need lame input setting advice

[Vincent Vega]

i need to encode from 24bit/192khz stereo source to lame mp3 cbr 320/48khz, using foobar.

which setting would be better:
- use foobar's resampler (pphs) in 'ultra' mode to convert 192->48, then pass 48khz as input to lame, or
- send 192khz directly to lame

can lame use internally/benefit from higher input sample rate?

how does lame's resampling compare to the foobar's resampler (pphs) in 'ultra' mode, quality-wise?

[Brazil2]

- use foobar's resampler (pphs) in 'ultra' mode to convert 192->48, then pass 48khz as input to lame
Use this one instead:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=67373

Comparison between resamplers:
http://src.infinitewave.ca

There is no need to use 24-bit/192kHz format:
http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

So 16-bit/48kHz will do it, especially with MP3 since very few decoders can accurately playback 24-bit MP3:
http://mp3decoders.mp3-tech.org/24bit.html

[detmek]

Lame (and most lossy audio codecs) do not have bitdepth. So, there is no such thing as 24-bit MP3. The chart you linked just shows bitdepth of PCM output.

And yes, PPHS or SoX should be better then LAME's internal resampler.

[Vincent Vega]

thanks guys

my question was mainly would lame produce a better quality output if i feed original 192khz to it (i know output is 48khz anyway).
because i thought some encoders are able to process audio at higher sampling rate internally while making their encoding decisions, then resample to output rate only at last stage of encoding.

[detmek]

No, just use higher quality external resmapler like SoX VHQ. You got links.