LAME vs. iTunes MP3 vs AAC encoding @ 320 kbps

[Xmags]

Hi, I know that there has been countless comparisons between LAME and other MP3 encoders (such as iTunes) and AAC. The general consensus is that LAME and AAC wins big time over iTunes MP3 - at the lower bit-rates (128-192kbps) that is, but how about the "high" end?

I'm specifically looking for comparison at 320kbps (which is what I rip most studio pop/rock/etc. music in. Most classical, jazz and some "hi-fi" recordings of rock/alternative etc. goes in Apple Lossless anyway. - I've got 300+ GB dedicated to ripping my CD collection :))

So there it is: LAME "insane" 320 CBR (newest version I guess) versus iTunes 4.7 320kbps MP3 versus 320kbps AAC (iTunes).
Do you hear any notisable difference in quality at that rate?

Let me say that personally I'm not un-satisfied with the 320k MP3s as ripped by iTunes for those kind of music I mentioned, but looking around this forum I see a lot of dislike of the iTunes ripper. Again, I don't care about the low bitrates (and I have no doubt iTunes MP3 sucks at the low end compared to LAME), all I'm interested in is 320k. Now, also bear in mind that "audio quality" can be somewhat relative. For example at 320k I sense that MP3 adds a little "warmth" to the sound compared to 320k AAC, which is not an alltogether bad thing, Indeed in my opinion AAC sounds a little "colder" compared to Lossless but the margins are of course rather small.

Anyhow, I'll be doing some testing myself of course (haven't tested LAME yet), but it's always interesting to hear others opinions as well.

[Teqnilogik]

No listening tests can really be done at 320 kbps because it's too high of a bit rate. Generally, at that bit rate, any encoder will give results equivalent to CD quality. The LAME preset for 320 kbps is named "Insane" for a reason. I use LAME to encode using its Standard preset. This preset provides CD quality to almost everybody at bit rates around 200 kbps. 320 kbps is generally known to be overkill with LAME and even AAC.

[Xmags]

But this would also imply that the iTunes MP3 encoder is in fact as good as the LAME (or AAC) encoder when you encode at 320kbps... overkill or not, 320k is still the best option next to Lossless if space is not a concern in any way. (since I can't have my music collection on the 30GB iPod Photo, and thus need to make a selection anyway, I can just as well go 320 as the best "compromise" between quality and quantity - at least that's my philosophy :))

[Wolffe]

I've never looked into these encoders in detail, but I am guessing that 320kbps provides a data rate high enough to hold most of the important audible information. When the information you're getting rid of to save space isn't really audible, then maintaining quality is relatively easy and you're not going to notice much of a difference between algorithms.

When you get into the lower bitrates, now the algorithms have to become much more creative and intelligently selective of what information is important and what isn't because there isn't enough room to store it all. This is what separates a good algorithm from another.

My music collection is too large to store with lossless compression, so I decided to rip my main library at 320kbps. I find that I can't tell the difference between a 128kbps transcoded from the 320kbps versus a 128kbps ripped straight from the CD. Having everything at 320kbps allows me to batch convert my music to other formats/bitrates with excellent quality and the convenience of not having to re-rip. I've converted all of those files to 128kbps AAC for my iPod and they still sound decent...

[Xmags]

hmmf...after doing some blind A/B testing between rips in 320k iTunes 4.7.1 MP3 and LAME v3.90.3 (--alt-preset insane), I have unfortunately come to the conclution that LAME is indeed better at 320k. I used some classical music for Guitar solo and orchestra (by Poul Ruders) and was, on several tracks, consistently able to pick out LAME as the better choise. Other tracks was a wash as far as I could hear, but iTunes never came out as being better.

This really sucks, and I had hoped it would not have been the case, because LAME (on the mac at least) is FOUR times slower than iTunes build-in MP3encoder, but I guess I'll be encoding in LAME from now on (and probably ripping even more music to Apple Lossless instead of MP3 - at least to save time ;))

[shabbs]

Originally posted by Xmags
I guess I'll be encoding in LAME from now on (and probably ripping even more music to Apple Lossless instead of MP3 - at least to save time ;))
Welcome, we've been waiting for you. ;)

Cheers.

[Endeavor]

Load a LAME alt-preset-insane and a LAME alt-preset-standard and ABX them with Foobar. Can you truly hear the difference on a consistent basis in a normal listening environment?
If so, then go for it, if not then a lower bitrate will give you all the quality you need and give you longer battery life per charge on your iPOD.
I concur with the iTunes MP3 encoder vs LAME, I could hear a difference during ABX at 192kbs VBR. iTunes AAC vs LAME MP3 however, sound exceptionally close at the same bitrate.

It's the old theory vs. reality argument. :D

[aquatika]

and probably ripping even more music to Apple Lossless instead of MP3

Go FLAC for wider compatabilty, don't get caught in the "I can only use Apple Lossless with iTunes" trap.

I don't think the only issue here is 320 kbps, at that bitrate both iTunes and LAME may well be the same. The fact is though that you can't compare the two unless you use the same ripper for both, how many of the artifacts are being introduced by iTunes ripper for example ?? I think the lack of a LAME plug-in for iTunes (on Windows) prevents a fair comparison of these two codecs as most LAME encodes are produced via EAC.

The only way I could think to do it would be to use the iTunes encode plug-in (here (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=29821) ) that enables an integration between iTunes and EAC. EAC rips and then encodes with whatever you have iTunes set to.
I can't do this as my hearing is not good enough (I had a burst eardrum in my right ear, it's fixed but it will never be any more than 60%) but unless someone does this then there will never be a fair comparison between the two.

:)

[kornchild2002]

Originally posted by Xmags
hmmf...after doing some blind A/B testing between rips in 320k iTunes 4.7.1 MP3 and LAME v3.90.3 (--alt-preset insane), I have unfortunately come to the conclution that LAME is indeed better at 320k.

Just curious but what equipment did you use? Anything at the 320 kbps bitrate should produce transparent song file. Personally, unless you have golden ears, a $50,000 sound system, and a portable mp3 player that will get 12 hours when playing 320 kbps mp3's then I would not do it. The current version of Lame (3.96.1) may provide better results at lower bitrates. Even the people over at hydrogen audio don't recomend ripping to 320 kbps with any lossy codec as it is too high.

[Xmags]

I don't know if I have "golden ears" or not, but I can hear the diference with my equipment. I'll tell you what I use for testing (and listening to music).

Audio interface: MOTU896HD (24bit/192khz converters), balanced master out directly to "passive" pre-amp (input selector and attenuater), then on to "Sirius" custom-build dual mono power-amp (200W-8ohm/400W-4ohm) and finally in to Audix studio monitors.
I don't know the exact price today of the setup since the parts have been bought over a period of years, but I guess around 20-25,000$(US) for the units mentioned. Definitely "good enough" for crital listening.

Back to the topic, I have come to the conclusion that when rippring my CDs I split the music in two main categories: Music you "listen to" and music you "hear".

The first category includes classcial music, most jazz, progressive/symphonic rock, etc.
The second includes Pop/Dance (and most electronica), mainstream/punk-rock, metal etc. I always rip music of the first category in Lossless, the second category I rip in either Lossless or 320kbps MP3 (deciding for each CD individually).

In regard to the iPod, it doesn't bother me that much that the files take up a lot of space since I will have to make a selection anyway regarding which music to load on the iPod. That being said, I have considered ripping with LAME preset "extreme" instead of "insane" :)

[kornchild2002]

Originally posted by Xmags
Audio interface: MOTU896HD (24bit/192khz converters), balanced master out directly to "passive" pre-amp (input selector and attenuater), then on to "Sirius" custom-build dual mono power-amp (200W-8ohm/400W-4ohm) and finally in to Audix studio monitors.
I don't know the exact price today of the setup since the parts have been bought over a period of years, but I guess around 20-25,000$(US) for the units mentioned. Definitely "good enough" for crital listening.

Very good! Glad to see you take your audio seriously. It is just some people (like my room mate) say that can hear a difference but are not using anything serious, only a three piece speaker system that was $40. Even worse, my room mate rips everything at 320 kbps and only plays his audio through is laptop speakers.

Anyways I don't know how I came off, if I came off negative then I am sorry (I know you didn't acuse me of this). But I am glad to see someone take their audio testing seriously.

For the quality I presume reducing the iPod's battery playtime by 1-2 hours is worth it. Well, I reduced the playtime from 13.5-14 hours (with 128AAC) to 12.5 hours with --alt-preset standard.

I chekced the hydrogen audio forums and they do what you do, if it doesn't sound good at the mp3 format then just rip to lossless. One day when terabyte drive are affordable then I will rip everything to lossless.

I think the preset extreme will provide you with the same results, just from what I can hear but on your equipment it may sound different. Is it worth it to save a couple of mb's per song (if that)?

I am just happy that you have the equipment to back up your claims and the knowledge as most people don't.

[Xmags]

Thanks for that nice reply kornchild :)

Let me also add, that the reason why I rip in such high quality is because I listen to my music on my "stationary" system (I rarely play my CDs on the CD-player anymore, using iTunes instead because it's just so much more convenient - but at the same time I also enjoy playing my old LPs, weird huh? :)).

If, on the other hand, my main use for ripping CDs had been the iPod, I would rip in a different (though still "good") quality: For use with the iPod only (or at least primarily) I would probably rip with "LAME alt-preset extreme" instead of Lossless and "alt-preset standard" instead of 320kbps.

In fact I have actually considered maintaining two seperate iTunes MP3 collections, one for use "at home" and one for "the road", but the extra time I need to spend on such a project is what is keeping me from doing it now. As it is, I already spend too much time ripping CDs and organizing the music collection...

[Xmags]

Originally posted by aquatika
Go FLAC for wider compatabilty, don't get caught in the "I can only use Apple Lossless with iTunes" trap.

Hmmm... I'm not convinced that FLAC has that much wider compatibility (?), it's not like MP3 (in regards to compatibility), and besides I don't believe the iPod can play FLAC files, so I'll just stick to Apple Lossless for practical reasons.

I don't think the only issue here is 320 kbps, at that bitrate both iTunes and LAME may well be the same. The fact is though that you can't compare the two unless you use the same ripper for both, how many of the artifacts are being introduced by iTunes ripper for example ?? I think the lack of a LAME plug-in for iTunes (on Windows) prevents a fair comparison of these two codecs as most LAME encodes are produced via EAC.

The only way I could think to do it would be to use the iTunes encode plug-in (here (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=29821) ) that enables an integration between iTunes and EAC. EAC rips and then encodes with whatever you have iTunes set to.
I can't do this as my hearing is not good enough (I had a burst eardrum in my right ear, it's fixed but it will never be any more than 60%) but unless someone does this then there will never be a fair comparison between the two.

:)

Hmmm, personally I'm not sure any potential difference in the rip would be audible, short of "clicks" and "pops" and the like, which I don't get with iTunes with error correction on using a good external drive and CDs in good condition (which all my CDs are). But it's an interesting experiment nevertheless. However, the reason there are not any results to be found on the net (as far as I can see) maybe also indicates that any difference does not affect audio quality?

Anyhow, I'm on a mac so I can't test EAC compared to iTunes, but I am using the same ripper (iTunes) for both LAME and iTunes MP3, and thus, my results should be valid. But I'm not going to buy a PC and use EAC unless presented with clear eveidence (from independent tests) that the audio quality is affected based on the ripper.

Anyone with both a mac and a pc (or the plug-in you mentioned) should be able to do it: rip a CD using iTunes and EAC respectively, and then encode with the same version of LAME . Finally play back using the same software and audio drivers and test for any difference. I'd be interested to hear of any results from blind tests.

[dragfree]

LAME "insane" 320 CBR (newest version I guess) versus iTunes 4.7 320kbps MP3 versus 320kbps AAC (iTunes).
Do you hear any notisable difference in quality at that rate?

Yes. At 320, both LAME and AAC are quite good. In general I would say the AAC files are a bit more "laid-back," the LAME more "forward"--which is probably what you're referring to by "warmth"--so the LAME files must be a bit brighter, and usually seem superior in representing the acoustic space around each instrument, whereas the AAC is a bit flatter, more recessed. But I don't find the AAC to be cold, or clinical, but rather sort of relaxed and lush, which I generally prefer to an overly "punchy" presentation. The difference may be akin to the difference between solid state and tube amps.

The differences are slight--both seem very near to CD quality--and my preference might vary from one recording to another, but in general I might well choose AAC if only it enjoyed the widespread support of MP3. And, frankly, I cannot consistently discern AAC@256 from AAC@320, so that's what I would choose if support weren't an issue. I would still rip with EAC and then convert, however, since iTunes's error correction leaves much to be desired. The files I've ripped with EAC--or with CDex at the full-paranoia setting--are perfectly clean, but little tics are not uncommon with the files I ripped with iTunes.

Oh, yes, I almost forgot--the MP3 encoder built into iTunes does not compare favorably with either AAC or LAME. I've no doubt that one reason Apple included it is that it makes AAC sound even better by comparison.

Because I do care about support, and quality, and file size, I use LAME alt-preset insane (320kbps). This gives me the near-universal support of MP3, close to CD quality sound, and files one-fourth the size of .cda and one-half the size of Lossless.

[kornchild2002]

Originally posted by Xmags
Hmmm... I'm not convinced that FLAC has that much wider compatibility (?), it's not like MP3 (in regards to compatibility), and besides I don't believe the iPod can play FLAC files, so I'll just stick to Apple Lossless for practical reasons.

There are more 3rd party software titles that support FLAC as it has been out for a longer period of time. The Apple lossless codec is gaining support due to its popularity and introduction through iTunes. Personally, I think Apple lossless is more versitile because of its support in iTunes and the iPod. If I had a Rio mp3 player then I would say that FLAC is better. I don't think anything will have the compatibility that mp3 has. WMA was seen on more devices but that support has kinda died down, it is still supported but not really heavily advertised. Now I see AAC support rising and being more advertised.

[aquatika]

The Apple lossless codec is gaining support due to its popularity and introduction through iTunes. Personally, I think Apple lossless is more versitile because of its support in iTunes and the iPod.

Where is it gaining support ?? There is still not much for it outside of iTunes, much like iTunes AAC really. They are both really restricted because of the iTunes/ Apple connection. Try and imagine moving away from an iPod to another player, then try and imagine what your going to buy to play all the iTunes AAC/ ALAC files that you have. The range is pretty limited when you think about it.

I would guess, IMHO, that when other players (outside of Apple) do eventually support lossless it will be the FLAC format. FLAC has widespread softwear support and has already been introduced on a couple of DAP's. Compared to ALAC support it's immense.

I would never say that I won't have another player besides an iPod, one day either Sony or iRiver are going to get it right. When that happens, I'll want music that is ready to go and doesn't need to be re-ripped.

[Wolffe]

Originally posted by aquatika
I would never say that I won't have another player besides an iPod, one day either Sony or iRiver are going to get it right. When that happens, I'll want music that is ready to go and doesn't need to be re-ripped.

Amen to that.

The great thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from. ;)

[kornchild2002]

Originally posted by aquatika
Where is it gaining support ??

With portable DAP's it is not moving very far at all, just staying with the iPod. But there is a couple of car CD decks that support iTunes AAC and people have been able to play ALAC files on them. With software it is gaining more support. dbpoweramp now support ALAC as does EAC. It still has a long way. iTunes AAC is lightyears ahead of ALAC and mp3 is lightyears ahead of AAC. FLAC has been out for a longer time and is really popular in the Lunix group. It was kinda their version of wav just like the Mac OS had AIFF but FLAC was a bigger hit.

The Rio Karma already supports FLAC and I think Rio's next big hard drive mp3 player (if it comes out) will also support FLAC. I imagine that future iRivers will also support FLAC as they already support OGG like the Rio Karma.