On Fri, 26 Apr 2002 15:47:39 +0100, Filipe Arnaldo de Carvalho Valpereiro wrote:
>That also happend to me when i've switched from 3.89 to 3.91 >but i think it's probably 'natural' for that to happend has if you touch >the algorythm then it's normal that the size of the files will go >different. > >Has off getting smaller i can only think that it's probably a question >of the algorithm choosing the bitrate, and you can't expect that given >a heuristic the result will be the same. > >Has of LAME get files smaller and smaller it's not a think that i >personaly like. >But that's a compromise that one mustt choose for they personal >purposes. Mp3PRO cut's loads of frequencies and the result can be >audible, but is it near by the original one? no it can't. So with LAME >going this way i think i'll stick with this version (3.91) for long term. > >Reason: >I'm expecting that LAME reproduces as cloose to the original it can get. >So if you start to cut's to mutch frequencies it will resemble Mp3PRO >... and that's :=( > >So why not improve better compressing times and better cut's curves and >better quantitization algorythms instead of cutting more bit's... > > Well, you are right in my opinion. As an audiophile, I expect an mp3 encoder to produice result as close as possible of the original which, at a reasonable bit rate, is the case of lame. I have no way other than my hears to evaluate the result and, with the flags I used, I don't hear noticeable difference between previous results and the one I get with 3.93 alpha. So I guess there must be something *wrong*. But someone having tools to make some more acurate analysis could as well find something different. I intensively use lame, not essentially to encode music, but to save radio broadcasts (theatre and thing like this) I recorded along years and am very happy with waht it produices. One question could be: If, using variable bit rate, you need more space, does it imply that, using cbr, afile produiced with the current version would be of worst quality than previously. >Robert Hegemann wrote: > >>Hi Michel, >> >>no, it's not a wanted behaviour, current lame seems to be broken. >>I think Takehiro has some more pending committs. >> >>Ciao Robert >> >>Am Mittwoch, 24. April 2002 20:13 schrieb Michel SUCH: >> >>>Hi all, >>> >>>I don't know if it is normal since, in my opinion, the aim is not >>>necesarilly to produice the smallest files, but I have a test wave file >>>that I use to encode each time a change is applied to lame. >>>With the latest version, I get this result: >>> >>>average: 212.7 kbps LR: 2028 (32.49%) MS: 4214 (67.51%) >>> >>>With 3.92 I got: >>>average: 182.9 kbps LR: 2028 (32.49%) MS: 4214 (67.51% >>> >>>I encode it with following flags: >>>--vbr-new --preset hifi >>> >>>I don't know if this is the expected behaviour, just wanted to let you >>>know. >>> >>> >>>---------------------------- >>>Michel SUCH TEAM OS/2 FRANCE >>>ICQ # 51654489 >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>mp3encoder mailing list >>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/mp3encoder >>> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>mp3encoder mailing list >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/mp3encoder >> >> > > > >_______________________________________________ >mp3encoder mailing list >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/mp3encoder > ---------------------------- Michel SUCH TEAM OS/2 FRANCE ICQ # 51654489 _______________________________________________ mp3encoder mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/mp3encoder
