Mark Taylor wrote:
On Sat, 15 Apr 2000, Ross Levis wrote:
If anyone is interested,VBR is now more spread over the bitrates. Here is a $
bitrate. Some -V tuning is obviously needed. I guess the better lossless co$
Did you notice any quality differences?
I did some listening tests
On Sat, 15 Apr 2000, Ross Levis wrote:
If anyone is interested,VBR is now more spread over the bitrates. Here is a $
bitrate. Some -V tuning is obviously needed. I guess the better lossless co$
Did you notice any quality differences?
The main difference is Robert's latest VBR
Hi Ross,
as LAME 3.80 is the CVS version, may I ask you:
which version of LAME 3.80 did you compare with LAME 3.70?
Robert
Ross Levis schrieb am Sam, 15 Apr 2000:
If anyone is interested,VBR is now more spread over the bitrates. Here is a partial
frame analysis of a song (all encoded with
I was using the "Russian" WIN32 compile which was given an alpha revision of "k",
compiled 14 April.
Ross.
Robert Hegemann wrote:
Hi Ross,
as LAME 3.80 is the CVS version, may I ask you:
which version of LAME 3.80 did you compare with LAME 3.70?
Robert
Ross Levis schrieb am Sam, 15
RL I was using the "Russian" WIN32 compile which was given an alpha
RL revision of "k", compiled 14 April.
RL Ross.
i used the latest sources for that moment.
i.e. lame.c 1.132
main.c 1.28
parse.c 1.34
quantize-pvt.c
reservoir.c 1.16
reservoir.h 1.5
If anyone is interested,VBR is now more spread over the bitrates. Here is a partial
frame analysis of a song (all encoded with -h -mj ). I included -V3 analysis to
obtain a closer average
bitrate. Some -V tuning is obviously needed. I guess the better lossless compression
is having an
