I would like any comments and discussions, because I’m a new audiophile and I need your suggestions on which mode to encode Lame using dBpoweramp.
But here are my comparisons first:
I used a lossless Wav file and encoded into lossy mp3. I need everyone and anyone’s help, because I think slow encoding settings result in loss of quality. I also need your suggestions so I know if I should encode at High Priority (Fast) or Low Priority (Slow) in order to maintain the best lossy mp3 compression.
Encoding Software: dBpowerAMP 12.4
Encoders: Lame 3.97 & FhG & Wav
Analysis Software: Adobe Audition 3
[1] Lossless Format vs Various MP3's
Frequency Analysis:
http://img93.imageshack.us/img93/2948/frequencyanalysissoundwrb7.jpg ORIGINAL WAV [This one looks most different from the rest]
http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/6908/frequencyanalysis128cbrbh3.jpg FhG - 128 - High Quality - Slow
http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/2946/frequencyanalysis128cbrar9.jpg LAME - 128 - High Quality - Slow
http://img112.imageshack.us/img112/209/frequencyanalysis320cbrte9.jpg FhG - 320 - High Quality - Slow
http://img112.imageshack.us/img112/304/frequencyanalysis320cbrdu3.jpg LAME - 320 - High Quality - Slow
http://img172.imageshack.us/img172/2844/frequencyanalysis112cbrbs9.jpg FhG - 112 - High Quality - Slow
http://img172.imageshack.us/img172/69/frequencyanalysis112cbrgh4.jpg LAME - 112 - Low Quality - Fast
http://img172.imageshack.us/img172/2364/frequencyanalysis112cbrce0.jpg LAME - 112 - Medium Quality - Normal
http://img172.imageshack.us/img172/6316/frequencyanalysis112cbrna4.jpg LAME - 112 - High Quality - Slow
http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/8302/frequencyanalysis320cbrfr0.jpg LAME - 320 - Low Quality - Fast
http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/4827/frequencyanalysis320cbraa7.jpg LAME - 320 - Medium Quality - Normal
http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/1185/frequencyanalysis320cbrnx0.jpg LAME - 320 - High Quality - Slow
[2]FhG vs LAME 3.97
Spectral Frequency Display:
http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/5992/spectralfrequencydisplajz4.jpg ORIGINAL WAV
The original Wav was then encoded into:
http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/9361/spectralfrequencydisplahn6.jpg FhG - 128 - High Quality - Slow
http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/369/spectralfrequencydisplaxj8.jpg LAME - 128 - High Quality - Slow [Lame Wins!]
http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/4514/spectralfrequencydisplaxq4.jpg FhG - 320 - High Quality - Slow
http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/7260/spectralfrequencydisplabz0.jpg LAME - 320 - High Quality - Slow [Lame Wins Again!]
[3] FhG vs LAME 3.07 - 112-CBR
Spectral Frequency Display:
http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/5992/spectralfrequencydisplajz4.jpg ORIGINAL WAV
The SAME Wav was then encoded into:
http://img172.imageshack.us/img172/2029/spectralfrequencydisplayi8.jpg FhG - 112 - High Quality - Slow
http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/3394/spectralfrequencydisplaox3.jpg LAME - 112 - Low Quality - Fast
http://img172.imageshack.us/img172/4486/spectralfrequencydisplahw1.jpg LAME - 112 - Medium Quality - Normal
http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/3807/spectralfrequencydisplayi1.jpg LAME - 112 - High Quality - Slow [Best Lame Quality]
[4] LAME 3.97 320-CBR [Fast, Normal, and Slow Encoding]
Spectral Frequency Display:
http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/5992/spectralfrequencydisplajz4.jpg ORIGINAL WAV
The SAME Wav was encoded again into:
http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/9126/spectralfrequencydisplaol9.jpg LAME - 320 - Low Quality - Fast [Best Lame Quality]
http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/7738/spectralfrequencydisplauc5.jpg LAME - 320 - Medium Quality - Normal
http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/1076/spectralfrequencydisplarq7.jpg LAME - 320 - High Quality - Slow
Conclusions:
[1] Lame 3.97 in dBpowerAMP is superior to FhG no matter what encoding priority speed I choose or what CBR bit rate I choose.
[2] Wav files look different than MP3 files. Maybe this could be used to determine transcoding?
[3] What the heck, when I encode 320-CBR with Lame 3.97 at high quality or SLOW, there seems to be a lost in frequencies! But when I encode 320-CBR with lame 3.97 at low quality or FAST, there seems to be a better range in frequency.
Strange to say, when I encode 112-CBR with Lame 3.97 at high quality or SLOW, I get a better range in frequency, but when I encode 112-CBR with Lame 3.97 at low quality or Fast, I get a loss in the range of frequency.
I am not a developer or a pro at this kind of stuff, but is this because the more the compression, the longer and harder it takes to encode and keep quality, which will result in a better encoding if encoded slowly?
So does it mean that the 320-CBR mp3 encoded better at low priority because it took faster and less time to spend on compression?
Can anyone explain to me why this happening?