Re: [MP3 ENCODER] new VBR code
Curretly none MP2, only mp3 for home story/music-jukebox. But If I use in past times, then CoolEdit MPEG plugin that was free downloadable for cooledit 95 (it is not MP3 plugin). It has two psychoacoustics models, AT&T and NICAM and should save Layer 1 and layer 2 miscelaneous stereo modes and bitrates. Currently MPEG plugin is not at syntrillium ftp nor web. I can send you one if you want. I dont know, if it runs with cooledit pro or 2000. Xing is not good encoder. Another good encoder is some latest commercial but I dont remember name. REgards -- | Odesílatel: Eric.Howgate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Could I ask what encoder you use for MP2 ? | | > I prefer mp2 starting from bitrates at | 256kbit/44kHz, 192kbit for 32kHz | > should have some minor artifacts, but different | kind than mp3 has. -- MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
Re: [MP3 ENCODER] new VBR code
Could I ask what encoder you use for MP2 ? Thanks Eric - Original Message - From: Jaroslav Lukesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2000 6:56 AM > > I prefer mp2 starting from bitrates at 256kbit/44kHz, 192kbit for 32kHz > should have some minor artifacts, but different kind than mp3 has. > > > > Jaroslav Lukesh > -- MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
Re: [MP3 ENCODER] new VBR code
| > On my HQ headphones I pick out many 192 mp3's. There are _a LOT_ more | > instances where 192 isn't enough and the -V1 picks out a good higher | > bitrate frame than an instance where VBR screws up. (vbr_mt that is) | > | > A few months ago a 192 was somewhat considered perfect for me, but | > when I upgraded hardware, it was not so hard to find flaws. If you | > want the best possible mp3's, just take 256cbr or 320. proven | > statistically to be of the same Q as original material. (ti: you can | > distinguish some test sounds, but 256 does not sound bad, as being the | > exception). | > | | | I've been told several times that at 192kbs or above, mp2 is likely to be better than mp3. True or False ? | If true, would it be difficult to add a mp2 option in lame (I don't know to which extent mp3 and mp2 differ) ? | If no, isn't it the solution for top quality ? | | Pierre I prefer mp2 starting from bitrates at 256kbit/44kHz, 192kbit for 32kHz should have some minor artifacts, but different kind than mp3 has. Jaroslav Lukesh -- note: (Bill) Gates to Hell! -- MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
Re: [MP3 ENCODER] new VBR code
Roel VdB wrote: > > > On my HQ headphones I pick out many 192 mp3's. There are _a LOT_ more > instances where 192 isn't enough and the -V1 picks out a good higher > bitrate frame than an instance where VBR screws up. (vbr_mt that is) > > A few months ago a 192 was somewhat considered perfect for me, but > when I upgraded hardware, it was not so hard to find flaws. If you > want the best possible mp3's, just take 256cbr or 320. proven > statistically to be of the same Q as original material. (ti: you can > distinguish some test sounds, but 256 does not sound bad, as being the > exception). > I've been told several times that at 192kbs or above, mp2 is likely to be better than mp3. True or False ? If true, would it be difficult to add a mp2 option in lame (I don't know to which extent mp3 and mp2 differ) ? If no, isn't it the solution for top quality ? Pierre -- MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
Re: [MP3 ENCODER] new VBR code
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/ )
Re: [MP3 ENCODER] new VBR code
> The thing I worry about with VBR is the following: > A VBR with an average bitrate of 180kbs may sound as > good as a 200kbs CBR 99% of the time. But 1% of the time > the psycho acoustics could screw up and use 128kbs > when it needed 180kbs. So 1% of the file might only be > as good as a 128kbs encoding. So which is better: > 1: average bitrate 180kbs which sounds like 200kbs 99% of the time > and 128kbs 1% of the time. > 2. CBR 180kbs which sounds like 180kbs 100% of the time That's why I won't use a -b of <160 kbs when encoding at VBR. I even wonder if that should be 192 kbs. But that would only be desirable if we want an average of say, ~256kbs... Ivo -- MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
Re: [MP3 ENCODER] new VBR code
Mark Taylor schrieb am Mon, 10 Jul 2000: > -F: Not recommended. This was added to force a >minimum frame size even if the data >could fit in a smaller framesize. -F was added because >some obscure portable couldn't handle frames < 64kbs. >Originally -F had no impact on the amount of data actually >used to encode the frame, but Robert may have since changed >this. The -F has no influence on the amount of bits used. Using it will still waste a lot of bits at silent tunes. Robert -- MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
Re: [MP3 ENCODER] new VBR code
> > 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 > -mj: jstereo gives better S/N ratios, but does it sound better at high bitrates? No one seems to know. FhG by default will disable jstereo at high bitrates, but I dont know why they do this. -p: uses 16 bits from each frame for the CRC checksum which would otherwise be used for data. -F: Not recommended. This was added to force a minimum frame size even if the data could fit in a smaller framesize. -F was added because some obscure portable couldn't handle frames < 64kbs. Originally -F had no impact on the amount of data actually used to encode the frame, but Robert may have since changed this. > > 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? > Again, no one knows the answer to this. In terms of S/N ratio, I believe the analysis on r3mix.net show that VBR is better. But in terms of sound quality, we need some expert listeners to do a series of blind tests on high end audio equipment. The problem is that most people (myself included), for most samples, cant tell the difference between 192CBR and the original. (The best listeners, on the best equipment, cannot tell the difference between 256kbs and the original most of the time). The thing I worry about with VBR is the following: A VBR with an average bitrate of 180kbs may sound as good as a 200kbs CBR 99% of the time. But 1% of the time the psycho acoustics could screw up and use 128kbs when it needed 180kbs. So 1% of the file might only be as good as a 128kbs encoding. So which is better: 1: average bitrate 180kbs which sounds like 200kbs 99% of the time and 128kbs 1% of the time. 2. CBR 180kbs which sounds like 180kbs 100% of the time ??? Mark -- MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
Re: [MP3 ENCODER] new VBR code
They don't sound lower in volume to me. Of course, I'm using XMMS on Linux and I'm old. :-) On Mon, Jul 10, 2000 at 02:01:35PM +0200, David wrote: > 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 -- Don Melton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
Re: [MP3 ENCODER] new VBR code
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/ )
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/ )
RE: [MP3 ENCODER] new VBR code
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 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. 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? 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? -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/ )
Re: [MP3 ENCODER] new VBR code
> > I was under the impression that VBR mode was better...so I have been trying > to use it. But at this point I have absolutely no idea if what I'm encoding > is better than CBR mode or not. I have absolutely no idea if I'm using a > good set of options or not. I'll probably just wait until lame is more > finished before I encode any more. Good luck guys. > > -steve 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/ )
Re: [MP3 ENCODER] new VBR code
I cannot see the point in using -V0 with "-b %bitrate% -B %bitrate%". I´ve been trying, and can´t see (or hear) the difference. Maybe it´s just me, but I suppose -V0 *must* encode with optimum quality. I don´t know... In this case, if we want minbitrate AND maxbitrate to be 128, why don´t 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] new VBR code
I was under the impression that VBR mode was better...so I have been trying to use it. But at this point I have absolutely no idea if what I'm encoding is better than CBR mode or not. I have absolutely no idea if I'm using a good set of options or not. I'll probably just wait until lame is more finished before I encode any more. Good luck guys. -steve > -Original Message- > From: Steve Schow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Sunday, July 09, 2000 10:33 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [MP3 ENCODER] new VBR code > > > Fair enough I guess. > > > -Original Message- > > From: Mark Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2000 10:31 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: [MP3 ENCODER] new VBR code > > > > > > > > > > > > There is so much stuff constantly changing with lamenew > > options, VBR, > > > CBR, etc.. At this point I have totally lost touch with > > what mode is what > > > and which flags I should use. I sure hope you guys > > will start thinking > > > more about usability at some point > > > > > > -steve > > > > > > > We do think about usability: That is why the best, and reccommended > > options (described in the USAGE file), has NEVER changed! It will > > always be: > > > > lame -h input.wav output.mp3 > > > > (add -b for other than 128kbs). > > > > Everything else is under constant development and has never been > > reccommended except for people willing to do (repeatedly) their own > > testing and evaluation. Whenever something is proven proven to give > > consistently better results, that feature will be enabled by default > > with the above options. > > > > Mark > > > > > > > > -- > > MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ ) > > > > -- > MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ ) > -- MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
RE: [MP3 ENCODER] new VBR code
Fair enough I guess. > -Original Message- > From: Mark Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2000 10:31 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [MP3 ENCODER] new VBR code > > > > > > > There is so much stuff constantly changing with lamenew > options, VBR, > > CBR, etc.. At this point I have totally lost touch with > what mode is what > > and which flags I should use. I sure hope you guys > will start thinking > > more about usability at some point > > > > -steve > > > > We do think about usability: That is why the best, and reccommended > options (described in the USAGE file), has NEVER changed! It will > always be: > > lame -h input.wav output.mp3 > > (add -b for other than 128kbs). > > Everything else is under constant development and has never been > reccommended except for people willing to do (repeatedly) their own > testing and evaluation. Whenever something is proven proven to give > consistently better results, that feature will be enabled by default > with the above options. > > Mark > > > > -- > MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ ) > -- MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
RE: [MP3 ENCODER] new VBR code
> > > I forget why the -B option was added, but it should not be > > used under normal circumstances. > > > It was added because there are some decoder chips wich can't handle more > than 192k frames. Also this switch gives some control over the resultant filesize. I find it valuable as I use Zip disks [exxy!] for my mp3s : ) Cheers Jason Antony 27° 30.874' S, 153° 02.814' E Get your co-ords with GPS ICQ#: 48374695 -- MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
RE: [MP3 ENCODER] new VBR code
I was just testing something that I read in an earlier message, someone had said that they acheived greater quality by using -b %rate% -B %rate%. I don't use it for anything I encode, I was just testing out the VBR code. I never noticed any better quality personally. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Gabriel Bouvigne Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2000 2:45 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [MP3 ENCODER] new VBR code > I forget why the -B option was added, but it should not be > used under normal circumstances. > It was added because there are some decoder chips wich can't handle more than 192k frames. For (strange) cases like -b128 -B 128, why not made lame using cbr instead of vbr? Regards, -- Gabriel Bouvigne - France [EMAIL PROTECTED] icq: 12138873 MP3' Tech: www.mp3-tech.org -- MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ ) -- MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
Re: [MP3 ENCODER] new VBR code
You're saying that variable bitrate encoding (old or new) isn't recommended or proven to give consistently better results? (but you know it probably will) > We do think about usability: That is why the best, and reccommended > options (described in the USAGE file), has NEVER changed! It will > always be: > > lame -h input.wav output.mp3 > > (add -b for other than 128kbs). > > Everything else is under constant development and has never been > reccommended except for people willing to do (repeatedly) their own > testing and evaluation. Whenever something is proven proven to give > consistently better results, that feature will be enabled by default > with the above options. -- MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
Re: [MP3 ENCODER] new VBR code
> > There is so much stuff constantly changing with lamenew options, VBR, > CBR, etc.. At this point I have totally lost touch with what mode is what > and which flags I should use. I sure hope you guys will start thinking > more about usability at some point > > -steve > We do think about usability: That is why the best, and reccommended options (described in the USAGE file), has NEVER changed! It will always be: lame -h input.wav output.mp3 (add -b for other than 128kbs). Everything else is under constant development and has never been reccommended except for people willing to do (repeatedly) their own testing and evaluation. Whenever something is proven proven to give consistently better results, that feature will be enabled by default with the above options. Mark -- MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
RE: [MP3 ENCODER] new VBR code
There is so much stuff constantly changing with lamenew options, VBR, CBR, etc.. At this point I have totally lost touch with what mode is what and which flags I should use. I sure hope you guys will start thinking more about usability at some point -steve > -Original Message- > From: Mark Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, July 07, 2000 7:18 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [MP3 ENCODER] new VBR code > > > > > > > Is it just me, or is it virtually impossible to encode VBR > files with the > > new VBR code with switches like this "-X 6 -V 0 -q 1 -b 128 > -B 128 -F"? > > Because it takes like 4 hours per song to encode. With the > old VBR code it > > takes 4-6 minutes. Something has changed I take it? > > > > Josh > > > > It's because you use -b 128 -B 128. This is a bad idea with > any VBR mode, and happens to be very bad because of how the > new vbr mode works. > > A CBR encoding can actually achieve bitrates as > effectively as large as 320kbs because of the bit reservoir. > Since VBR makes very little use of the bitreservoir, you need > to allow for frames as large as 320kbs, otherwise sharp attacks > will not be encoded as well as with CBR. > > I forget why the -B option was added, but it should not be > used under normal circumstances. > > Mark > -- > MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ ) > -- MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
Re: [MP3 ENCODER] new VBR code
> I forget why the -B option was added, but it should not be > used under normal circumstances. > It was added because there are some decoder chips wich can't handle more than 192k frames. For (strange) cases like -b128 -B 128, why not made lame using cbr instead of vbr? Regards, -- Gabriel Bouvigne - France [EMAIL PROTECTED] icq: 12138873 MP3' Tech: www.mp3-tech.org -- MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
Re: [MP3 ENCODER] new VBR code
> > Is it just me, or is it virtually impossible to encode VBR files with the > new VBR code with switches like this "-X 6 -V 0 -q 1 -b 128 -B 128 -F"? > Because it takes like 4 hours per song to encode. With the old VBR code it > takes 4-6 minutes. Something has changed I take it? > > Josh > It's because you use -b 128 -B 128. This is a bad idea with any VBR mode, and happens to be very bad because of how the new vbr mode works. A CBR encoding can actually achieve bitrates as effectively as large as 320kbs because of the bit reservoir. Since VBR makes very little use of the bitreservoir, you need to allow for frames as large as 320kbs, otherwise sharp attacks will not be encoded as well as with CBR. I forget why the -B option was added, but it should not be used under normal circumstances. Mark -- MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
