Thus spake Don Melton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > No, I didn't use higher bitrates.
> > My rationale is that if you have the space for higher bitrates, you can
> > also use Layer 2. I found recent Xing encoders not as bad as I expected
> > from earlier Xing encoders, but if you use Xing, you use VBR, and the
> > VBR mode in Xing is surprisingly good.
> Interesting. Did you try any apples vs. oranges comparison between the
> CBR and VBR samples?
The CBR test should test the quality of the psychoacoustic model and
bitrate allocation by encoding a very dynamic sound. Applause is a
really evil kind of sound to encode because the left and right channels
are different.
I didn't constrain the bitrate for VBR.
I expected encoders to allocate as much bitrate as needed to the
applause part in the beginning and then use much less bitrate later on.
> The reason that I ask is that one of the whole points to VBR is higher
> quality through dynamic bit allocation over CBR with resulting file
> sizes and average bit rates that are similar. Anyway ... was VBR
> perceptually better than CBR in your test?
Yes, lame and Xing hat no artifacts at all, but Fraunhofer was
disappointing. They used no more than 160 kbps for the applause, which
left audible artifacts, while lame and Xing used 224 and 256,
respectively.
By the way: has anyone of you noticed that mpg123 can't play lame
encoded mp3s if they contain 320 kbps bitrates? Seems to be mpg123's
fault, I'm going to complain to the author about it now ;)
Felix
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
