Best .mp3 encoder

[dandean]

What\'s the best software/pathway to render the optimum .mp3? Let\'s say this would be from 16 bit/44.1khz -> mp3. I know there are a bunch of different encoders...which one(s) are the best?

Thanks,
DD

[Marcelo Arend]

Try LAME mp3 encoder.
People (and I) say that this encoder have the best sound.

You need do downlaod the front-end software and the encoder.

http://www.dors.de/razorlame/razorlame.zip (\"http://www.dors.de/razorlame/razorlame.zip\")
http://mitiok.free.fr/lame-3.92.zip (\"http://mitiok.free.fr/lame-3.92.zip\")

[mschiff]

Dan,

I\'ve tried a lot of different mp3 encoders (including some expensive ones), and like Lame (free) best for my music.

-- Martin

[cunningham]

Dan,

You won\'t go wrong with the Lame MP3 encoder
http://home.pi.be/~mk442837/ (\"http://home.pi.be/~mk442837/\")

I like Exact Audio Copy (EAC) for the front end
http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/ (\"http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/\")

Best sound is obtained through the \"variable rate encoding\" switch, although the resulting file is likely to be somewhat larger than \"fix rate encoding\" at a low or medium setting. Using the variable rate setting produces almost 16 bit WAV quality results.

Check out the following site\'s Analysis page for a good comparison of MP3 encoders and their settings.
http://www.r3mix.net/ (\"http://www.r3mix.net/\")

[PeterRoos]

Originally posted by cunningham:

Best sound is obtained through the \"variable rate encoding\" switch, although the resulting file is likely to be somewhat larger than \"fix rate encoding\" at a low or medium setting. Using the variable rate setting produces almost 16 bit WAV quality results.
<font size=\"2\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">I have been hesitant about using VBR, not knowing if all players support it properly. Can anyone shed a light on this?

Peter

[cunningham]

Peter,

I\'m not aware of any player or computer having a problem with Variable Bit Rate (VBR). My impression is that file size is the only downside to VBR, although the compression results in a smaller than WAV. In Dan case and perhaps in your case too, I would think the question is likely to be \"is there a problem streaming variable rate MP3 via the Internet,\" since that may be the method of audition. (I\'m assuming file size is not an issue on sample CDs.)

I find using LAME at 128 Kbps often results in \"acceptable\" audio quality for the average person; 160 Kbps would be a significant step up in quality with a reasonable file size increase; and 192 Kbps works well. However, I favor VBR.

Perhaps someone else will be able to give a more definitive response regarding VBR performance issues.

[PolarBear]

LAME is the best.

I bet you ALL to do the following when pack to mp3:

Please use ID3-Tags!

It is so annoying only to have the average 5 character long filename - I have hundreds of your demos, cannout distinguish which library was the solohorn.mp3 of if I would not put it into a lot of folders...

VBR:

I personally don\'t think that VBR should be used for orchestral sounds. Given a long sounding piano tone or a pp solo instrument: VBR reduces bitrate [e.g. 192 kbps] (not resolution [e.g. 16 bit]) e.g. to 96 kbps (at this rate you clearly can hear artifacts). Even if you select \"best\" It won\'t be the thing to use IMO.

I\'m more a fan of constant bitrates. Just because of a more clear sound. VBR was designed to save space. I\'d prefer a better sound much more than saving 200k on one mp3! Really!

Test it yourself! Pack a song of your choice to mp3 with VBR (best) and one with constant 192kbps (with [real] stereo - some packers offer also \"joint stereo\" - not very good IMO).

My result was: I\'d use 192 kbit with constant bitrate. For higher results perhaps a 256 kbps rate.

Thanks for using ID3-Tags!

Hansi

[cunningham]

Peter,

I\'m not aware of any player or computer having a problem with Variable Bit Rate (VBR). My impression is that file size is the only downside to VBR, although the compression results in a smaller than WAV. In Dan case and perhaps in your case too, I would think the question is likely to be \"is there a problem streaming variable rate MP3 via the Internet,\" since that may be the method of audition. (I\'m assuming file size is not an issue on sample CDs.)

I find using LAME at 128 Kbps often results in \"acceptable\" audio quality for the average person; 160 Kbps would be a significant step up in quality with a reasonable file size increase; and 192 Kbps works well. However, I favor VBR.

Perhaps someone else will be able to give a more definitive response regarding VBR performance issues.

[KingIdiot]

Many older players have problems with VBR. They all generally play them, but some of them display incorrect time information, and or marker/position info.

Some may even have problems playing them. I have problems with MPlayer 6.4 with some mp3 files. They will not play any sound even when the marker is moving) until I move the position marker to some place inthe middle of the song.

I\'m not sure if that has to dowith VBR tho.

Generally VBR is good and fine for anything loud. But if you want consistency go with constant bit rates. I generally use Wavelab to makemy MP3\'s, but still use XING from time to time.

[esperlad]

I use Sound Forge and have always had good luck.

[tob]

LAME codec works best here:)

[dwdonehoo]

\"Please use ID3-Tags!\"
Yes, please do. However, if you get an MP3 with an \"Unknown Artist\", remember, if you have WinAmp, you can actually enter the ID3 info using the drop-down menu item (ALT-3) \"View File Info\". Don\'t forget to save, and make sure the MP3 is not write-protected.
Another Sound Forge user here for MP3\'s.

[Hasen]

-

[Hasen]

I\'ve never heard of this LAME codec before but if its the best then I think I should be using it. I downloaded the codec extension for Mac but which software (hopefully free) do I need to actually encode mp3s with it?