Hello Mark, Tuesday, June 27, 2000, 6:29:19 AM, you wrote: MT> Yep. how about this version: MT> But to guarantee every single frame of an ABR encoding is at least MT> as good as the best possible 192 CBR frame, you would need to use "--abr MT> 211" (192 + 10%) or, may be, "--abr 192 --nores" ? Best regards, Dmitry mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
- [MP3 ENCODER] ABR vs VBR Francois du Toit
- Re: [MP3 ENCODER] ABR vs VBR Mark Taylor
- Sv: [MP3 ENCODER] ABR vs VBR Peter Olufsen
- Re: Sv: [MP3 ENCODER] ABR vs VBR Mark Taylor
- Re: Sv: [MP3 ENCODER] ABR vs VBR Ivo
- Sv: Sv: [MP3 ENCODER] ABR vs VBR Peter Olufsen
- Re: Sv: [MP3 ENCODER] ABR vs VBR Mark Taylor
- [MP3 ENCODER] Why I think 3.84a-Z s... Dmitry
- [MP3 ENCODER] Why I think 3.84a... Roel VdB
- Re: [MP3 ENCODER] Why I thi... Robert Hegemann
- Re[2]: [MP3 ENCODER] Why I ... Roel VdB
- Re[2]: [MP3 ENCODER] Why I ... Mathew Hendry
- Re: Re[2]: [MP3 ENCODER] Wh... Robert Hegemann
- Re: Sv: [MP3 ENCODER] ABR vs VBR Ivo van Heel
- Sv: Sv: [MP3 ENCODER] ABR vs VBR Peter Olufsen
