Hello Mark,
Monday, July 10, 2000, 7:27:20 AM, you wrote:
MT> yes, please send me the .wav files with a description of the
MT> problem. I have two samples already with artificts, but I
MT> haven't had a chance to figure out what is wrong.
MT> Mark
I put it (temp) on my website: (1.900kbyte)
ht
Hello Mark,
Monday, July 10, 2000, 6:21:20 PM, you wrote:
MT> The thing I worry about with VBR is the following:
MT> A VBR with an average bitrate of 180kbs may sound as
MT> good as a 200kbs CBR 99% of the time. But 1% of the time
MT> the psycho acoustics could screw up and use 128kbs
MT> whe
Howdy All,
OK - I just finished overhauling the SCFSI block from the ISO 'dist10'
distribution for my encoder, and I have a couple of questions/rants...
First off, I have to congratulate whoever originally wrote this block - it
has a higher density of _major_ errors than I have ever seen in any
>
> There is a relation between sound pressure level and sound intensity level
> if there is a plain wave (in german "ebene Schallwelle")
>
> L = 20*lg(p/p0) dB = 10*lg(I/I0) dB
>
> p0 := 2E-5 Pa
> I0 := 1E-12 W/m^2
>
> 1W = 1 Nm/s
>
> for coherent sounds one uses the sound pressure
> (cohere
Mark Taylor schrieb am Mon, 10 Jul 2000:
> > Why I attenuate 3dB (0.7 != -1.5dB) here is that there is a description
> > in Zwicker's book that peak of masking is 3dB below masker. Why I
> > increase masking by 2dB later is that I tuned this value by listening
> > tests.
> >
>
> I dont know if
> X-Authentication-Warning: geek.rcc.se: majordom set sender to
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] using -f
> Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 13:36:37 +0200
> From: Istvan Varga <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> X-Accept-Language: en
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Precedence: bulk
> Reply
> 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 12
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
Gabriel Bouvigne schrieb am Mon, 10 Jul 2000:
> I've personnally got a different opinion than Mark about it. The iso specs
> forbid usage of reservoir with 320k frames and up. So I personnally think
> that --nores must be used when encoding with -b 320. Otherwise, it could
> cause problems in play
Hello Mark,
I see not much reason to disturb the current (<=3.85) way things were
scaled. (read down why)
MT> The goal is something like this:
MT>VBR_q compression like
MT> 05.0
MT> 16.0
MT> 38.0
MT> So -V6 is
>
>
> Hi Mark,
>
> Mark> Right now, the spreading function
> Mark> is normalized so that (for example) convolving s3 with a constant
> Mark> function will not remove any energy and return the same constant.
>
> Is there any reason why energy should be preserved here?
>
just a convention.
Mark Taylor wrote:
> > If someone was encoding 128kbit/sec mp3s from their soundcard (ie from an
> > analog source like a mixer instead of a CD rip) and was okay with these
> > default low pass filter frequencies, should they probably use 32kHz as the
> > sample rate instead of 44.1 kHz? >
>
> If
>
> 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 (whi
Hi Mark,
Mark> Right now, the spreading function
Mark> is normalized so that (for example) convolving s3 with a constant
Mark> function will not remove any energy and return the same constant.
Is there any reason why energy should be preserved here?
Mark> After the spreading function is a
> I ran a quick check:
>
> lame -b 320: average bits/frame: 8046
> lame --nores -b 320: average bits/frame: 7917
>
> So even at 320kbs, --nores should only be used for
> specialized purposes.
>
I've personnally got a different opinion than Mark about it. The iso specs
forbid us
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 ?
>
> Hi,
> Just a simple question to check if I fully understand this:
> If I wanted to encode in the highest possible quality for MP3, would I not have
> to use -b 320 and --nores to disable the bit reservoir, to avoid frames being
> encoded with only 90% of the specified bitrate, so ensuring tha
At 22:56 09/07/00 -0400, you wrote:
>Is there any way to force a DOS box close after lame has completed encoding?
>With the Windows binary, it exits properly but with the DOS one it just says
>Finished and the box stays open. So if I'm using the DOS version to encode
>with say audiograbber, I can
| OdesÃlatel: Ivo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| Just a simple question to check if I fully understand this:
| If I wanted to encode in the highest possible quality for MP3, would I
not have
| to use -b 320 and --nores to disable the bit reservoir, to avoid frames
being
| encoded with only 90% of the speci
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 PRO
sorry, hope this is better
- Original Message -
From: "Taupter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2000 2:52 AM
Subject: Re: [MP3 ENCODER] -h (High quality causing ringing artifacts ?) ?
> David,
>
>
> Avoid HTML mail. Please send text-only e-mails to t
Hi,
Just a simple question to check if I fully understand this:
If I wanted to encode in the highest possible quality for MP3, would I not have
to use -b 320 and --nores to disable the bit reservoir, to avoid frames being
encoded with only 90% of the specified bitrate, so ensuring that each frame
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
>Taken straight from the cdex 1.30 beta1 help page, is this true with 3.85 ?
does it really cause ringing artifacts with high quality on ?
It has been right with a few betas in the past, but I think that now you can
use the -h switch safely.
Regards,
--
Gabriel Bouvigne - France
[EMAIL PROTECT
On Sun, Jul 09, 2000 at 03:40:29PM -0700, Ralph Giles wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Jul 2000, Don Melton wrote:
>
> > Thanks. This fix is also in but in a slightly different way. I modifed
> > the actual tagging routines in lame.c to check for Ogg Vorbis output
> > rather than making the client code respo
25 matches
Mail list logo
