> X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 11:12:31 +0100
>
> *NOTE* No psy-model is perfect, so there can often be distortion which
> is audible even though the psy-model claims it is not! Thus using a
> small minimum bitrate can result in some aggressive compression and
> audible distortion even with -V 0. Thus using -V 0 does not sound
> better than a fixed 256kbs encoding. For example: suppose in the 1kHz
> frequency band the psy-model claims 20db of distortion will not be
> detectable by the human ear, so LAME VBR-0 will compress that
> frequency band as much as possible and introduce at most 20db of
> distortion. Using a fixed 256kbit framesize, LAME could end up
> introducing only 2db of distortion. If the psy-model was correct,
> they will both sound the same. If the psy-model was wrong, the VBR-0
> result can sound worse.
>
> I read that as: Quality is unsure in VBR compared to CBR
>
> Is it a better choice to encode the CD on CBR 192 kbps?
>
> I know listening is a good probe but this takes a lot of time.
>
VBR is improving on an almost weekly basis. The initial
implimentation was clearly worse than CBR, but I dont think anyone
knows if VBR better *yet*. VBR changes so quickly it is hard to
justify detailed listening tests, but that would be the only way to
answer your question.
> BTW I 've never seen a histogram in VBR mode, with the windows version,
> without using the the --nohist option.
>
There is a compiler option to enable/disable this feature in the
Makefile. It was probably disabled for your windows compilation?
Mark
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
