![]() But I don't know what you might mean by "more quality, more volume sound", in any case. From there it's a case of running them through the same encoder.Ĭonsequently, there should be no difference. ![]() Max has three different rippers built in to it to choose from, but unless your CD was badly damaged all three-and the iTunes ripper, too-should have extracted the information from the CD with no problem and indentically with each other. Max uses the very same encoder-at least it does for MP3 it will also encode to "over 20 compressed and uncompressed formats including MP3, Ogg (Vorbis), FLAC, AAC, Apple Lossless, Monkey's Audio, WavPack, Speex, AIFF, and WAV". ITunes-LAME is merely an AppleScript that sends the output from iTunes to the LAME encoder. Quote from: KOF on 19:51:50 The one wich was ripped with iTunes-Lame had more quality, more volume sound, etc. I have tried re-installing iTunes LAME but that had no effect. It's so frustrating because I've had to switch back to the default iTunes encoder! It's quite random but it does it on every single rip. The first song or two list all of the "info" (title, artist, album, track number, etc.) but every subsequent track omits most if not all of the information completely. I'm not sure if this coincides with a recent upgrade to the latest iTunes, but now my LAME encodes all of the tracks to MP3's but MOST of the tagged information is completely dropped from the files. I have been using iTunes LAME (for Mac OSX) coupled with LAME v.3.97 with generally spectacular results - up until a couple of weeks ago, that is. I have since found many of the discussions very helpful in producing my MP3 library in the best possible way. At 320 Kbps, you're already well above the bitrate where MP3 encoding is considered transparent (according to the results of most listening tests), therefore I wouldn't say that it makes a noticeable difference.Not too long ago I was fortunate enough to stumble into this website and awesome forum. ![]() Using "stereo", you are encoding separate left and right channels into a file that is already "pushed for space" due to the 64 Kbps limitation you've placed on it, so using "joint stereo" would "free up some space" to allow for slightly better quality audio. Let's say that you were using 64 Kbps (which already sounds noticeably worse than the uncompressed file). It's more of an issue where you need to use a low bitrate, say, for hosting audio on the web where bandwidth is a consideration. ![]() :DĪt 320 Kbps, I doubt anyone would ever tell the difference between stereo and joint stereo, unless you could hear artefacts related to some aspect of the encoder and the way it handles joint stereo encoding. Yeah, sorry, I should have said something about that given that it's the most important part. The only exception to that would be if the particular MP3 encoder you're using (including the particular version of it), did not do a good job with joint stereo encoding, but if you're using a modern MP3 encoder then joint stereo would be the preferred choice. So, I would recommend using joint stereo. The advantage of that is that it's less wasteful. That can then be used to "reconstruct" (in terms of playback) the file correctly in terms of correct left/right channel separation. Middle = Left and right channels combined For instance, rather than encoding the data as completely separate left and right channels, it may encode the left and right channel combined along with the difference between the two, which is called mid-side stereo:. With joint stereo encoding, the encoder is capable of switching between different encoding methods depending on what gives the best results at a given time. The disadvantage of this when it comes to encoding digital audio is that often, the left and right channels may contain very similar data, but that data effectively has to be stored twice (once for the left channel and once for the right channel). With regular stereo encoding, each channel is treated as a completely separate entity.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |