how does xing vbr compare to lame, in quality?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg Maxwell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, December 04, 1999 11:59 PM
Subject: Re: [MP3 ENCODER] Re: VBR not as variable as Xing
> On Sun, 5 Dec 1999, Ross Levis wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately I'm running Windows rather than Linux. I will take that
plunge once it is more configuration user-friendly. The -V4 switch in v3.57
(without -v which doesn't appear to be required). I noticed that prior Lame
versions required -V5 to average close to 128kb/s whereas -V4 is now closer.
>
> Yes, this is software in development. VBR is still a quickly changing
> topic.
>
> > I notice also that silence appears to be encoding at 64kb/s rather than
32 as specified, whereas Xing VBR (normal) encodes it at 48kb/s.
>
> If the encoders are encoding this 'silence' at anything other then 32kb/s
> then either it isn't silence, or both encoders are broken. :)
>
> My expirence with Xing's VBR is that it often picks too low a bitrate. I
> would expect that it uses a watered down psycoacoustic model to select
> bitrate, insted of the slow lame approach.
>
> > The major factor which concerned me was a frequency analysis I performed
on a song encoded with -V5 (v3.57) which averaged around 112kb/s. It did
not show anything over 16khz. I realise that without the -k option that
bitrates below 128 are cut at 16khz but surely with VBR there should be
higher bit-rates and so higher freqencies.
>
> If the cutoff is turned off and on within the file it produces an audible
> effect. Therefor, the cutoff is selectd based on the -Vn setting and stays
> throught the entire file. I think that -V5 and larger have the cutoff.
> You can always disable the cutoff completely with -k.
>
>
>
> --
> MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
>
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
