MP3 Quality/Conversion: LAME vs. others

[LtData]

Re: MP3 Quality/Conversion: LAME vs. others

It means anybody can modify the source. It also NORMALLY means that its free. However, some places charge for compiled versions of their open source software.

[Tomb]

Re: MP3 Quality/Conversion: LAME vs. others

Blade is probabily free because it is no longer under devolopment. One of the reasons that devolopment stopped on Blade is that the developer did not want to have to pay for distributing the MP3 codec. Some other MP3 encoders might be free also, but I haven't tried any them recently.

Blade stopped development because the developer considered Ogg Vorbis a better codec in part due to the fact that it is patent free.

Blade was terrible on anything less than 256 k/bits.

[neilthecellist]

Re: MP3 Quality/Conversion: LAME vs. others

So I should use Blade only if I want to go on a bitrate higher than 256? (Higher that that is only 320?)

[alrakis]

Re: MP3 Quality/Conversion: LAME vs. others

My personal opinion is that you should always use lame for mp3 encodings (very sad that we must pay now for use it in dBpoweramp :cry: ).
Very generally speaking 256kbps (using lame) is an overkill for most people, so a wasting of space.
But again I suggest you to make some tests to find at which bitrate (or preferably VBR quality setting) a lame mp3 is transparent for you, using some killer samples and then encode your mp3s at that quality setting.

[Tomb]

Re: MP3 Quality/Conversion: LAME vs. others

So I should use Blade only if I want to go on a bitrate higher than 256? (Higher that that is only 320?)

No. I was just highlighting what it's benefit was, it performed poorly against other mp3 encoders at the lower bitrates.. It stopped being developed in 2002 whilst lame is still developing. Use Lame!

Agree with alrakis that 256 k/bits is overkill. As for paying for dbpoweramp there is not a lot that could have been done about it because of patent issues. You could use lame.exe and the CLI generic codec without registering but it hardly breaks the bank to pay for it.

[Link500X]

Re: MP3 Quality/Conversion: LAME vs. others

It is usually best to avoid using mp3 format. The quality is terrible compared to other codecs, such as mpc or ogg. If you have the harddrive space than lossless is best. I usually use wma9 lossless because it loads the fastest on my slow computer.

If you use mp3 and want good quality(high bitrate), than blade is best. Anything below 192kbps, you should use lame. For bitrates between 192kbps and 256, it depends on what type of music you listen to. Lame makes the drums sound best; Blade makes the guitar sound best.

(Link500X, how come you're not online ever on AIM, MSN or Yahoo! Messenger? I've been trying to contact you for days now!)

I only go on messenger about once a week, and my status is usually set to invisible. I will try to get on later tonight.

[neilthecellist]

Re: MP3 Quality/Conversion: LAME vs. others

So.....LAME makes drums sound right...Blade does guitar right....how about violins and trumpets in a classical orchestral piece?

[Link500X]

Re: MP3 Quality/Conversion: LAME vs. others

Lame should be used for hard beats, such as drums; Blade should be used for strings, such as guitar or violins. For classical music you should definitely use Blade. However, for music with alot of hard beats, such as hard rock, Lame might be better. For using Lame, you shouldn't go above 256kbps because as shown at http://www.airwindows.com/encoders/index.html Lame 256 is actually better than Lame 320.

[Link500X]

Re: MP3 Quality/Conversion: LAME vs. others

Blade stopped development because the developer considered Ogg Vorbis a better codec in part due to the fact that it is patent free.

Blade was terrible on anything less than 256 k/bits.

There are many reasons that Blade stopped development(Check the Blade homepage). Blade is pretty good at 192 kbps as well.

Well, LAME is under development, but it's opensource...

Blade is also opensource. The sourcecode is now the only thing available on their website. It must be compiled to be of any use. There are many sites with the compiled code available(the dll version is in codec cetral).

[neilthecellist]

Re: MP3 Quality/Conversion: LAME vs. others

Lame should be used for hard beats, such as drums; Blade should be used for strings, such as guitar or violins. For classical music you should definitely use Blade. However, for music with alot of hard beats, such as hard rock, Lame might be better. For using Lame, you shouldn't go above 256kbps because as shown at http://www.airwindows.com/encoders/index.html Lame 256 is actually better than Lame 320.

OK! I'm gonna re-rip everything classical that I have to Blade mp3.

[ChristinaS]

Re: MP3 Quality/Conversion: LAME vs. others

OK! I'm gonna re-rip everything classical that I have to Blade mp3.

Don't waste your time with "everything". Do a test only.
Try wma also, you may like it

[alrakis]

Re: MP3 Quality/Conversion: LAME vs. others

The quality is terrible compared to other codecs, such as mpc or ogg

Lame should be used for hard beats, such as drums; Blade should be used for strings, such as guitar or violins. For classical music you should definitely use Blade. However, for music with alot of hard beats, such as hard rock, Lame might be better. For using Lame, you shouldn't go above 256kbps because as shown at http://www.airwindows.com/encoders/index.html Lame 256 is actually better than Lame 320.

Oh my God...
I want not to be unpolite... I simply disagree.
Lossy codecs are all based on perceptive encoding.
There is a point from which going up with the bitrate does not mean going up with perceived quality: this is called transparency because from this point you can't ABX the orginal wav from the compressed file, and it is subjective. Saying that 256kbps is worse than 320kbps, and in general something is better/worse than others basing on graphs and similar things in the lossy codecs world is simply nonsense, because what codecs reach is always perceived quality... for 99.99% 256kbps mp3 is transparent so who could tell 256 is better/worse than 320?
ABX tests are usually made on killer samples, known samples that when encoded produce known perceptible (by trained ears) artifacts.
If a mp3 is encoded at such bitrate (transparency), saying some is better in drums and something else in strings is another nonsense... it implies that such mp3 is NOT transparent for you.

Again, I not would say that mp3 "quality is terrible compared to other codecs".
Any lossy codec could be transparent, simply mpc and ogg usually are transparent to most people at lower bitrates, usually 170-190 kbps (VBR) while mp3 is usually transparent at 200-220kbps (VBR).
You could encode at a higher bitrate, mantaining a sort of "security" for future situations or for transcoding (that is anyway a bad idea between lossy codecs) but for listening pourposes transparency is what you ask to a lossy encoder.

[neilthecellist]

Re: MP3 Quality/Conversion: LAME vs. others

I don't understand this. ALL lossy codecs, with the exception of Blade and FhG at low bitrates, hurt my ears. I hear this noisy sizzle in the background, (is this called an artifact?) and after listening to the lossy file, my ears ring and I have a migraine. And I've done blind testing with my brother. He generates a bunch of random bitrate files in different formats and asks me if it's lossy or lossless...I can tell.....

[alrakis]

Re: MP3 Quality/Conversion: LAME vs. others

excuse... what do you mean by random and low bitrate?
usually for not hear differences in general music you should encode at something like 160 kbps (lame... not blade). If you hear differences try higher bitrates.
But keep attention not to have DSP effects or similar active on your sound board: they produce a horrible sound with lossy coded music.

[neilthecellist]

Re: MP3 Quality/Conversion: LAME vs. others

I hate DSPs anyway. My equalizer in Winamp is set to default, too.