encoding better sounding mp3s

[Jonny Mumra]

the -alt variable bitrate should give cd quality mp3 files.

No mp3 is capable of that.

I disagree. There are double-blind listening tests about this (Here's one, but there are more.
Of course, it's true that an MP3 can never produce a signal identical to the original audio, but we're talking about quality, not data, right? (I can be pedantic, too!)

Sorry Dude.

I agree that 320kbit mp3's are of a good quality.
But with good monitors it is very apparrent to me to discern the difference between mp3 16 bit 24 bit 32float

[Peel]

the -alt variable bitrate should give cd quality mp3 files.

No mp3 is capable of that.

I disagree. There are double-blind listening tests about this (Here's one, but there are more.
Of course, it's true that an MP3 can never produce a signal identical to the original audio, but we're talking about quality, not data, right? (I can be pedantic, too!)

Sorry Dude.

I agree that 320kbit mp3's are of a good quality.
But with good monitors it is very apparrent to me to discern the difference between mp3 16 bit 24 bit 32float

That's great, but sorry yourself...
I fully accept that lots of people have ears much better than mine, but I'll trust a proper scientific study over heresay in any situation. AFAIK, no matter how many people claim they can, nobody has yet been found who can judge high-quality MP3 (say, 320kbps since that's what you mentioned, but 256 is likely just as good) to be lower than 44/16 PCM when they're actually tested. So if you can, please get in touch with the RIAA or something -- they've been looking for someone like you for years.
I'm very willing to eat crow on this, just give me a reason...

[cron]

the -alt variable bitrate should give cd quality mp3 files.

No mp3 is capable of that.

I disagree. There are double-blind listening tests about this (Here's one, but there are more.
Of course, it's true that an MP3 can never produce a signal identical to the original audio, but we're talking about quality, not data, right? (I can be pedantic, too!)

Sorry Dude.

I agree that 320kbit mp3's are of a good quality.
But with good monitors it is very apparrent to me to discern the difference between mp3 16 bit 24 bit 32float

That's great, but sorry yourself...
I fully accept that lots of people have ears much better than mine, but I'll trust a proper scientific study over heresay in any situation. AFAIK, no matter how many people claim they can, nobody has yet been found who can judge high-quality MP3 (say, 320kbps since that's what you mentioned, but 256 is likely just as good) to be lower than 44/16 PCM when they're actually tested. So if you can, please get in touch with the RIAA or something -- they've been looking for someone like you for years.
I'm very willing to eat crow on this, just give me a reason...

Indeed. Unless you can ABX those claims, they mean pretty much shite-all.

[declassified]

I'll just try and vary the "I hear it and you can't prove me wrong!" vs. "You can't hear it because I hear it's not there!" discussion with the following:

just a small text with some advice on how to pre-process your wavs before converting them to MP3.

Click to download: http://s43.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=2IH7 ... QATFA302VX