All this talk about Lame VBR, and EAC have me to switch over from Fhg II to Lame :)

Well I am using the latest Beta of EAC to extract my audio to Wav files, but I am wondering what I should use to encode them to mp3 ?

EAC does use Lame which I have installed, but I have not really figured out how to use the settings. I guess it would do just as good a job as an encoder as most other software. I tried to use the Mp3 setting in EAC, but I could not find any of the advanced settings for it.

To utilize the advance settings, you must use the latest release of Lame, then when you install it, it will say (Advanced Settings) or basic settings. Choose advance settings, and it will install with a set of advance settings for you to control. Enjoy, it is one of my favorite programs, both EAC and Lame.

(in reply to Luna)

The problem is, that having never used Lame/EAC before, I don't know what to do.

I installed EAC in advanced mode. Then I downloaded Lame, and extracted it's contents to my C: drive

EAC found it, and I think it uses it to encode mp3's.

I just dont know what to do about the bitrate and stereo settings.

In the past I used Cool Edit Pro 2. I would set the bitrate, freq, and stereo options. Then ta da, it was done.

I have a feeling all those settings are in that little text box in EAC. I don't know any of the commands though.

I dont care about file size, or anything of the sort. I just want mp3's with .wav quality sound.

What settings do I need ? I usually encode at 224kbs. I figure that should be enough to make a mp3 that sounds the same as the CD. Or should I take it up to 256kbs ? What about the stereo ? I always used to disable stereo mixing and things like that.

How would all that be done in Lame. Gosh this post is long, and I am not even asking for much :-/

(in reply to Luna)

Instead of going through that, I will just ask this.

What are the best settings for quality in Lame ?

CBR or VBR.

With CBR I am using 256kbs. Would VBR give better quality and file sizes ? You said that you used VBR so I am guessing that VBR would produce a better sounding file vs CBR @ 256kbs

I have most of this figured out except for the command line thing :-/



By the way, I am extreamly impressed with EAC/Lame. I do notice some improvement in sound quality.

That is compared to ripping at high speed and encoding with Fhg.

(in reply to Luna)

Ack, as time goes by I start to answer my own questions

The big one I have right now is why VBR files do not display the proper play time. I encoded one files at 224kbs, and one with VBR 192 - 320kbs quality - 0 (max).

The CBR file comes out with the right time, but the VBR file only shows about half the total play time. It runs through the whole song fine in WMP, but somehow the counting is off :-/

It's really strange.

(in reply to Luna)

yeah, that seems to be a fault with windows media player. if you use winamp, the timing should be okay.

as far as the settings, i found this chart to be helpful (as mentioned in the other thread): http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?act=ST&f=15&t=203&s=3a36ff80190338f44020a0b7f6940e85

highest quality: --alt-preset insane

if you use custom command options, it is recommend that you set the EAC dropdown box for "Parameter Passing Scheme" to "User Defined Encoder". if you set it to LAME even when using LAME with your own custom commandline options, EAC might try to override your custom options.

actually, i prefer ripping to wave and then using razorlame (LAME frontend) over EAC + LAME. EAC cannot override LAME in the middle of an encode and it doesn't give you an uptodate scale of the job process. razorlame @ http://www.dors.de/razorlame/index.php in case you are interested.

welcome to the world of EAC : ). nobody should be using anything else in windows : )).

(in reply to Luna)

I am ok with EAC/Lame for now. It does not change any of my command settings (that I know of).

The last question I have is what is the polyphase lowpass filter. It is turned on when I encode in VBR, but I don't know what it is. Will it reduce sound quality ?

(in reply to Luna)

It is turned on each time you encode with Lame, no matter what you choose, depending on the bitrate encoding, will depend on the filtering used.

(in reply to Luna)

The last question I have is what is the polyphase lowpass filter.

not sure if this is the same but if it is the filter that removes frequencies from 19.5kHz and up, you can read about it here:http://users.belgacom.net/gc247244/quality.htm#lowpass

basically, nobody can really hear the difference between 19.5kHz - up so those frequencies are dropped. that way, you can better utilise the "bits"/space (eg. 192kbps) of the mp3.

(edit)
reading more of that site, it goes into more detail about the polyphase filter in point #7 here:
http://users.belgacom.net/gc247244/critique.htm

sorry, the the URLs i posted will redirect you to the mainpage (amateur website developers ... they didn't have to redirect you to the starting page to force you to use frames : )). just click on either the QUALITY or CRITIQUE buttons.

(in reply to Luna)

Not wanting to nitpick too much, but the average person can hear 20khz, and most people can hear a little over that. generally human hearing is rated as 20-20,000hz, but most people can hear 18-22,000hz... not counting people who damage their hearing with loud music

(in reply to Luna)

What Rabbit posted is right on track. The filtering of frequencies utilizied by LAME cannot be heard by the average person. I noticed that it is removing the ranges of 17K - 18K when I encode at 192KBS. So the average person couldn't distinguish the difference.

(in reply to Luna)

When I encode at 224 - 320kbs it filters out some freq at 19khz +

But some people say that you can hear that. Is there any way to turn this off. I mean it's probably impossible to hear any difference between one with the filter and one with out it, but I would still like to listen.

(in reply to Luna)

There isn't a way to turn it off that I know of. The folks that created LAME did alot of research on this. I'm sure that you cannot hear what is filtered out. But you never know. The impossible is always possible.

(in reply to Luna)

even if you CAN hear those frequencies, you WON'T miss them. Trust me! you won't even notice. I doubt any music would overly utilize them anyways.

(in reply to Luna)

Not wanting to nitpick too much, but the average person can hear 20khz, and most people can hear a little over that.

right ... and notice that i wrote "nobody can really hear THE DIFFERENCE" ... not "nobody can hear those frequencies".

(in reply to Luna)