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
I am planning XML like interface of LAME parameter handling.
I will mail or commit the base code. It will be completely easy and
feature extendable.
---
[EMAIL PROTECTED] // may the source be with you!
Both methods (thousands of functions and thousands of tags) are
equivalent:
At these types of average bitrates, I think you might be better off
with CBR instead of VBR. This is because with an average bitrate
230kbs, you only need an extra 90kbs to go up to 320kbs. 90kbs
is only 40% of the average frame size - these types of fluctuations
are easily handled by the
::
::
:: That name was changed because one make system (MSDOS?) interpreted
:: the '-' in quantize-pvt.c as a compiler option.
::
MSDOS can't store a name like "quantize-pvt.c", you got at most:
"quantize.c" or "quanti~1.c".
--
Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Frank Klemm
eMail | [EMAIL
On Thu, 5 Oct 2000, Robert Hegemann wrote:
From your recent postings I'm detecting that you think -q1 can only rarely
give a sonic improvement. In fact it is more likely to degrade the sound
over -q2? If so, the Roel recommendation of -q1, seems a little dangerous?
You think the extra
Hello Robert,
Thursday, October 05, 2000, 12:08:21 AM, you wrote:
RH I don't know any track where the use of -q1 improves sound quality
RH compared to a same sized -q2. That's why I'm asking you all.
The reason I use it on -V1 is: I don't get poorer quality (still
waiting for my
--
On Thu, 5 Oct 2000 11:05:14
Roel VdB wrote:
Hello Robert,
Thursday, October 05, 2000, 12:08:21 AM, you wrote:
RH I don't know any track where the use of -q1 improves sound quality
RH compared to a same sized -q2. That's why I'm asking you all.
The reason I use it on
Ross Gargos Chode wrote:
Ross
Ross -V1 -mj -b128 -q2 -d -p -k -F --nspsytune --athlower -35 -X3.
Ross
Ross Some thoughts:
Ross
Ross -p -F will have no effect on sound quality. I have had mixed results with
nspsytune. -X2 X3 both produce massively larger average bitrates than all the
if lame writes a 16 bit crc for every frame (using -p switch),
doesn't that mean there are 16 less bits for sound data for each
frame? couldn't that affect sound quality? is this getting
carried away a little too much? :)
On Thu, Oct 05, 2000 at 09:30:23PM +1300, Ross Levis wrote:
-p -F
This is a forwarded message
Date: Thursday, October 05, 2000, 11:23:08 AM
Subject: Problems with Lame 3.88alphas + A question
===8==Original message text===
Hi,
skip
Also the lame 3.88alphas don't run propley on my machine.
When I encode a file the screen keep rolling.
RAW sizes differ between the original and the encoded-decoded files, headers
appear to be same (44 bytes) size.
- original wav - raw = header
t4 14,276,68414,276,640 44
- encoded then decoded back (cbr and vbr)
t4_b256_ms_h
Hi, I seem to have hit a wall here... I want to do an mp3 ripper for Mac
OSX, which I thought would be a simple enough project, but it's getting
more complicated. The OS automatically mounts cd's in a /Audio CD
directory as aiff files. I thought this would make things easy as I could
just write
Robert Hegemann schrieb:
Mark Powell schrieb am Mon, 02 Okt 2000:
On Fri, 29 Sep 2000, Robert Hegemann wrote:
does someone know any sample where a VBR encoded MP3 with -q1
gives a better sounding MP3 compared to a same sized VBR with -q2 ?
From your recent postings I'm detecting
Hello LAME Developers,
I was just wondering if anyone has been to able build the GTK version of
LAME 3.87. I have tried with the makefile for MSVC and by using the project
files. I have gotten the same error in both cases:
c:\lame-beta\src\lame3.87\main.c(154) : error C4013: 'lame_decoder'
[...]
So I'm back to square 1, how can I go from AIFC to MP3? I have no real
experience with sound file formats and I really just want to write a front
end which uses tools written by people who know a lot more than me such as
lame :) Any tips are appreciated.
There's one really simple solution
Howdy,
Unless they have changed it significantly since I last looked at it (quite a
while ago) AIFC is just AIFF with the added possibility of using compressed
audio instead of raw PCM.
Either format is 'chunk' based, like RIFF-WAVE. That is, an AIFF/C file
consists of a number of chunks, most
Hello,
Hrmm... that is an interesting idea. I completely hadn't thought of this. Does this
actually take away bits from being used to encode the audio frame? If so then what is
the real use of this switch? I had thought this switch would help to prevent the mp3
from being possibly
You're right Mark, compared to Lame 387 MMX --abr 128 Xing is only two
times faster Bo)
Regards,
Wim Speekenbrink
Using 160kbps for both LAME and Xing, encoding "Dire straits - telegraph road"
LAME takes about 1.5 times longer than Xing.
I thought the difference was greater, but I had
Add the following proto-type just above the main() function
int lame_decoder(lame_global_flags *gfp,FILE *outf,int skip);
and you should be set
Albert
http://www.cdex.n3.net/
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: "Nathan D. Blomquist" [EMAIL
Hello Gargos,
Thursday, October 05, 2000, 12:08:31 PM, you wrote:
GC Have you tried using -q1 on fatboy.wav? It sounds significantly
GC worse than -h or -q2. If you dont have this file let me know and
GC I will send it to you.
I agree that -q1 sounds worse on this one using "-V1 -mj -b128 -q1
Hello,
Roel, maybe you should give these settings a try on that track:
-V1 -mj -b128 -q2 -d -k --nspsytune --athlower -35 -X3
The bitrate stays pretty low (~224kbps) and it sounds very good... almost identical to
the original. These are the only settings I could find that produce a smaller
21 matches
Mail list logo
