Curretly none MP2, only mp3 for home story/music-jukebox.
But If I use in past times, then CoolEdit MPEG plugin that was free
downloadable for cooledit 95 (it is not MP3 plugin). It has two
psychoacoustics models, ATT and NICAM and should save Layer 1 and layer 2
miscelaneous stereo modes and
Roel VdB wrote:
As noted in the other post, I, and many with me have very little to
complain about in with the =3.85 vbr_rh mode... Cannot find any
glitches since 3.83, encoded a few hundreth albums and counting...
...
VBR 256kbit/s average VS 256kbit/s cbr is another story. The
Roel VdB wrote:
On my HQ headphones I pick out many 192 mp3's. There are _a LOT_ more
instances where 192 isn't enough and the -V1 picks out a good higher
bitrate frame than an instance where VBR screws up. (vbr_mt that is)
A few months ago a 192 was somewhat considered perfect for me,
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2000 12:05 PM
Subject: Re: [MP3 ENCODER] new VBR code
On Sun, Jul 09, 2000 at 02:19:41PM -0700, Steve Schow wrote:
I am definitely interested in bitrates higher than 128. In my personal
opinion, 128 is not good enough. In CBR I would have to enc
Mark Taylor schrieb am Mon, 10 Jul 2000:
-F: Not recommended. This was added to force a
minimum frame size even if the data
could fit in a smaller framesize. -F was added because
some obscure portable couldn't handle frames 64kbs.
Originally -F had no
The thing I worry about with VBR is the following:
A VBR with an average bitrate of 180kbs may sound as
good as a 200kbs CBR 99% of the time. But 1% of the time
the psycho acoustics could screw up and use 128kbs
when it needed 180kbs. So 1% of the file might only be
as good as a 128kbs
Fair enough I guess.
-Original Message-
From: Mark Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2000 10:31 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [MP3 ENCODER] new VBR code
There is so much stuff constantly changing with lamenew
options, VBR,
CBR
is more
finished before I encode any more. Good luck guys.
-steve
-Original Message-
From: Steve Schow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, July 09, 2000 10:33 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [MP3 ENCODER] new VBR code
Fair enough I guess.
-Original Message-
From
I cannot see the point in using -V0 with "-b %bitrate% -B %bitrate%". I´ve
been trying, and can´t see (or hear) the difference.
Maybe it´s just me, but I suppose -V0 *must* encode with optimum quality. I
don´t know... In this case, if we want minbitrate AND maxbitrate to be 128,
why don´t try CBR
I was under the impression that VBR mode was better...so I have been trying
to use it. But at this point I have absolutely no idea if what I'm encoding
is better than CBR mode or not. I have absolutely no idea if I'm using a
good set of options or not. I'll probably just wait until lame
: [MP3 ENCODER] new VBR code
I do all my testing at 128kbs and lower, and I still
feel that 128kbs CBR is on average better than VBR (128kbs average)
At higher bitrates, (see r3mix.net for example), there is
some evidence that VBR outperforms CBR. But this is mostly
based on signal processing
I forget why the -B option was added, but it should not be
used under normal circumstances.
It was added because there are some decoder chips wich can't handle more
than 192k frames.
For (strange) cases like -b128 -B 128, why not made lame using cbr instead
of vbr?
Regards,
--
Gabriel
There is so much stuff constantly changing with lamenew options, VBR,
CBR, etc.. At this point I have totally lost touch with what mode is what
and which flags I should use. I sure hope you guys will start thinking
more about usability at some point
-steve
We do think
You're saying that variable bitrate encoding (old or new) isn't recommended or
proven to give consistently better results? (but you know it probably will)
We do think about usability: That is why the best, and reccommended
options (described in the USAGE file), has NEVER changed! It will
Is it just me, or is it virtually impossible to encode VBR files with the
new VBR code with switches like this "-X 6 -V 0 -q 1 -b 128 -B 128 -F"?
Because it takes like 4 hours per song to encode. With the old VBR code it
takes 4-6 minutes. Something has changed I take it?
Josh
It's
15 matches
Mail list logo
