Don,
Is it just me or the mp3 produced with that setting (compared to
normal -b192) are somewhat LOWER in dB levels than normal -b192 mp3 ?
Either my erars are acting up or winamp is faulty! :) ..or i'm right ?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Melton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2000 12:05 PM
Subject: Re: [MP3 ENCODER] new VBR code
> On Sun, Jul 09, 2000 at 02:19:41PM -0700, Steve Schow wrote:
> > I am definitely interested in bitrates higher than 128. In my personal
> > opinion, 128 is not good enough. In CBR I would have to encode at 192
to be
> > happy. I was under the impression that if I use VBR mode with 128 as
the
> > bottom...that I would get an average about about 185 or so (which is
what I
> > have been getting), but the advantage is that in certain sections where
it
> > needs to, it uses higher bitrates...and in sections where it does not
need
> > to, it would use lower bitrates. Hypotheticall, this would mean overall
> > better sounding music...or more efficient use of bitrates to acheive the
> > best sounding playback. Hypothetically that is..
> >
> > This is the lame command line I have been using (3.83):
> >
> > lame -V1 -mj -h -p -F -S -b 128
>
> Wow, I'm not even sure what that command line does. :-)
>
> > With that, I've been getting average bit rate of around 185. Filesize
is
> > about the same as if I had just done 192 CBR, which is satisfactory for
me.
>
> Why don't you try this command line with LAME 3.85:
>
> lame -h --abr 192
>
> This uses Mark Taylor's new average bitrate version of VBR, and will
> actually create files near 185 kbps for moderately complex music (e.g.
> "Wake Up" by "Rage Against The Machine" comes out at 182 kbps).
>
> You COULD add "-mj" or "-b112" to the command line, but I haven't seen
> that much size improvement from joint stereo (sometimes the files are
> slightly larger, go figure) and limiting the low end of the bitrate to
> 112 doesn't improve the sound any, IMO.
>
> Besides, the best options are the simplest options. :-)
>
> > Question is, is this VBR encoding superior to CBR 192 or not in terms of
> > sound quality? If not, then why bother? I might as well just use 192
CBR
> > and potentially less wierd implications and greater compatability with
MP3
> > players. Secondly, am I using the best command line for what I want out
of
> > VBR mode?
>
> You'll have to answer that first question yourself. What kind of
> quality are you looking for? What's good enough? Which one sounds
> better to you? Keep in mind that VBR in LAME is still in heavy
> development, and no psy model is perfect.
>
> If you like CBR at 192 kbps, then encode at that rate.
>
> > As you pointed out, its very difficult to tell whether CBR 192 or VBR
mode
> > is better in terms of sound quality. What about encoding time?
>
> Yep, it IS difficult. :-) In my own tests, I really can't tell the
> difference between the original and a 160 kbps encoding most of the
> time. When I use the options I described above (ABR of 192), I've only
> been able to tell the difference once out of 250 encodings -- and that
> was a pretty subtle change in a passage with which I was familiar and I
> knew to be difficult to encode.
>
> But I encode my personal MP3 collection at 128 kbps. It's really small
> and good enough MOST of the time. And that's the whole point of the
> format, isn't it? When I want to archive my audio, i.e. save it
> "forever", my preferred format is the original ".wav" file I extracted
> from the CD. :-)
>
> The newer VBR modes in LAME 3.85 are almost as fast as CBR. It's not a
> big issue much anymore.
>
> > -steve
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Mark Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent: Sunday, July 09, 2000 12:24 PM
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: Re: [MP3 ENCODER] new VBR code
> > >
> >
> > > I do all my testing at 128kbs and lower, and I still
> > > feel that 128kbs CBR is on average better than VBR (128kbs average)
> > >
> > > At higher bitrates, (see r3mix.net for example), there is
> > > some evidence that VBR outperforms CBR. But this is mostly
> > > based on signal processing tests - not hearing tests. hearing
> > > tests are hard to perform at such high bitrates because
> > > everything sounds pretty good, and I think the evidence
> > > is not conclusive either way.
> > >
> > > Mark
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
> > >
> >
> > --
> > MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
>
> --
> Don Melton
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> --
> MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
>
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
