Do you use WMP to encode MP3s? If so, do you set it at 192 or 256 kbps?

If you don't use WMP, what do you use (for Windows)?

Which MP3 tagger would you recommend? TIA.

For the best quality MP3s, you want EAC and LAME.

wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/i...tle=EAC_and_Lame
wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/i...ve_Configuration
wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/i...Recommended_LAME

Use the -V 0 preset.

When ripping, I use CDex with the Lame MP3 Encoder. I usually go with VBR between 128, 192, and 320 kbps.

For MP3 tagging, I use MP3Tag...

www.mp3tag.de/en

CDex with -V2 -preset standard -vbr new.

Beefy said "EAC + Lame, V0"

This is the best advice for sure. EAC and Lame configured correctly and converting to V0 and you cannot go wrong.

DML writes...

For MP3 tagging, I use MP3Tag...

www.mp3tag.de/en

yea this is a really good program for tagging - i use this too.

As above, if you want the best quality, don't use WMP or 256/192 kbps CBR.

Instead, the VBR presets of LAME are an ideal compromise between storage space and quality. The choice of the LAME presets V0, V1, V2, really depend on the music (more 'noisy' music is generally more difficult to encode) and your storage limitations. If you want maximal quality and storage space is not an issue, then encode at 320kbps CBR (-b 320 on LAME).

I agree EAC is the way to go, but CDex is still ok for mp3. Id choose 320 cbr if space isn't a critical issue. Lame is a nice free encoder, i used to think Blade was good but wasn't free at the time.

Thanks for suggesting EAC. I just downloaded it, but the version number is 0.99 Prebeta 4, is that right?

Not sure mate, i haven't upgraded from 0.95b4 but being open source i guess whatever is on the downloads page would be fine.

s p e e d writes...

I just downloaded it, but the version number is 0.99 Prebeta 4, is that right?

I'm using 0.99pb3, so the newer pb4 should be fine.

♪G-r!g♪ writes...

I agree EAC is the way to go

Hey G-Rig.... didn't realise you were on Whirlpool!

Beefy writes...

Hey G-Rig.... didn't realise you were on Whirlpool!

How's it going Beefy! i'm everywhere.

I haven't got those 9V batteries yet.. LOL.

Thanks all, it's all working nicely.

Just one more thing...is -V 0 really necessary? What about -V 2 or may be even -V 3?

Edit: about 60 minutes of audio...
-V 0 = 100 MB
-V 1 = 91 MB
-V 2 = 83 MB
-V 3 = 79 MB

You can always try ABX listening tests (with software such as winabx, the abx feature of foobar2000 etc.) This is the most objective method.

If you can't tell the difference with a (double-blind) listening test, then it means that the lower settings are more than sufficient.

Personally, I've found it depends on the music itself, the speakers/headphones (it is much easier to notice the differences using headphones rather than speakers).

wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=ABX

Architectonic writes...

Personally, I've found it depends on the music itself, the speakers/headphones (it is much easier to notice the differences using headphones rather than speakers).

I agree with this... i cant really tell difference between FLAC and 256mbps sometimes using yamaha computer speakers, but noticeable on good headphones.

Just decide before you rip them all!

If you want to go for a mix of great quality and great file size go with VBR V2 in EAC.
www.chrismyden.com/bestmp3guide.php
Follow ^ that guide and you'll be set.

It comes out at 180-260kbps and is great sounding.

For MP3 i usually do LAME VBR 320 - 192

But depends on how much space you got/want to take up.

I use lame 192kb and for as long as the audio levels are high I notice no difference from the original .wav file.

POWERZONE writes...

I use lame 192kb and for as long as the audio levels are high I notice no difference from the original .wav file.

Sometimes i find it hard to tell a difference, particularly on computer speakers or cheapheadphones.

What speakers/headphones are you using? Lossless definitely sounds more lively and better high and low dynamics.. just crisper overall.

Anyway i'd chose 256 to answer the thread question,but VBR is more efficient.

Just some old Phillips "radio" headphones. Designed for radio DJs' so pretty good quality. I usually use 320 but have found that 192 is fine but I always keep the levels at -1db because anything too low sounds like 128kpbs.

That's prob why you can't tell a big difference. Anyway as long as it sounds alright, but i'm surprised some people use 128 or 160.

I just think its worth ripping in a reasonable bitrate incase you upgrade to better headphones or speakers later. Sucks re-ripping again when you find out it could sound better!

I use Tag&Rename. One of the best pieces of shareware I've ever bought. By far the best tagging software on the market bar none.

.:G-r!g writes...

I just think its worth ripping in a reasonable bitrate incase you upgrade to better headphones or speakers later. Sucks re-ripping again when you find out it could sound better!

Which is why a lot of people now (in the age of larger hard drives) record to a lossless format such as flac or wavpack or alac etc and then transcode to mp3/aac/vorbis when required.

Architectonic writes...

Which is why a lot of people now (in the age of larger hard drives) record to a lossless format such as flac or wavpack or alac etc and then transcode to mp3/aac/vorbis when required.

Like i do. Hard drives are cheap as anything and players are coming out with higher capacity, so i'd rather listen to cd quality all the time now (Use FLAC Level 8/--Best). Sounds great!

I find the oversampling in the higher bit rates to be fatiguing to listening to at times.

To that end, I'm going to vote for 'in between' using EAC and the LAME VBR settings (see other posts above).

Fantastic compromise between sound quality and size. Even with quality headphones, you'd be hard pressed to fault it.

Tanalasta writes...

I find the oversampling in the higher bit rates to be fatiguing to listening to at times.

Eh? High bit rate MP3's don't oversample at all. They have the same bit depth and sample rate, with very high and very low frequencies removed.

Tanalasta writes...

I find the oversampling in the higher bit rates to be fatiguing to listening to at times.

Just curious if you get fatigued listening to Original CD's too, or is there something i'm missing?