I ripped a CD using MP3pro at 96CBR and then did the same using Power Pack LAME at 96CBR. I got the same file size in both instances. Is mp3pro not supposed to give a smaller file size at the same bit rate?
mp3pro is crap, don't use it. just stick to regular mp3s using LAME (best encoder) at either 192 or 256kpbs VBR for the best quality
Thats okay, mp3pro may be crap. What I want to know is whether mp3pro is supposed to give a smaller file size for the same bit rate viz 96CBR.
I've been listening to music from one of the on-line radio sites that broadcast some of their music at 64kb/sec. they also use mp3pro. the music quality at 64 kb/sec really blows (the 32kb/sec stuff is even worse) except the l/r channel separation is pretty good. they say they also broadcast in mp3pro for better quality. I googled mp3pro (because I had never heard of it) and this is what they say. http://www.mp3pro.ws/technology.htm I downloaded a thomason mp3pro player but can't get it to play the stream off the net. now I've heard these kind of 'better for less' claims -----Using advanced psychoacoustics techniques and music structure analysis, mp3PRO creates files that are more compact than original mp3 files, with equal or better sound quality and complete backwards and forwards compatibility.--- since back in the old sq quad days and most of is just that--blow, but I'm open minded enough to listen. I'm about ready to blow off this music radio site anyway because after a couple of days of listening to it, my computer loses it's broadband connection with the 'net and I have to re-boot in order to get back on (this started while I was listening to this net radio broadcast site and had never happened previously).
saurabh, I've used both the Lame and MP3PRO encoders that are with the Nero Ultra Suite 6. I converted the same exact file with both codecs as an experiment. The MP3PRO produced a file size that is about 66% of the Lame file size. Also note that Nero Digital with HEAAC produces a file size of about 50% when compared to the Lame file. Hope this helps
how was the sound quality of the mp3pro file at 66% of the size of the mp3/lame vs the same file in lame mp3? thx
Understand that I'm not on of those people who has to have the ultra perfect product when it comes to music, videos, etc. [bold] With that said I could discern no difference between the 3 different formats. [/bold] I'm sure that there is some body out there who has nothing better to do then worry about the quality of their rip for hours on end who will say that there is a difference, so I suppose that it depends on your ear?
so from what you've posted, mp3pro may very well offer better sound quality for net radio maxed at 64kb/sec than just the regular net radio 64kb/sec stream. thx
Dissone, While converting your files please go into the settings and chooses 96 Constant Bit Rate for both the codecs and then report the results. I hope you used Power Pack Lame and not the ordinary Lame. saurabh
And I tried the Nero AAC at the same 96CBR and though the file size was reduced the difference was negligible, that is mp3PRO was 4.34MB and Nero was 4.32MB.
saurabh, I apologize as I should have thought this through better regarding your original post. I tried the 96 CBR and of course all three codecs produced the same file size! The beauty of each codec is that they perform differnt quality at different CBR, example MP3PRO produces the same quality 80 kbit as Lame does with 96 kbit the resulting file is in fact smaller. Example with the same file I used all three encoders as you asked at 96 CBR the resulting file was exactly 3.6 MB with all three codecs. Now I do the same thing with all three encoders and the same exact file and the results are different. PowerPack default settings produced a file size of 4.8 MB, MP3PRO size = 3 MB, and HEAAC settings are more generic but I set it to 1 step below midline quality and got a file size of 2.22MB with no audible difference (in my opinion) Hope this helps
You need an Mp3Pro decoder/player to hear the difference with Mp3Pro. The player has to be able to use the "[bold]SBR[/bold] Enhancement" that the Mp3Pro files have. A regular Mp3 player will play Mp3Pro files but play it as an Mp3 file at Mp3 quality (or possibly not at all!). There should be no difference if you listen to a Mp3Pro file and an Mp3 (LAME) file using a regular Mp3 player. Also Mp3Pro only has an advantage over Mp3 when it comes to bit-rates under 128 kbps. Mp3Pro acheives its lower file sizes and (higher quality at lower bit-rates) because it samples at 16, 22.5, 24, and 32 kHz (as well as the normal 44.1 and 48 kHz freq.(s)) --- To listen to files encoded in MPC and APE (Monkeys Audio) you need to install the respective Direct Show (DS) Filters. They are availibale on there web sites for free. They work with all DS filter compadible media players (such as: Win Media 9/10, WinAMP 2/5, foobar2000, ect...). MPC DS filter (RadLight MPC DirectShow Filter 1.0.0.4): http://www.musepack.net/index.php?pg=win APE DS filter: http://www.monkeysaudio.com/download.html Ced
Good question, Since I have an iPod and use iTunes I have come to preffer Mp4 (AAC) over MP3 (LAME). I still listen to alot of my music in the Mp3 format and see no reason to and have no plans to convert my entire collection to Mp4 (I just do it with the new CDs I buy). I also like the sound of Apple-Lossless and how fast it encodes. With that said, in a better world I would encode all my files to MPC at the "extreme" quality setting and never look back! Ced
What programs encode to MPC? I'm not sure whether or not I want to rip my entire collection to a digital format as there is so many different views on what is the best.
They all sound just fine if you use good encoders and front ends. You already now the best Mp3 encoder is LAME. The best Mp4 encoder would be one that comes from or that is based on the apple encoder. For everything else I would use dBpowerAMP. Also dMC has a plug-in for MPC, if you didn't know. Codec central (dMC): http://www.dbpoweramp.com/codec-central.htm All the rest of the apps that support MPC can be found here: http://www.musepack.net/index.php?pg=pro If your worried about quality and future use (compatibility) you must go with a "Lossless" codec (I like Apple-Lossless because it has a wealthy coorprate sponser...lol). [bold]If space is an issue then your not ready to back-up your entire collection![/bold] You get what you pay for (and wait for), don't be cheap. Ced
