Hello, I am not sure if this fits to here, if not maybe an admin can move...
My issue is that I want to use XLD under OS X to batch convert ripped CDs plus folders containing WAVs to MP3 using LAME, what seems to be the very best encoder nowadays. In order to get the best possible quality at "modest" bitrate within the audible area, and maybe leave the almost inaudible 16 - 20kHz range a little less precise, I would like to use
LAME -q0 -V2 -b128 -Y -m j
XLD is a wrapper around LAME and it supports batch conversion including subfolders but obviously not custom command line parameters. LAME command line in terminal on the other hand, is quite too complicated to do a batch setting, although I can convert single files. How to setup / configure XLD for custom LAME command line parameters? Any idea?
My issue is that I want to use XLD under OS X to batch convert ripped CDs plus folders containing WAVs to MP3 using LAME, what seems to be the very best encoder nowadays. In order to get the best possible quality at "modest" bitrate within the audible area, and maybe leave the almost inaudible 16 - 20kHz range a little less precise, I would like to use
LAME -q0 -V2 -b128 -Y -m j
XLD is a wrapper around LAME and it supports batch conversion including subfolders but obviously not custom command line parameters. LAME command line in terminal on the other hand, is quite too complicated to do a batch setting, although I can convert single files. How to setup / configure XLD for custom LAME command line parameters? Any idea?
not exactly. -q is the algo quality. best setting is -q0. Don't see why they use mid instead of best algorythm quality by default when my i7 can encode 8 files simultaneously, each at least 10 x real time. Sacrifizing quality for what? maybe 3or 5 seconds less encoding time on a ripped cd? Mean, I bought this i7 Quad not for stand-by or word processing - but for number-crunching. So it has to get some workload . ;-)
Programmers often fail to see the possibilities of modern hardware. There was a time when encoding speed was an issue with encoders, but nowadays it is definitely no more the case. Anyway, the -q2 V2 files sound perfectly transparent.
Programmers often fail to see the possibilities of modern hardware. There was a time when encoding speed was an issue with encoders, but nowadays it is definitely no more the case. Anyway, the -q2 V2 files sound perfectly transparent.
To quote the Recommended encoder settings section from the Hydrogenaudio knowledge base:
"Maximum quality is achieved when, regardless of listening conditions, you are unable to detect a difference between the MP3 and the original. As demonstrated by blind ABX tests, LAME-encoded MP3s typically achieve this level of transparency when encoded with the default settings, at bitrates well below maximum. Encoding with other settings will have no effect on the quality."
"Maximum quality is achieved when, regardless of listening conditions, you are unable to detect a difference between the MP3 and the original. As demonstrated by blind ABX tests, LAME-encoded MP3s typically achieve this level of transparency when encoded with the default settings, at bitrates well below maximum. Encoding with other settings will have no effect on the quality."
Absolutely. Thats 4 listening. But if I may later choose to edit / rework / modify some encoded files (which one should not do - I know, only uncompressed format should be used for editing, but still I sometimes do), then it is better to have some extra dB of encoder noise headroom below the audible threshold....
i dont keep lossless files. i want the files to be of good quality, playable on all players so need -b 128 some players cannot accept too low vbr and i do not want to deal with wavs flacs or multiple files since mp3 is by far the most "playable" on all car stereos portables computers etc.....
OK, so you want mp3 to make your music cross-platform safe. There's hardly any significant difference in file size between 128 and 320kbps files, even with USB stick capacity, so storage should be least of concern. So, to avoid any audible compromise on quality, I recommend the settings below.
Attachments
I might be old-fashioned, but I am not sure I would call a factor of 2.5 "hardly significant". If 128 allows you to have 150% more music on your device, it might make some difference for some people.
Best settings for Lame Mp3
Hello Will (if I may use your first name),
Thank you very much for your recommended settings. I am a neophyte, although I have used the splendid XLD for several years for conversion of my CDs to FLAC. Recently I joined a blog that uses 320 kbps files (not lossless), and presumably many users have Windows or Android-based platforms, not Mac like me. So your explanation and CBR settings were exactly what I needed to know.
One never knows when or how knowledge disseminates. Thank you and thank you again several years after your original posting.
And my thanks to the diyAudio forum (which I just joined) for keeping your entry available for several years too.
Best regards,
Guermantes
USA
Hello Will (if I may use your first name),
Thank you very much for your recommended settings. I am a neophyte, although I have used the splendid XLD for several years for conversion of my CDs to FLAC. Recently I joined a blog that uses 320 kbps files (not lossless), and presumably many users have Windows or Android-based platforms, not Mac like me. So your explanation and CBR settings were exactly what I needed to know.
One never knows when or how knowledge disseminates. Thank you and thank you again several years after your original posting.
And my thanks to the diyAudio forum (which I just joined) for keeping your entry available for several years too.
Best regards,
Guermantes
USA
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.