You're saying that variable bitrate encoding (old or new) isn't recommended or proven to give consistently better results? (but you know it probably will) > We do think about usability: That is why the best, and reccommended > options (described in the USAGE file), has NEVER changed! It will > always be: > > lame -h input.wav output.mp3 > > (add -b <bitrate> for other than 128kbs). > > Everything else is under constant development and has never been > reccommended except for people willing to do (repeatedly) their own > testing and evaluation. Whenever something is proven proven to give > consistently better results, that feature will be enabled by default > with the above options. -- MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
- [MP3 ENCODER] new VBR code Joshua Bahnsen
- Re: [MP3 ENCODER] new VBR code Mark Taylor
- Re: [MP3 ENCODER] new VBR code Gabriel Bouvigne
- RE: [MP3 ENCODER] new VBR code Joshua Bahnsen
- RE: [MP3 ENCODER] new VBR code Jason Antony
- RE: [MP3 ENCODER] new VBR code Steve Schow
- Re: [MP3 ENCODER] new VBR code Mark Taylor
- RE: [MP3 ENCODER] new VBR code Ivo
- RE: [MP3 ENCODER] new VBR code Steve Schow
- RE: [MP3 ENCODER] new VBR code Steve Schow
- Re: [MP3 ENCODER] new VBR code Mark Taylor
- RE: [MP3 ENCODER] new VBR c... Steve Schow
- Re: [MP3 ENCODER] new VBR c... Don Melton
- Re: [MP3 ENCODER] new VBR c... David
- Re: [MP3 ENCODER] new VBR c... Don Melton
- Re: [MP3 ENCODER] new VBR c... Mark Taylor
- Re: [MP3 ENCODER] new VBR c... Robert Hegemann
- Re: [MP3 ENCODER] new VBR c... Ivo
