Any tips for best quality at lowest file size combination?

[davidwhang]

Hi. I'm trying to convert all my music so that I can fit them into my iPod, but i don't want the quality to change.

I just wanted to ask three things:

1. At what bit rate would be the best to achieve lowest file size, but not allowing the sound quality to suffer? I'm quite a music lover so I'm particular with the quality, especially the high and low notes.

2. Would AAC achieve this goal more than mp3? If not AAC or mp3, which file type would be best?

3. Which is best among the three? VBR, ABR, or CBR?

I tried converting some of my songs to .mp3 at 112 kbps. It was ok for some, but for others, I noticed that the quality changed.

Thanks for your replies
- David

[rabrown]

Re: Any tips for best quality at lowest file size combination?

Try converting at about VBR 192 using mp3 lame.

Richard

[Spoon]

Re: Any tips for best quality at lowest file size combination?

Lame is now based on Presets, rather than a fixed vbr setting, so something like -v3 or -v2

[GeorgeButel]

Re: Any tips for best quality at lowest file size combination?

I used to use the "insane" setting--CBR, 320 kbs--totally mindlessly, then I went to the VBR, extreme, which saves as much as a third when it comes to file size. The thought suddenly occurred to me that it really WAS insane in some cases, that the setting should depend on what you are ripping. For instance, if you are ripping a "radio transcription" or a "live" recording of something that was taped in the 1930s or 1950s, there is no way on earth you are going to obtain audio reproduction quality that did not exist at the time. So I see absolutely no point in using the insane setting on, say, an old Benny Goodman performance, or an old Patsy Cline recording. You are not going to tell me that something taken off of a 78 rpm master is going to sound better at that high a quality. My personal experience, aside from that, is that my first encounters with music in the late 1940s and the 1950s were not exactly of anything with quality sound, and I actually find something that more resembles what I first heard, say, on AM radio, to be more pleasing. I don't mean that I want it to be distorted, but I do certainly mean that a more limited frequency response sounds more like what I have come to remember and to enjoy. On the other hand, to listen to Pink Floyd's Ummagumma or a Chopin Nocturne or Beethoven symphony definitely requires the "insane" setting, especially since my early encounters with those were live. And, of course, it depends on what you are going to be listening to it on. Could there possibly be any point in super high sound quality if your speakers are a half of an inch large or if your system has 10% harmonic distortion? Duh...

So, change the setting to fit the quality of the sound file you are dealing with. There is no "one size fits all" when it comes to the lossy settings. To give an example, I just re-ripped The Essential Dave Brubeck, a 24-bit remastered cd set, which I had originally ripped Sept 1, 2005, using dBPoweramp with Lame 3.92a. Thinking that the newer Lame might give me a .0001% better sound quality or something, I reripped all but the "live" tracks at the same insane setting I originally used, but for the live tracks, I used the VBR extreme setting. I cannot believe that portable recording equipment was as good as studio equipment, on top of which, there is crowd noise and the "sound" of the concert hall (yes, you want the "sound" of the hall as part of it, and, in fact, you can do that artificially to create "presence," but it decreases the quality of the instrumental sound somewhat.)

Spoon: is there a way to fix it so that the default on VBR and CBR is always the extreme? Sometimes I forget to look, and have to re-rip.

[BrodyBoy]

Re: Any tips for best quality at lowest file size combination?

You are not going to tell me that something taken off of a 78 rpm master is going to sound better at that high a quality.

Okay....I won't tell you that. But I will disagree with your premise!

Setting the parameters that determine the quality of digitized music shouldn't be a function of the "quality" of the original source material. Rather, IMHO, they should be based on the importance you place on achieving the best possible reproduction of the original analog recording...whatever that recording is.

Perhaps Billie Holiday's first tracks in the 30s, or Maria Callas' 1952 "Norma" at Covent Garden, were recorded with primitive technology (by today's standards)....but to me, that's all the more reason to try and preserve every iota of their quality. A lot of modern music is already so digitized and processed and dynamically-compressed that we're not hearing anything close to the original sound anyway. What does it matter is a few bits are lost here and there? But those classic recordings, committed directly to shellac, vinyl, or tape? Every bit is priceless!

Just another perspective.

[TGalea]

Re: Any tips for best quality at lowest file size combination?

I am not sure I agree that in the old days they could not do high quality recordings. I used to study acoustics, and was very interested in all the elements that effect recordings ....mike, hall, reverberations etc. I do not think that our ears have progressed in any way to exceed their hearing of frequency range, which in turn is modified by our age. It is useless to record at 16khz if the ear cannot hear it, and most of us won't...so it is even more useless to insist on 20khz!! I have Pioneer speakers from 1960. and I had wanted to upgrade, just for the heck of it, but they never made anything of that quality....5-way system, 15" woofers, and 2" tweeters! The only real improvement I would concede is the quality of speed control in tape recordings, that eleiminates "wow and flutter", which, of course does not apply to digital recording...which also has its own issues. I am not one that believe that the vinyl sound is better, but not am I one to accept that a gold wire to the speakers makes any difference to the sound delivery!! The worse thing with modern music, as someone else has already commented, is that you lose track of the original, and you are a victim of the whims of the recording technicians!!

[weddingcoo]

Re: Any tips for best quality at lowest file size combination?

:blush:
Try converting at about VBR 192 using mp3 lame.