>> I discovered lame just a few months ago and am relatively new to it. I >> used to use the -q 0 -V 4 options. Up to version 3.90 alpha 7 it >> produced results with the bitrate averaging at 190-210 kbps which I >> was very glad with. However, with alpha 8 it somehow drastically >> changed and even with -V 0 I don't get a birate higher than 190 kbps. >> >> Hence, I wanted to ask if this is a bug or the VBR algorithm just got >> so good that it produces equal results at a lower bitrate?
> The higher the bitrate, the less reason there is to use VBR > (at an average of 320kbps, VBR,CBR and ABR are all the same, since > they are all using 320kbps frames). > > At an average of 200kbps, it is starting to become debatable, but I think > that 200 is high enough that you should be using ABR, not VBR. > ABR is also much faster and the code is stable. I would recommend > lame -q0 --abr 200 Hi, and thanks for the comments. So as far as I understand, the quality with VBR and ABR are like curves and CBR is like a line (if you imagine a graph with x being bitrate from 32 to 320 and y being quality from worst to best) - with VBR you get the best quality at lower bitrates, ABR is second best for low bitrates and CBR is worst. With a medium bitrate the differences are smaller, but VBR is still best, then ABR then CBR. At a very high bitrate the differences diminish. So far right? If yes, then it still makes some sense to use VBR at about 192, since it's somewhere between medium and high bitrate, thus giving better results than ABR (maybe just a little bit better, but anyways). The speed doesn't matter for me, I am not encoding very much, but want the best quality I can get at about 200 kbps. Now the question still is, why did alpha 7 reach a higher bitrate than alpha 8 with the same settings (with VBR)? Since now if I only get 190 kbps with -V0 -q0 then it might be better to use -q0 --abr 200, as you suggested. If I would have to make a choice between -V0 -q0 (producing 190 kbps average) and --abr 200 -q0, which is theoretically better, which should be best for most files? Or does it depend on the file and one's ears and I must see for myself? Thanks in advance Roman > _______________________________________________ > mp3encoder mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/mp3encoder Roman _______________________________________________ mp3encoder mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/mp3encoder
