At 160kbps a bandwidth that high is probably a bad idea - as the
documentation says, you can get ringing artifacts if you extend the
bandwidth too far, and at 160kbps the bits are probably better spent on
lower frequencies.
Can you hear up to 22kHz anyway? Most adults hit a brick wall somewhere
below 18kHz.
As for MP3Enc's slowness, have you considered using a lower quality setting?
At 192kbps, -qual 6 seems to give equally good results (anyone have
counterexamples?) and is a lot faster.
BTW, you don't need -no-is at 160kbps: MP3Enc only enables IS at 96kbps and
below.
-- Mat.
----- Original Message -----
From: Joshua Bahnsen
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2000 3:18 AM
Subject: [MP3 ENCODER] Another question with filters/mp3enc 3.1
This is another question with filters, I guess. I am looking to encode my
entire Smashing Pumpkins CD collection, I previously did this back in mid
1998, but then I used bladeenc because, at the time, it was the fastest
encoder I had access to. Now that they have a new album, I figured I would
re-encode them with a much better quality encoder. Even though mp3enc 3.1 is
no where near the fastest encoder, the quality is excellent. My main
question is, would it be better for me to use a command line like this
mp3enc -v -br 160000 -qual 9 -no-is -bw 22050 or just leave the bandwidth
part out? What is the bandwidth default with mp3enc at the highest quality?
Or does anyone feel that I would not really notice a difference in quality
with lame, the speed is just calling me.
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
