Hi. I have a couple of my own questions about this.
It sounds like what's being referred to as "ABR" would be not only faster,
but more reliable (in quality terms) than the traditional VBR. So what's
the use of traditional VBR now?
Could Lame be changed to set "ABR" quality using the standard "-V<arg>"
option (instead of a bitrate)?
Shawn
Robert wrote-
>>So what is the difference between ABR and VBR?
>With VBR lame does mostly 6 tries to find the smallest
>amount of bits to achieve a given quality.
>With ABR lame knows basically the number of bits, as
>you defined them by calling lame. These bits together with the
>perceptual entropy of each granule define the amount
>of bits needed for a frame. Then lame does one try to
>encode it as in CBR too. In CBR the frame sizes are fixed,
>so the bitreservoir is limited. Now the frame sizes are
>variable and lame can use as many bits from the bitreservoir
>as needed (under the constrain that all has to fit into the
>largest framesize ie 320 kbits).
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
