I cannot see the point in using -V0 with "-b %bitrate% -B %bitrate%". Iīve been trying, and canīt see (or hear) the difference. Maybe itīs just me, but I suppose -V0 *must* encode with optimum quality. I donīt know... In this case, if we want minbitrate AND maxbitrate to be 128, why donīt try CBR enconding, sending "lame -h -b128 input.wav output.mp3"? On the other hand, why not use -V1 or -V2, or even -abr? Or maybe I missed something, anyway... Cheers, Aldo (Rio de Janeiro - Brasil) -- MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
- Re: [MP3 ENCODER] "clips&qu... Robert Hegemann
- Re[2]: [MP3 ENCODER] "clips... Roel VdB
- Re: Re[2]: [MP3 ENCODER] "c... Mark Stephens
- [MP3 ENCODER] Re: zip#2 Roel VdB
- Re[2]: [MP3 ENCODER] "clips... Roel VdB
- [MP3 ENCODER] I solved (another ... Roel VdB
- Re: [MP3 ENCODER] "clips&qu... Robert Hegemann
- Re[2]: [MP3 ENCODER] "clips... Roel VdB
- Re[2]: [MP3 ENCODER] "clips... Roel VdB
- Re[2]: [MP3 ENCODER] new VBR cod... Roel VdB
- Re: [MP3 ENCODER] new VBR code Aldo Gamboa
- Re: [MP3 ENCODER] new VBR code Jaroslav Lukesh
- Re: [MP3 ENCODER] new VBR code Eric.Howgate
- Re: [MP3 ENCODER] new VBR code Jaroslav Lukesh