• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

WDLW 98.9fm am 1380

I have been working for years with encoders configured at 192 kbps and 48 kHz, using MPEG Audio Layer III with the LAME 3.97 codec. I also tried AAC+ and several of its variants, but I was never fully satisfied with the results. The same happened with newer versions of LAME, since, in my experience, they do not offer the same sonic character I have achieved with version 3.97.

 
exbloguero said:
I have been working for years with encoders configured at 192 kbps and 48 kHz, using MPEG Audio Layer III with the LAME 3.97 codec. I also tried AAC+ and several of its variants, but I was never fully satisfied with the results. The same happened with newer versions of LAME, since, in my experience, they do not offer the same sonic character I have achieved with version 3.97.

Click to expand...

Honestly compared to the original Fraunhofer MP3 codec at 320kbps I find any of the LAME versions to be lower quality in a lot of cases.. But truthfully it's probably better to utilize newer streaming codecs like HE-AAC in my opinion. But like broadcast processing, everyone has their own tastes.
 
xmusicmatt said:
Honestly compared to the original Fraunhofer MP3 codec at 320kbps I find any of the LAME versions to be lower quality in a lot of cases.. But truthfully it's probably better to utilize newer streaming codecs like HE-AAC in my opinion. But like broadcast processing, everyone has their own tastes.
Click to expand...
I've been encoding with LAME 3.100 for quite a while with the standard preset. Can't complain about the quality as it sounds cleaner compared to the iTunes high quality MP3 preset that I was previously using.

Also, LAME is purposely tuned to be efficient with VBR encoding. Forcing it to encode at CBR is going to produce worse results compared to other encoders. I've heard more obvious artifacts at 128 kbps with LAME/CBR compared to others at the same setting.
 


Back
Top Bottom