>
> this is strange... obiously something has changed in 3.86...........
>
> C:\cdexbeta>lame.exe --abr 201 -b160 -h -mj f:\temp.wav f:\templame385.mp3
> LAME version 3.85 (www.sulaco.org/mp3)
> Win32 binaries from www.chat.ru/~dkutsanov/
> Using polyphase lowpass filter, transition band: 20805 Hz - 21339 Hz
> Encoding f:\temp.wav to f:\templame185.mp3
> Encoding as 44.1 kHz average 201 kbps j-stereo MPEG1 LayerIII ( 7.0x) qval=2
>
> average: 179 kbs
>
>
> C:\cdexbeta>lame386.exe --abr 201 -b160 -h -mj f:\temp.wav f:\templame386.mp3
> LAME version 3.86 (www.sulaco.org/mp3)
> Win32 binaries from www.chat.ru/~dkutsanov/
> Using polyphase lowpass filter, transition band: 20805 Hz - 21339 Hz
> Encoding f:\temp.wav to f:\templame186.mp3
> Encoding as 44.1 kHz average 201 kbps j-stereo MPEG1 LayerIII ( 7.0x) qval=2
>
> average: 190 kbs
>
>
> Why does 386 produce higher average bitrate ?
> Are there some probles/bugs with ABR in 386 ?
> This is probably good, but why is it like this ?
> there was some talk about a 10% bitreservoir, but this is only ~5%, weird
>
> Mark ?
> Takehiro ?
> Anyone ?
>
Nothing sinister - I changed the tuning a little, trying to make "--abr N"
give a result closer to N. The bits reserved for the reservoir
now depends on the average bitrate specified, and varies from
5%-2%
Mark
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
