I tested to ogg encoder, and must say I'm somewhat disappointed.
Hardly not to after all those "mp3 killer" messages at slashdot etc...
I did a quick listening test, and if this is what lame sounded like
last year, as Mark said, then it has come a _long_ way.
It totally devastates:
Note: Othe solution for the ACM bitrates is a "setup" program for the ACM
codec and store the desired bitrates in the windows registry.
To my mind, this would be a lot better, allowing users to choose encoding
options (at least the major ones). This has already be done in the radium
hacked
I normaly use -h -k -b 192 -ms for encoding. If I change -b 192 to --abr 192 i get
files with average about 180-182kbit (about 45% frames at 160 and 10% above 192). Is
the reason for this bits that was wasted in CBR before ?
If its not, which parameters should be used if you want files that
I guess in a year or so when the severe bugs are out, one can only
assess then how far the psycho-accoustics will carry this one and if
it can reach up to the current standard of mp3 and alikes.
I did some listening tests (used Sennheiser HD490 ear phones) with funk
songs, ballads and hard
I normaly use -h -k -b 192 -ms for encoding. If I change -b 192 to
--abr 192 i get files with average about 180-182kbit (about 45% frames
at 160 and 10% above 192). Is the reason for this bits that was wasted
in CBR before ?
Here's a simplified explination of what happens in CBR:
most
ABR is more like CBR without to be constraint to fit into a fixed bitrate,
so it is allowed to use frames of variable sizes, like VBR too.
ABR is a hybrid of CBR and VBR.
What options give better quality results :
--abr 192 or -b 192 (for example) ?
[or .. what is currently better : ABR
