![]() ![]() I can hear the difference on all of my devices, even on the main stereo system, the car, and even on the laptop speakers. I am converting those albums and files that have rich sonic qualities and deep bass so they can take advantage of the newer codec. So, I found a winner! I am in the process of re-converting a lot of my mp3 copies of my lossless collection with the newer LAME codec. With the newer LAME codec, I cannot hear much of any difference at all. With the older LAME codec, I heard a slight reduction in clarity and strength. For the test, I concentrated on the hi-hat since I love the way they were recorded: very clean, crisp, and clear. I loaded up two of my test files: Madonna's "Live To Tell" from the original "True Blue" CD, and "I Love You" by Donna Summer from her double Anthology CD from the 90s. The only thing I can think is that the newer LAME version is using more bits in the midrange and the bass regions, while the older version was inefficient in those areas trying to fill the entire spectrum. The older version looked just like a lossless file, while the one that blew me away (tired old audiophile cliche) had the more characteristic cutoff at 16,000 kHz with the lighter part reaching to 20,000 kHz. ![]() I then studied the spectral representation of files encoded with my old trusty 3.8 version and a 3.9 version made from the same lossless files. Oh, I can still hear a bit of a difference in the highs, and a slightly pronounced midrange that was confirmed with a frequency sweep, but overall, it just got harder to tell between lossless and this lossy LAME file! I repeated this with several types of music and came away with the same conclusion. The music sounds fuller and richer, just like the lossless source. All the depth of the lossless is there, and the bass is there. Well, when I decided to do an A/B comparison of a lossless file and a copy of it encoded with version 3.9, I could not believe it. Recently I started using the LAME 3.9, and what a difference! I had gotten used to the fact that the best mp3 still had weaker bass and slightly diffuse highs. For those years, i've been using the LAME 3.8 encoder. For years i've used mp3 for the car, on my bedroom stereo, and for portable use. If you do not use mp3, kindly skip this thread and move on. ![]() Maybe someday I’ll have a hifi that makes the differences all too noticeable, and I wouldn’t want to have to encode everything again.This is a thread for those who use mp3 for whatever application. To be honest, I don’t notice the difference between this and a fairly standard 128kbps encoding, but I have cloth ears, and like to think I’m doing things the best way. You can enter some options for the encoder in the dialog box, so you could either spend a while reading the instructions that came with the encoder or just enter -r3mix which is apparently the best quality/size balance. Now, just encode your CDs as normal, but instead of choosing “Convert Selection to MP3” from the Advanced menu in iTunes, use the LAME option under the AppleScript menu.There’s some early discussion of this script here. Download the Convert to MP3 AppleScript and, as the Read Me tells you, put the script into your ~/Library/iTunes/Scripts/ directory.Download the Mac OS X LAME installer from Vas the Man’s Downloads and install it.I think the tools come on a CD with OS X, but you can join Apple’s Developer Community and download them. You’ll need to install the Mac OS X developer tools to install LAME, as it requires some behind-the-scenes software installed with the tools.But you can install LAME and encode your MP3s using it direct from iTunes. ![]() The encoder that’s built into iTunes isn’t as good. LAME is apparently the best MP3 encoder or, at least, the best free one. It’s possible to encode MP3s using the LAME encoder directly from iTunes without too much hassle… Last time I did this I didn’t write this down anywhere so I’ve had to find all the pages again. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |