Re: [MP3 ENCODER] -q1

2000-10-07 Thread Naoki Shibata



Roel The graphs you provided show a lower noise, this because --nspsytune
Roel probably.  It simply sounds poor, really poor.  It sounds nothing like
Roel the original on my headphones.
Roel 
Roel I use the one with the "RH extensions" from Dmitry. (thanks for all
Roel the compiles and hard work Dmitry btw!)

  --nspsytune doesn't work correctly if RH extensions are enabled.

Robert: Have RH extensions already become default? If not, I think it's
confusing if there are two binaries. What are advantages of selecting
options at compile time? I think selecting experimental options via
command line options is more handy.


--
Naoki Shibata   e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )



Re: [MP3 ENCODER] -q1

2000-10-05 Thread Mark Powell

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 ~5% file size, that encoding using -q2 requires,
  usually provides superior sound quality?
 
   I don't know any track where the use of -q1 improves sound quality
   compared to a same sized -q2. That's why I'm asking you all.

To be honest I haven't spotted any difference. I don't have decent
headphones and find listening tests on my HiFi arduous. I'll stick with -h
if there's some doubt over the quality of -q1. I like the extra encode
speed too :)
  I think Roel is the fella who swears by -q1. Maybe he's best to ask?
Cheers.

Mark Powell - UNIX System Administrator - The University of Salford
Academic Information Services, Clifford Whitworth Building,
Salford University, Manchester, M5 4WT, UK.
Tel: +44 161 295 5936  Fax: +44 161 295 5888  www.pgp.com for PGP key


--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )



Re: [MP3 ENCODER] -q1

2000-10-05 Thread Stephan Ebertshäuser



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 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 ~5% file size, that encoding using -q2 requires,
  usually provides superior sound quality?

 I don't know any track where the use of -q1 improves sound quality
 compared to a same sized -q2. That's why I'm asking you all.

 Ciao Robert

Why not making q1 default for only V5V9

Bye
Stephan



 --
 MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )


--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )



Re: [MP3 ENCODER] -q1

2000-10-04 Thread Robert Hegemann

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 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 ~5% file size, that encoding using -q2 requires,
 usually provides superior sound quality?

I don't know any track where the use of -q1 improves sound quality
compared to a same sized -q2. That's why I'm asking you all.


Ciao Robert


--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )



Re: [MP3 ENCODER] -q1

2000-10-02 Thread Mark Powell

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 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 ~5% file size, that encoding using -q2 requires,
usually provides superior sound quality?
  Cheers.

Mark Powell - UNIX System Administrator - The University of Salford
Academic Information Services, Clifford Whitworth Building,
Salford University, Manchester, M5 4WT, UK.
Tel: +44 161 295 5936  Fax: +44 161 295 5888  www.pgp.com for PGP key

--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )