- #What is the best mp3 encoder 320kbps
- #What is the best mp3 encoder 320 kbps
- #What is the best mp3 encoder download
Consider the scenario where some disaster strikes and that last mix you ran is all that's left. But if that's what anyone is into, have at it! If it sounds right to you, then it is right. It goes without saying that if the source material is already 8 bit casio loops and such and then mastered to -4 LUFS that you're not going to hear any difference with an mp3. And you'll eventually be sorry you don't have any decent quality archives of your stuff.
If you want to release it on streaming (and you should), then you have to deal with their terrible practices and let them butcher your work in exchange for plays. And if you're producing music for release, I really believe you should too. That point obviously exists (listen to a 32kbps mp3 if you don't believe me). And at some point, going through worse and worse lossy data compression, it won't make my mom cry anymore, and at that point, something truly magical has been destroyed." "This is my song, and I put my heart into it, and I love it, and it makes my mom cry. I can't find the actual quote, but it was something like. because it's not worth it.Īndrew Schepps had a thing about this when he did an interview at Google. There are also people out there, like me, who just plain don't listen to music on youtube, spotify, etc.
#What is the best mp3 encoder download
I guess streaming is a reason, but even with insanely compressed audio, the experience is better if you download or cache it first (e.g., I use Tidal on my phone more than my computer because I can download things to the phone but not the computer, and I don't like the spinning wait indicator). If I listen to Tidal (or nothing) instead, it doesn't happen.Īnd in the days of 128GB of storage on a phone.I don't think there's any reason to bother with lossy compression anymore. It doesn't matter if it's music or podcasts, I get a headache after a while. Except that mp3s also give you a headache. If you truly think you can't hear it, I guess ignorance is bliss. I know they do psychoacoustic research and a lot of math with regard to frequency masking and stuff to try, but it just can't be done reliably. It's not possible to throw away 90% (or so) of the information and have it sound identical. Once you learn what the artifacts sound like, it's hard to not hear them most of the time. Anything with hi-hats is easy unless it was a serious loudness war casualty and the cymbals and hats are already way too distorted and hashy, but those comparisons just take a tiny bit longer. Solo voice (other than high soprano) or Piano in certain rooms can be hard as well as sparse non-reverb-y arrangements mastered quiet. The decisions usually take about a couple seconds. I'm either very close to 100% accuracy or completely random based on the program material. At higher quality settings, it's very hard to hear the difference (in a blind listening test), if you can hear a difference at all.įWIW, I have actually done blind listening tests on systems ranging from decent RFZ rooms with genelecs to $15 sony earbuds. * Lots of people think MP3 "sounds bad", but most of these people have not done blind listening tests.
#What is the best mp3 encoder 320 kbps
You don't need 320 kbps to compress silence.) It's probably overkill but I'm not worried about disc space.
#What is the best mp3 encoder 320kbps
V0 only goes to 320kbps when the algorithm thinks it's necessary. (At low bitrates, the sound can get pretty bad.)
If you hear a compression artifact at the higher-bitrate settings it's usually related to the basic MP3 compression algorithm itself and it usually doesn't get better at an even-higher bitrate. It doesn't necessarily require a high-quality sound system to reveal compression artifacts. It turns-out that the program material and the listener's ability to hear artifacts are most important factors. (With VBR V0 is the "best" and V9 gives you the smallest files.) If it sounds identical to the original, you can't get "better" than that. With most audio files you can use a lower bitrate setting or a variable bitrate setting and it will still sound identical to the uncompressed original (in a scientific-blind ABX test*). No matter what settings you use, it's lossy and every sample is altered. And, if you don't care about file size there's no reason to use a lower bitrate.īut, we can only say it's "better" if it actually sounds better. If you are "paranoid" but you want to use MP3, 320kbps joint stereo is the "least lossy" setting.
0 kommentar(er)
