MP3 & MP3Pro question

[jbn]

I have Nero 7 & it has two main audio options for compressing CD audio tracks. The 1st option is the free 'powerpack lame mp3 encoder'. The 2nd option is an MP3Pro encoder. Is the Lame MP3 encoder capable of creating MP3Pro files? What is the best MP3Pro encoder that works with Nero?

[anonymez]

don't bother with mp3pro, stick with LAME, its easily the best

[Chewy]

mp3pro went over like a lead ballon

[anonymez]

yeah mp3pro was a crappy attempt. lame has pretty much reached the limits of mp3, i had moved onto mp4 (he aac) long ago

[celtic_druid]

mp3pro is mp3 + SBR (like he aac) so it goes past the limits of what is mp3 and no lame can't do mp3 pro, although I guess it could be modified to do so.

Have to agree though, not much point in mp3 pro since not much supports it. At bitrates bellow 128k it should be able to beat lame though.

[drfsupercenter]

Use LAME at 128kbps.

[anonymez]

technically its better than 'standard' mp3. from my experience, it most definitely is not. i tried lame at 32kbps cbr & mp3pro (nero) at the same bitrate. they ended up same file size.

it was a blind test. lame sounded better to my ears (similar results with other bitrates too)

[celtic_druid]

Ok, so that means that whatever implimentation Nero is using is not a very good one. lame + SBR should be able to beat lame at say 96k and bellow.

Doesn't matter anyway. If anyone wants a low bitrate codec, they can use vorbis or he aac. Plenty of vorbis hardware support currently. Most devices that support aac though (iPod, etc.) support lc aac only. Still compared to mp3pro. I am not aware of any hardware mp3 pro support. Even software playback is lacking.

[drfsupercenter]

I don't know why someone would want a low bitrate though, unless it was for a website intended at dialup users. 128k is good quality, and isn't too big of a size for most songs. Even Napster/Wal-Mart downloads use 128k (in WMA though, but ultimately the same size when converted)

[celtic_druid]

Even Napster/Wal-Mart?

You think that they care about quality? Same goes for Sony selling 130k ATRAC3 or apple with DRM'ed mp4. If quality was their main concern they would have lossless files for download. Out of 128k WMA std, aac and atrac3 though, I would definatly go the aac.

The other thing is if it is CBR or VBR. Whilst recent listen tests might have proved that 128k vbr lame mp3 might be fine in most cases, I am sure the results wouldn't be the same for CBR.

[anonymez]

unfortunately quality isn't the general public's concern either. 128kbps is ridicoulous for the price

[drfsupercenter]

I do not see how you all say that 128k is bad quality... even iTunes uses 128kbps but it's AAC (eww). To see if you really hate 128k that much, browse around here: www.drfsupercenter.3lo.net/Music and play something. They are all 128k MP3. I proved someone wrong once before this way

[anonymez]

drf, 128kbps is not enough, no mp3 anybody makes is going to change that for me. all a matter of tolerance/opinion/how spoiled you've become

aac is better than mp3

[celtic_druid]

As you can see 128k mp3 stacks up quite well. VBR though as I said.

[drfsupercenter]

Anyone have a problem with those files on my site? If you didn't look at the bitrate, could you really tell they were 128k? Seriously. Try it and see what happens. I may be wrong but 128k and 312k sound the same to me - why waste the space?