> Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 11:37:53 +0100
> From: Marc de Lange <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> I am interested is VBR encoding so when I discovered LAME I started to play
> with it.
>
> For relative low quality I used -V 7 and didn't specify a minimum bit rate.
> To increase the quality I changed to -
>
> To be sure to get the full frequency range, I suggest using -k and
> --lowpass 999.
>
> I think we should change the -k option, to not only disable the sfb21
> cutoff, but all kind of automatic filtering.
>
done!
even if filter options are specified, they will be ignored if
-k is also used
>
> I checked the option processing in lame.c and found, that this option is
> never checked for. You can aply the following patch to get "--noshort"
> working:
>
Thanks for finding that! (so how come you dont like short blocks?)
Voice mode was the original reason for adding the no_short_bloc
Here are some more interesing comments from Timothy:
--- Start of forwarded message ---
From: "Timothy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: LAME
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 17:49:53 -0800
Mark,
I was playing around with the -X n in the command line for LAME 3.60 and I
Sound quality is more important to me as well, and VBR should provide better sound
quality for the same filesize. I have also used the Xing encoder and it is well known
that it obtains it's speed by taking shortcuts which affect sound quality.
Each sample in music differs in complexity and so th
Iwasa Kazmi wrote:
> It makes slow 10%-20%. And the improvement of sound quality is
> not so large.
> But some sources (ex. apploud.wav) will be good results.
I would suggest adding the code because as I have previously mentioned, it
may be a small increase in sound quality but with many such im
MoiN
I get his error when I try to encode with the option --noshort (at least
with lame 3.59 up to latest CVS-Version):
LAME version 3.60 (www.sulaco.org/mp3)
GPSYCHO: GPL psycho-acoustic model version 0.75.
lame: unrec option --noshort
I checked the option processing in lame.c and found, tha
From: Mark Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [MP3 ENCODER] more loops...
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 00:11:28 -0700
> I think this is a good idea - But how much slower is it? It looks
> like the only way to terminate the loop now is when all the
> scalefactors in bands with distortion are ampli
> I am interested is VBR encoding so when I discovered LAME I started to
> play
> with it.
>
> For relative low quality I used -V 7 and didn't specify a minimum bit
> rate.
> To increase the quality I changed to -V 5 and added -b 64 (or something
> comparable). After upgrading from 3.50 to 3.5
I have always encoded with CBR. I don't know, something makes me wary of using
VBR, maybe it's the sound quality I got using VBR with the Xing codec, or maybe
I'm just crazy. I'm just afraid it will reduce sound quality (which is most
important to me, more so than file size; still I want the best
I am interested is VBR encoding so when I discovered LAME I started to play
with it.
For relative low quality I used -V 7 and didn't specify a minimum bit rate.
To increase the quality I changed to -V 5 and added -b 64 (or something
comparable). After upgrading from 3.50 to 3.58 I saw that a l
Hi Ivo.
I am also not part of the development team but I am interested in the progress,
mostly in VBR.
The beta versions are generally bug free. I have not found any versions that have
introduced any noticeable problems and I can recommend using the latest one (3.60)
which has had a large improv
This is the first time I actually post to this maillinglist and I hope this
question is not out of place. I can not be called an MP3 codec expert, nor an
expert on the human hearing capabilities and sound technique in general. I am,
however, an MP3 and music enthoussiast, in every sense of these w
13 matches
Mail list logo
