mp3 lame and acc which is better?

i am using acc itunes encoder at 256 kbps and find it ok but everybody seems rave about lame so at 256kbs does it matter which one i use?

 

AAC is a more advanced format, but at 256Kbps it won't matter if you use iTunes AAC or Lame MP3. They will both provide the same result.

If you do decide to experiment with LAME, use the quality presets -Vx where x is a number - lower numbers means higher quality, but larger file sizes. Constant Bit Rate isn't recommended. It wastes bits on easy to encode music, but can't shift to 320 Kbps frames for hard to encode music. Variable Bit Rate will always create better quality files when comparing at the same bitrate.

 

but there is no Variable Bit Rate higher than 192 on the acc encoder!
i did a couple of lame encodes at number 8 using lamedrop and the files came out at 256 and 320 kbps lower in file size but i could not tell which file was which when comparing to the acc files

 

That's because over 192 Kbps 99% of people can't tell the difference between a properly encoded AAC or MP3 file and its source. Hence it doesn't really matter which format you choose at those high bitrates. Just as long as you use a good encoder like iTunes AAC or LAME then you'll be fine.

MP3 is more compatible of course, so you can play the files on a lot more devices. Also if you have an MP3 player that plays both formats, MP3 actually requires less decoding power. So you will get slightly better battery life. But if you are concerned about quality, you can't really go wrong with iTunes AAC. It is an excellent encoder, and it won't get tripped up on some problem samples that can bork MP3.

Lastly, if you have a computer with a dual core CPU, LAME may be a better choice because you can encode two files at the same time. Whereas iTunes can only work with one file at a time.

 

oh ok thanks ShowsOn for the help!

 

No prob. I spent a lot of time researching everything before ripping my 1300 CDs. I wanted to get it right the first time, so I read as much as I could. Before that I had made lots of dumb mistakes like using old encoders and bad settings, which is why I wasn't happy with the quality of the files.

 

i am actually ripping my cd collection as well! i am using 500gig external drive to store wav files and i am then converting to acc or mp3 i started out using 128 kbps and they of course sucked i then went to 192kbps and that was ok i am now doing 256 kbps and i am trying to decide if i should use lame or acc!

 

I first rip to a lossless format called FLAC. It means you have a perfect CD copy of everything, but it only requires on average 850 Kbps, instead of 1411 Kbps for uncompressed CD audio (i.e. in WAV format). It also means the files contain all the artist, album and song title tags, and a small JPG file of the CD cover art.

I don't see any advantage to ripping to WAV files. WAVs don't officially support tags, and just waste space.

As lossy encoders improve, it is easy to transcode the lossless FLAC files to AAC or MP3 or whatever other format you like. It means I never have to rip the CDs again.

How many CDs do you have? I get about 3 - 4 CDs per GB in FLAC format. Loud rock and pop albums won't compress that much, but classical and jazz compress very well.

I think lossless is the way to go now. I recently built a new computer and included a 640 GB drive that only cost $92. So if you run out of space adding more is very cheap. In fact I think in 5 years time we probably won't bother with lossy codecs for audio. iPods, iPhones etc will have enough capacity to store everything lossless, but without compromising playback time.

The other crucial thing is the ripping application. Do you use Exact Audo Copy in secure mode, and with AccurateRip? If you have never used it, it re-reads the rip and compares it to determine if the rip is accurate. But not only that, AccurateRip compares your rip against an online database of results with others who have ripped the same CD. If someone on the other side of the world got the same rip result as you, then you can be very confident that the rip is accurate. It is the best if you want a free application. If you are willing to pay US$36, dBPowerAMP Music Converter is even better, provided your drive has good C2 error correction.

 

nah i will keep putting it in wav for the time being ! i use eac!

 

FWIW, foobar2000's format converter supports Nero AACs.

The VBR Q1.00 level tops out at 400kbps.

 

As I near the completion of ripping all of my CDs and needle drops to FLAC, (26 more to go! Yaaay!) I am now preparing for the second format to make lower-bit copies with. I am pretty much decided on mp3. I already have the FLAC files, but I will go with 256Kbps.

LAME settings, as in dBPoweramp is all gobblygook to me. Can someone guide me to the best settings?

 

The AAC encoder in iTunes offers better quality at moderate bitrates. Obviously at 400 Kbps there is no difference.

The best way to use LAME is by the Quality presets. These have received the most tuning to create the best quality files. If you want files around 256 Kbps, move the quality slider all the way to the right. This means -V is set to 0. If you want smaller files, drag the slider to the left.



Of course you can use a Constant Bit Rate mode by checking the Bit Rate (CBR) box, and adjusting the slider accordingly. But CBR files will be lower quality at the same bitrate than VBR files. CBR hasn't received anywhere near as much testing as the Quality presets, so it isn't recommended.

 

For me, LAME is way better than AAC. I've had blind and un-blind tests done on me with AAC and LAME at several bitrates and my ears can pick out the AAC every time. I cannot describe it other than LAME sounds "smoother" to me, and AAC is more "piercing".

Again, that is me.

 

Which AAC encoder did you use?

 

What about the Advanced tab?

 

Why? / How?

 

iTunes and AAChoo. (Mac)

 

yea give the advanced tab a go! but those settings which are there are the ones to use usually because they are tested !

 

Just leave those settings alone. They just determine if the file is resampled, which will only reduce the quality. And obviously you don't want to convert stereo recordings to mono.

It can be a useful setting if you have some mono recordings on CD and want to sum the channels. But it is unnecessary, because LAME can figure out if it is encoding a mono - or close to mono - source, and adjust the bitrate accordingly. So it is best to just leave those settings alone.

Because all encoders are different. It isn't the format that is the most important thing, but also the implementation of it. AAC is a technically superior format, but a bad AAC encoder like FAAC produces worse sounding files than a good MP3 encoder like LAME. Of course on top of that is versions, a recent version of LAME will sound better than an old AAC encoder that isn't as well tuned.

There is one important difference between AAC and MP3 on the decoding side. All AAC decoders must decode the signal the same way to achieve compliance. However MP3 can be decoded in different ways that deviate from the standard (some aspects of the MP3 standard are ambiguous). Some common MP3 decoders actually break compliance in order to increase compatibility with bad MP3 encoders. But if you use a good encoder like LAME, you can use a better quality MP3 decoder that produces a better sounding output.

 

Thank you for the additional info, I enjoyed reading the details.

I archive in FLAC (1.2.1b) and do most of my lossy encoding at V2 (LAME 3.97) via foobar2000 (and sometimes dbpoweramp). I occasionally do MP4s via foobar & Nero AACs. I haven't tried the iTunes encoder yet. Although the iTunes encoder may have changed, I've read on Hydrogenaudio that it isn't true VBR, but rather a "modified" ABR, so I'm a bit leery (saw your post). http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=45805

At any rate, MP3s at the V2 level are pretty transparent to my old ears. VBR MP4s at comparable levels of transparency offer slightly smaller files sizes, but sound almost about the same to me. I think the latest AACs offer superior lossy encoding, but at the levels I'm encoding there's not much difference to me... glad I've got the FLACs if I ever decide to switch.

 

I have a question regarding the LAME MP3 encoder in dbPoweramp. The Quality (VBR) setting only goes to 240kbps but the Bit Rate (ABR) setting goes to 320kbps. The (ABR) - average bit rate - encoding is described as "variable bit rate is used aiming for a target bitrate".

Which setting will give better results?

thanks

 

I always thought the Lame codecs sounded very good.

 

v0 will always give the best results. that was the 240 you saw.

 

AAC superior at the same bit rate. More transparent. Improved compression algorithm. And multigenerational for uses demanding it. My preferred compressed lossy medium thus far.

 

I use both Fraunhofer and L.A.M.E. 3.99 interchangeably at 320 kbps joint stereo CBR. To my ears, it sounds indistinguishable compared to CDs. I rarely use AAC and it's not my preferred audio codec. LAME 3.99 sounds smoother and more natural than AAC when I compared them side by side using Foobar2000 and the ABX plug-in. MP3s have wider support because it's been around for a lot longer.