Re: [MP3 ENCODER] new VBR code

[Pierre Hugonnet]

Roel VdB wrote:
> 
> 
> As noted in the other post, I, and many with me have very little to
> complain about in with the <=3.85 vbr_rh mode... Cannot find any
> glitches since 3.83, encoded a few hundreth albums and counting...
> 
> 
>...
>
> 
> VBR 256kbit/s average VS 256kbit/s cbr is another story. The chance of
> psy messing up in VBR is now much bigger than 256cbr being
> insufficient.
> 




Agree... I'm not looking for perfect sound but rather putting the more possible files 
on CD-Rs, to be played on my computer or on basic HiFi equipment. For such equipment I 
think that the quality of CBR 128kbs is OK.

I have been using a lot lame 3.70 with VBR -V7 (rh_vbr, hence). I could sometimes ear 
some imperfections but in average I found the music very similar to CBR 128kbs (and 
obviously much better than CBR 96kbs), with files about 25% smaller. More recently I 
decided to switched to VBR -V6: this removes most of the -V7 imperfections, and files 
are always smaller than CBR 128kbs.

Now I'm a little bit worried by more recent versions of Lame, since -V settings result 
in completely different file sizes compared to 3.70.

Pierre
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )