Hello Gargos,
Thursday, October 05, 2000, 12:08:31 PM, you wrote:
GC> Have you tried using -q1 on fatboy.wav? It sounds significantly
GC> worse than -h or -q2. If you dont have this file let me know and
GC> I will send it to you.
I agree that -q1 sounds worse on this one using "-V1 -mj -b128 -q1 -h"
VS "-V1 -mj -b128 -q2 -h". Sad thing is that bitrate doesn't seem to
be the problem here. Some more fundamental problem since the noise
levels are very low (in db's), yet the noise is very apparent.
"-q2 -h" is still worthless since it's poor sounding @260kbit/s :(.
but you have a point, both mess up, q2 sounds better, yet far from
good...
I'm thinking the flaw is not with -q1 but somewhere else. the noise
levels are lower than normal -V1 graphs, but relying more on the
psychoaccoustics on this track would be the wrong choice. Maybe
someone feels the urge to tweak the psycho-acc so this one will sound
good @320 ? :))
> LAME version 3.87 (beta 1, Sep 27 2000) (http://www.mp3dev.org)
> Encoding as 44.1 kHz VBR(q=1) j-stereo MPEG-1 LayerIII ( 6.0x estimated) qval=1
> 32 [%.5]*
> 128 [ 5%]********
> 160 [21%]*********************************
> 192 [17%]*************************
> 224 [33%]**************************************************
> 256 [18%]***************************
> 320 [ 6%]*********
> average: 210.2 kbps
>
> LAME version 3.87 (beta 1, Sep 27 2000) (http://www.mp3dev.org)
> Encoding as 44.1 kHz VBR(q=1) j-stereo MPEG-1 LayerIII ( 6.0x estimated) qval=2
> 32 [%.5]*
> 128 [ 3%]****
> 160 [15%]****************
> 192 [ 8%]*********
> 224 [ 7%]********
> 256 [17%]*****************
> 320 [49%]**************************************************
> average: 260.3 kbps
--
Best regards,
Roel mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
