Mark Taylor wrote:
> > Opinions please.
> >
> > In the near future, I intend to start the mammoth task of encoding all my
> > CD's. Is now a good time in the development of LAME, or is it worth waiting
> > a bit longer to get that extra bit of quality? I like the idea of using
> > VBR. Is this option mature enough yet?
> >
> > Stuart
> > ~ home page www.stu.org.uk
> >
> >
>
> My opinion (for this and the other recent postings about high bitrate,
> archival encoding) is that while VBR has the most potential, and will
> eventually be better than CBR, it is still not mature enough.
They guy(s) behind http://www.r3mix.net/ seems to think a bit better of
the LAME VBR mode than that. They suggest "lame -V 1 -b 128 -h -m j", or
maybe "lame -V 2 -b 32 -h -m j", if you don't want to "waste" bits. The
latter gives around 160 kbit on average, and I've settled for that (then
again, I have problems hearing a difference between 128 kbit MP3 and a
CD on my stereo (using speakers; haven't tried headphones)... :).
--
Magnus Holmgren
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
