing space.

 

[screw3d]

Definitely variable.

 

[Rhin0]

Thanks for the input but I am not sure you guys are correct. (no offense)
If you read what you wrote it seems clear, unless there is something I am not aware of.

"Variable should sound better since it can use >192kbps when needed. The whole purpose of VBR is to increase quality without sacrificing space."

The solid 192kbps uses 192kbps ALL the time, so I don't see how the variable can be any better. It might not be much if any worse but I don't think it can be better at all.
Like I said no offense, there might be some other detail I am missing. As I said the difference between the VBR and the standard solid rate or whatever it was called was 0.03 MB (insignificant)

please comment!

 

[essential]

A constant 192 means the song is getting a 192 bitrate even when it doesn't need a 192 bitrate. For example, say there is a 5sec silent part in a song where only drums are going. With a fixed bit rate, that silence will get 192, but with VBR, it might dip down to 128, while maintaining the exact quality that would be there with 192 since it isn't a very demanding part, that's where the space saving comes, during the parts of the songs that do not need 192 to remain cd-quality.

http://www.poikosoft.com

Use VRB - Quality 0 (highest)

VBR is better, but the VRB quality 0 with easy cd-da extractor ranges between 128-320, so you always maintain exactly what is needed. Of coarse the mp3s are a bit larger, but I think it's more than worth it. Best ripper on the net IMO.

 

[Kasper4christ]

vbr is cool

 

[PrincessGuard]

MP3s are broken into independent frames of length ~26ms. With constant bitrate (CBR), every frame has the same bitrate. With VBR, individual frames are encoded at different bitrates.

In complex parts of the song, the encoder will use a higher bitrate, which increases quality. In less complex parts, such as silence, the encoder can use lower bitrates and still maintain quality. Like essential said, with CBR, you are wasting bits on frames that don't need them.

For example, the VBR encoder can use 320kbps for a few frames, then drop to 96kbps for the next frames, then jump to 160kbps for the next. The bitrates can be calculated in such a way that the average is 192kbps, keeping the filesize the same as CBR.

 

[Slick5150]

Originally posted by: Rhin0
Thanks for the input but I am not sure you guys are correct. (no offense)

They are correct. You are not.

 

[daniel1113]

There is no good reason not to use VBR in your case. It provides better quality without any substantial increase in size. What more could you ask for?

 

[Rhin0]

Originally posted by: PrincessGuard
MP3s are broken into independent frames of length ~26ms. With constant bitrate (CBR), every frame has the same bitrate. With VBR, individual frames are encoded at different bitrates.

In complex parts of the song, the encoder will use a higher bitrate, which increases quality. In less complex parts, such as silence, the encoder can use lower bitrates and still maintain quality. Like essential said, with CBR, you are wasting bits on frames that don't need them.

For example, the VBR encoder can use 320kbps for a few frames, then drop to 96kbps for the next frames, then jump to 160kbps for the next. The bitrates can be calculated in such a way that the average is 192kbps, keeping the filesize the same as CBR.

Ok thank you. So it is an average that is the part I was missing. Now I can see how it could be better. 192kbsp constant vs. something variable (NOT AN AVERAGE) is not going to be better (might not be any worse either) but as you said that isn't the case

thanks, i'll just do all my stuff is 192kbps variable bit rate then

 

[Slick5150]

Using the "-preset standard" w/ LAME is about as good as MP3 can get. You can do "-preset extreme or insane" but then you're just wasting disk space.

Use the "-preset standard" (VBR around 192k) and you'll be very happy with the results.

 

[Rhin0]

Originally posted by: PinwiZ
Using the "-preset standard" w/ LAME is about as good as MP3 can get. You can do "-preset extreme or insane" but then you're just wasting disk space.

Use the "-preset standard" (VBR around 192k) and you'll be very happy with the results.

Cool. Thanks man... I was really exciting about getting EAC and Lame working again I was having some trouble getting it to compress to MP3. These are really two awesome programs...

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: Rhin0

Originally posted by: PinwiZ
Using the "-preset standard" w/ LAME is about as good as MP3 can get. You can do "-preset extreme or insane" but then you're just wasting disk space.

Use the "-preset standard" (VBR around 192k) and you'll be very happy with the results.

Cool. Thanks man... I was really exciting about getting EAC and Lame working again I was having some trouble getting it to compress to MP3. These are really two awesome programs...

Yep. You can't get any better than EAC with LAME. Also, just so you know, when you use LAME and one of the presets, the bitrate entered into the EAC compression setup window is irrelevant. The presets use their own settings regardless of what is entered into EAC. Enjoy your awesome music

 

[Kenazo]

I hate to admit it, but I find WMP's MP3 encoder a lot handier to use. And, it automatically downloads album art for me. Audio quality might not be as good, but I'm only using a cheap mini-stereo anyway.

 

[Nothinman]

If you're worried about quality why not using something lossless like FLAC?

 

[Fulcrum]

Originally posted by: PinwiZ
Using the "-preset standard" w/ LAME is about as good as MP3 can get. You can do "-preset extreme or insane" but then you're just wasting disk space.

Use the "-preset standard" (VBR around 192k) and you'll be very happy with the results.

I Agree, this is the best way to go.

 

[Triforceofcourage]

I actually use Itunes to rip all my music to VBR 320 MP3. Seems to work fine and is easy as anything else on the market.