Anything wrong with --vbr-new ? (buggy?)
Since the default VBR mode seems to be --vbr-old, one wonders...
Is there something wrong with the "new" mode, i've noticed it's a lot faster
... (version 3.85)
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
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...
So wait, I'm not quite understanding you. Are you saying I should stick
with 3.83, or are
I'm a bit worried about LAME's short block detection.
Consider the following sequence of short block
energies with a big surge between b3 and b4:
b1 b2 b3b4b5b6
100100100200020002000
If the frame boundaries are like
f1f2
[b1,b2,b3][b4,b5,b6]
then LAME will not
Hi David,
Actually, this is true for if you use the -k switch at low bitrates. It
should not be used at 128 kbit/s or lower. The real option for high
quality, -h, is safe to use at all bitrates.
- Zia
Quality (default value Normal):
With the LAME encoder, you can specify the output
Hello,
I was just listening to that 'obvious artifact-creator' that makes vbr_mt do
strange things. Sad thing is that I cannot really easily detect it, on
my stereo that is. I'm just guessing more people will find it hard to
detect. It is however, very clearly present when I listen with my
Hello Steve,
Monday, July 10, 2000, 11:27:36 PM, you 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...
SS So wait, I'm not quite
At the risk of sounding even more arrogant, I'd like to advise everyone here,
putting hours in the development of LAME, if they have not already
have done so, to _invest in some decent pair of headphones_.
I'll echo what Roel says here. He's not being arrogant, quality headphones are
a
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
I really have to second this. A pair of $2000 floor standing speakers
can't compete with the flatness of a good pair of headphones (due to room
modes if nothing else).
After spending about $100(us) on a pair of Grado SR80s, my 'tolerable'
collection of 30+gigs of 192Kbit/sec bladeenc encoded
44.1kHz for 128 kbit/sec mp3s from soundcard?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What is the real difference between 8 and 16 bit audio at the same
sampling frequency?
44100 x 2 x 8
44100 x 2 x 16
Doesn't the number of bits indicate the voltage (volume level)? If so, on
el-cheapo cards like my
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,
On Tue, 11 Jul 2000, Twinkles wrote:
44.1kHz for 128 kbit/sec mp3s from soundcard?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What is the real difference between 8 and 16 bit audio at the same
sampling frequency?
44100 x 2 x 8
44100 x 2 x 16
Doesn't the number of bits indicate the voltage
From: Monty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
I myself bought a good pair of Sennheiser HD-490 headphones ($45,
belgium) and a sb128 soundcard ($25, nice linear play and high S/N
ratio(linux compatible, ensoniq)).
Another set of very good, reasonably priced headphones are
the Grado Labs
Hello,
I know I keep going on about this one, but I am reasonably convinced
something is wrong beside that "analog silence". 386 keeps giving me
_consistently_ frames below 128k with "-b128" specified. I've been
told this has to do with analog silence, but there is simply _no
silence_ in next
Howdy Twinkles,
What is the real difference between 8 and 16 bit audio at the same
sampling frequency?
According to the standard approximations of the statistical formulation
(which allows ~6dB/bit) - about 48 dB of SNR...
If this means nothing to you, then consider that even basic
Howdy,
I'll third (or fourth or whatever) this as well, though with a few
caveats...
I really have to second this. A pair of $2000 floor standing speakers
can't compete with the flatness of a good pair of headphones
(due to room modes if nothing else).
Well, yes and no. I rely strongly
OK, once again, there is no -b128 bug!!
A typical stereo mp3 frame consists of two granules and 2 channels.
So you have to encode:
granule1 left-channel
granule1 right-channel
granule2 left-channel
granule2 right-channel
That makes 4 possibilities to detect
What is this -q1 parameter i've seen here on the list ?
is it for VBR,ABR, or CBR ?
is there -qx or only q1, tell me about it
are there any other undocumented parameters ?
if so, what do they do ?
And like i mentioned in another post, what's up with --vbr-old and --vbr-new
?
since --vbr-old is
There's not a part of this I don't disagree with. Even on a very decent
Hi-Fi and stereo speakers, I find it hard to find many of these
artifacts people keep
talking about. On a £20 pair of headphones, almost everything sounds
marvellous, though any encoding artifacts can be heard well. Another
I'de like to get a version with MP3x included, can some code wiz compile
such a version ?
i tried the 3.70 GTK version with the dll's but it never worked, it just
crashed.. :(
- Original Message -
From: "Robert Hegemann" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 11,
David schrieb am Die, 11 Jul 2000:
I'de like to get a version with MP3x included, can some code wiz compile
such a version ?
i tried the 3.70 GTK version with the dll's but it never worked, it just
crashed.. :(
If you would have looked at LAME's homepage you would have found the
following
Hello Robert,
Tuesday, July 11, 2000, 4:44:49 PM, you wrote:
RH OK, once again, there is no -b128 bug!!
My apologies. i don't/didn't understand. I'll read everything over
again and try to comprehend why 3.85 and below functioned as I
expected and 3.86 doesn't.
thanks and sorry for the
Good headphones and a good soundcard are of course, very important. I would
have posted this kind of a message if Roel didn't!
For headphones, you may try the Grado SR60s or 80s. They sound very good,
but they are a bit bulky. Koss Porta Pro is pretty good too. They are
cheaper, and are very
We know that LAME now has roughly the same quality of MP3Enc 3.1. But,
as far as I am concerned, full huffman search hasn't been implemented
on LAME yet. I've noticed LAME 3.8x produces better quality than 3.70,
and I presume the main reason is the more efficient huffman coding of
Takehiro.
I've got another question, and I thought it'd be better to start a new
thread with it. There are some controversy with the quality and bugs
of LAME VBR mode. Would this affect the ABR mode, too? Which is safer
to use (though ABR is called the "safe VBR mode!): 192 CBR or 192 ABR?
Can I _always_
Title: RE: [MP3 ENCODER] Difference between 8 and 16 bit quality
I thought the number of bits refers to the number of variations in volume from silence to maximum. 16-bit providing 65536 steps and 8-bit providing only 256. I would think it would be difficult to hear the volume change on an
Hello David,
Tuesday, July 11, 2000, 6:18:06 PM, you wrote:
D What is this -q1 parameter i've seen here on the list ?
D is it for VBR,ABR, or CBR ?
D is there -qx or only q1, tell me about it
-q1 should be an optimalisation by Takehiro Tominaga running a more
extensive search to find smallest
Hello Chris,
Tuesday, July 11, 2000, 11:37:35 PM, you wrote:
CH We know that LAME now has roughly the same quality of MP3Enc 3.1. But,
CH as far as I am concerned, full huffman search hasn't been implemented
CH on LAME yet. I've noticed LAME 3.8x produces better quality than 3.70,
CH and I
28 matches
Mail list logo
