Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2003
- Posts
- 20,160
- Location
- Woburn Sand Dunes
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/fc608/fc608ab6e6dc2469165c10f9a8cb020731d10c69" alt="Smile :) :)"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/fc608/fc608ab6e6dc2469165c10f9a8cb020731d10c69" alt="Smile :) :)"
james.miller said:what does that have to do with anything
best ripper + best encoder = EAC + LAME. sod codec support or fancy menus when playing your music, there is nothing better than EAC and lame. Unless you like using lossless which EAC does support.
EAC - best ripper.period.
Fred_Or_Dead said:Utter rubbish, both Ogg & Musepack are far better codecs then dog old LAME!
But hey if you want your compressed audio twice as big as it needs to be then by all means carry on using LAME...![]()
james.miller said:192-224 vbr lame. nothing more is needed, and id advise you to keep to mp3 for compatibility reasons. its simply the most compatible codec around, and it that rate (224kbps) its just as good as anything else out there.
Fred_Or_Dead said:Stop posting incorrect information then!!
A 192kbs Ogg or Musepack is far better quality than a 192kbs VBR lame, ask any professional audio encoder, decent release group ...etc.
A very good in-depth comparison:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t36465.html
Now, we could compare the evolution during one year (between MP3, MPC and Vorbis only).
• Musepack Audio: From an evolution standpoint, MPC is the clear looser: it lost the quality crown, stolen by Vorbis. Last year MPC ends the test by getting an uncontestable first place; now the format is tied with Vorbis (which is better on average) and LAME (worse on average). On 18 samples MPC was ranked first 15 times in 2004; now it’s four times only! Musepack has also lost the efficiency trophy: with classical at least the bitrate is now superior to LAME and Vorbis. I remind that last year, MPC ends at first place with 10 kbps less than MEGAMIX and even 20 kbps less than LAME 3.97 alpha 3.
As a consequence of increased bitrate and stagnant quality, I would say that MPC is loosing its former attractiveness (for classical music). It’s not really surprising considering the low evolution of the format in a world of constant progress. Other format have simply catch up their lost time.
........
• LAME 3.97: LAME vitality defies the common sense. The format is supposed to have reached maturity for years and therefore to stagnate. The tested preset is not only better but is also faster (thanks to –vbr-new) and more efficient (-11 kbps!). The progresses are important. To precisely check them I reencoded all reference files with alpha 3 –V2 and compared them to alpha 11 –V2 –vbr-new. Indeed obvious problems are solved: the audible ringing in orchestra (sample_18) has totally disappeard, the weird distortion on organ (sample_05) is truly lowered… 2005 seems to be an exceptional vintage for LAME, comparable I would say to the release of LAME 3.90 in December 2001.
marc2003 said:regardless of codecs used you cannot dispute eac is the best ripper. and for those of us with portable mp3 players, codecs such as ogg/mpc are simply not an option.![]()
No, an opinion based upon opinion. Its a subjective thing, no matter how many people agree with you. Its still subjective.An opinon based in fact and shared by many others, BoomAM. look it up.
You need to clean your ears out then mate, seriously. I can tell a clear difference between 128 and 192 or above. I play my MP3s through a fairly decent hi-fi setup and 128kbps just won't do.Energize said:Most of my songs are 128kbps cbr and sound great on hifi, I guess it just depends on the quality of your setup.