|
this is strange... obiously something has changed
in 3.86...........
C:\cdexbeta>lame.exe --abr 201 -b160 -h -mj
f:\temp.wav f:\templame385.mp3
LAME version 3.85 (www.sulaco.org/mp3) Win32 binaries from www.chat.ru/~dkutsanov/ Using polyphase lowpass filter, transition band: 20805 Hz - 21339 Hz Encoding f:\temp.wav to f:\templame185.mp3 Encoding as 44.1 kHz average 201 kbps j-stereo MPEG1 LayerIII ( 7.0x) qval=2 Frame | CPU/estimated | time/estimated | play/CPU | ETA 11489/ 11489(100%)| 0:00:52/ 0:00:52| 0:00:52/ 0:00:52| 5.8091| 0:00:00 ----- bitrate statistics ----- [kbps] frames 32 0 (0.0%) 40 0 (0.0%) 48 0 (0.0%) 56 0 (0.0%) 64 0 (0.0%) 80 0 (0.0%) 96 0 (0.0%) 112 0 (0.0%) 128 0 (0.0%) 160 5256 (45.7%) 192 5782 (50.3%) 224 271 (2.4%) 256 131 (1.1%) 320 50 (0.4%) average: 179 kbs
C:\cdexbeta>lame386.exe --abr 201 -b160 -h -mj f:\temp.wav f:\templame386.mp3 LAME version 3.86 (www.sulaco.org/mp3) Win32 binaries from www.chat.ru/~dkutsanov/ Using polyphase lowpass filter, transition band: 20805 Hz - 21339 Hz Encoding f:\temp.wav to f:\templame186.mp3 Encoding as 44.1 kHz average 201 kbps j-stereo MPEG1 LayerIII ( 7.0x) qval=2 Frame | CPU/estimated | time/estimated | play/CPU | ETA 11489/ 11489(100%)| 0:00:50/ 0:00:50| 0:00:51/ 0:00:51| 5.9699| 0:00:00 ----- bitrate statistics ----- [kbps] frames 32 0 (0.0%) 40 0 (0.0%) 48 0 (0.0%) 56 0 (0.0%) 64 0 (0.0%) 80 0 (0.0%) 96 0 (0.0%) 112 0 (0.0%) 128 0 (0.0%) 160 1874 (16.3%) 192 8990 (78.2%) 224 324 (2.8%) 256 205 (1.8%) 320 97 (0.8%) average: 190 kbs
Why does 386 produce higher average bitrate ? Are there some probles/bugs with ABR in 386
?
This is probably good, but why is it like this
?
there was some talk about a 10% bitreservoir, but
this is only ~5%, weird
Mark ?
Takehiro ?
Anyone ?
|
