>
> Hello... I've been lurking on this list for awhile now and I've
> really started to become interested in some of the more advanced
> aspects of lame such as the experimental modes and stuff. Basically
> what I am trying to get out of lame is the highest possible sound
> quality short of using 320kbps cbr. For me size isn't such a big
> issue although the smaller the file the better.... I just figure if
> I'm going to be using 320kbps I might as well just go lossless..
> Anyway, over the last week or so I have really started experimenting
> with all the different switches and have been measuring their
> effects on sound quality via frequency analysis graphs, waveform
> subtraction, and most importantly listening tests. When I first
> started encoding my mp3s for archival purposes I was using the
> switches: -V1 -mj -b128 -q1 (thanks to RoelVdB) and was fairly happy
> with the results. After performing the aforementioned tests
> however, I have come up with what I consider significantly better
> setting! !
> s as far as sound quality is concerned. These new settings are: -V1
> -mj -b128 -q2 -d -p -k -F --nspsytune --athlower -35 -X3. The main
> reason I decided to switch to these settings is because they seem to
> eliminate pretty much all of the artifacts from the different test
> files I used it on, that the older settings were not able to. In
> particular, the file where it seemed to make the biggest difference
> was in fatboy.wav. With the original settings the file had very
> audible and harsh sounding pre echos... The newer settings seem to
> almost completely eliminate this problem and the file sounds nearly
> identical to the original wav. One thing that I am wondering about
> these settings is whether or not they are the optimum way to acheive
> what I am trying to do. Basically what I mean is, are some of those
> settings conflicting with eachother in some way or another? I don't
> really know the internals of lame well enough to figure out for
> myself... through my testing they seem to be ! !
> pretty much the best I could get but I know for example that
> --nspsytune normally enables -X1, but -X3 sounds quite a bit better
> although it is significantly slower... which isn't too big of a deal
> to me. Also, I know that from earlier conversations --athlower
> isn't perhaps the greatest way to control file size (which is what I
> am using it for)... however without it the files average 270kbps or
> more usually which is a bit too big... using --athlower they come
> down to around 230kbps average, although I have had files which
> reached all the way up to 290kbps. It also seems that these
> particular settings allow a larger bitrate range (ive seen from ~150
> to ~290kbps), while the older settings seemed limited to around ~170
> to ~230kbps.. I plan on posting some information about all of the
> tests and stuff that I have done on a website soon.. I would like to
> hear some opinions on these settings and my findings. Oh... and
> about that possible bug... when using these settings, ocassion! !
> aly (about 1 in 10 times or a bit less) while encoding lame will
> start giving an error saying:
>
> ERROR: MAX_HEADER_BUF too small in bitstream.c
>
> It repeats this over and over until it crashes. It only seems to
> happen with these particular settings though. Maybe someone can
> look into this and see if they find something... it would be nice
> not to have it crash. Well thats about it for now... if someone
> would like more information just email me.
>
> Dibrom
>
>
> Get your FREE Email and Voicemail at Lycos Communications at
> http://comm.lycos.com
> --
> MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
>
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
