Re: [MP3 ENCODER] filter options

On Tue, 14 Dec 1999, Robert Hegemann wrote: > -X4 this is a bit complicated, I think Greg Maxwell should > explain this ;) -X4 resulted from testing, overthinking and sleep deperivation. :) It's better if: The worst subband is less or equal to the masking while the previous best's

[MP3 ENCODER] Change -V default to 6?

(LAME v3.58) -V6 is producing very similar average bitrates to Xings normal setting -- roughly 128kb/s. -V5 is averaging around 140kb/s. The default -V4 is getting up towards 160kb/s which is producing somewhat larger files. I think the default should be 6 (or at least 5) to be more consistent

RE: [MP3 ENCODER] -X preferences

Thanks for the info Robert. Am I right in thinking -X0 is the default? Is there anyone testing the different -X settings on different music types. Maybe the results of tests should be published somewhere for comparison? John Hayward-Warburton has mentioned his preferences with -X4 & 5 in choral

Re: [MP3 ENCODER] filter options

> What does the -X parameter do exactly? When LAME searches for a "good" quantization, it has to compare the actual one with the best one found so far. The function quant_compare says which one is better, the best so far or the actual. Now the -X parameter selects between different approaches t

Re: [MP3 ENCODER] filter options

Ross Levis wrote: > What does the -X parameter do exactly? Only from looking at the code (and not understanding more than half of it...): It's all in quantize.c (look for references to `experimentalX'). It affects the output of function quant_compare(). John [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- MP3 ENCODE

Re: [MP3 ENCODER] Using libm or not

> From: "Gabriel Bouvigne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Perhaps a stupid question, but what is libm ? The maths library in C compilers in the style of Unix cc. It contains the functions; some compilers don't link with it by default. -- Mat. -- MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encod

RE: [MP3 ENCODER] filter options

John Hayward-Warburton wrote: > It is true that some FM stations (in the UK at least) put > filters in below > 30Hz to allow in-band switching tones to be used between studios. Not that we use a filter here but I am aware that a lot of stations in the USA and elsewhere use a highpass filter whic

Re: [MP3 ENCODER] bitrate_index question; prev. was Layer II VBR

> Ok, but this is still a bit confusing to me; does this mean that when an > encoder would try ((layer II)) VBR, eg switching from 192 to 384 kbit/s > and back etc., he would or would not be allowed to also switch to > "free" (bitrate_index = ) ? > I.e. is it allowed to do e.g. 192, 384, f

Re: [MP3 ENCODER] Using libm or not

> Should we use libm library in linking ( -lm) or not ? > There is no difference in CBR in quality (only speed). > In VBR there is difference in byte by byte comparing, > and libm is about 13% slower. Perhaps a stupid question, but what is libm ? Regards, Gabriel Bouvigne - France [EMAIL PROTE

[MP3 ENCODER] List of variables used in Lame

Hi everyone, I just wondered if there is something like a list of variables that are used in the LAME code? For me, and I guess for other newcomers too, this would make life a lot easier. If there isn't such a thing perhaps it's not a bad idea to start one. What I'm thinking of is something li

Re: [MP3 ENCODER] filter options (and several questions)

Robert Hegemann wrote: > Thank you Ross for the info about radio frequencies. > Coding FM quality with sharp cutoff would look like: > > lame --highpass 0.05 --highpass-width 0 >...etc May I make a case for --highpass 0.016 ? FM Radio usually goes down a bit lower than 50Hz. The lowest note

[MP3 ENCODER] TMN(b) and NMT(b) values...

Hi Everyone, I just have a couple of questions: a) where do the tone-masking-noise and noise-masking-tone values (29 and 6 dB) come from and b) why are they suddenly 18 and 6 dB for MPEG-2 AAC??? Thanks in advance, Erik-- MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )