> > [curious thing is I never seem to offend any ladies on this list]
> A good point. Is there any lady on this list. I think that a lot of people
> subscribed to this list. Statistically, it would be strange that only men
> subscribed.
Good Point .. I heard about statistic that says : "Man have
never mind .. Mark just answered it :)
> What options give better quality results :
> --abr 192 or -b 192 (for example) ?
>
> [or .. what is currently better : ABR or CBR ?]
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
> ABR is more like CBR without to be constraint to fit into a fixed bitrate,
> so it is allowed to use frames of variable sizes, like VBR too.
>
> ABR is a hybrid of CBR and VBR.
What options give better quality results :
--abr 192 or -b 192 (for example) ?
[or .. what is currently better : AB
Hello L.A.M.E. people,
1 - Why ABR is much faster than VBR ?
2 - Anyone tested ABR x CBR quality ?
3 - I encoded a file with --abr 192 -js -h (lame 3.84 a1_2j from Dmitry)
and the file have 183 kbps :
32 - 28 - 0.2%
64 - 1 - 0.0%
96 - 1 - 0.0%
112 - 9 - 0.1%
|128 - 250 - 2.2
Vorbis does't have a public version yet
I will try to compile the code avaliable @ HP
But what about the player ???
Anyone have a compiled vorbis encoder / player ?
> Personally, I would suggest that you wait for Ogg/Vorbis
> (http://www.xiph.org). The future of MP3 as a widely used open format
How do you count frames of each bitrate ?
I want to do some stats myself (with diferentes settings and lame versions)
:o)
> the stats about this:
>
> 3.80
> 32 - 0 - 0,0%
> ||| 128 - 17066 - 54,1%
> 160 -
> According to my ISO doc (section 2.4.2.3), for layer III, decoders are not
required to support higher free format higher than 320kbps. So free format
is not restricted to <=320kbps.
> And decoders must support free format at least up to 320k.
My ISO 13818-3 documentation : Section 2.4.2.3
"The
lame ?
Finally ... is there any quality loss using Joint Stereo instead of Stereo ?
Thanx in advance
Leonardo Stern
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
Are you using the 2.50e version ??
Try new versions of winamp,
In vbr 0 , I found frames from 112 kbps (initial value) to 320 kbps
Ross Levis wrote:
>
> Hi all. I'm new to the list. I have been using Xing's VBR up to now but I am
>hoping to find Lame produces better VBR quality - but
> It would be nice if such a program existed. If it really could tell
> which format sounded the best, it would in effect contain a perfect
> psycho-acoustic model. In reality, there is no perfect psy-model,
> so if you find such a test program, it will only tell you which codec is
> using a psy
Hi all,
where I can find a program for windows 9x that compares mp3, wma, vqf,
etc with the wav ?
I've done some tests with wma x mp3 in diferent freqüêncies but I need
some kind of analizer that could help.
Leonardo Stern
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
Me > Why using lame 3.34 with vbr 0 I have 153 KBPS file while using the
old 3.30 in CDex I have a 124 KBPS file (same track from CD) ? I did
something wrong ?
FP > No I noticed the same thing. Please notice, that you used a better
quality-setting (-v -V0) instead of -v -V4. If you have variabl
--- Hello and Questions ---
Hello all,
I'm new in list and my linux is not here cos MP3 took all free space and
linux ... I burned some cd's (more than 1000 tracks encoded with LAME
!!!) and soon linux come back
How do I compile LAME under windows 9x (if possible, under Borland C++)
I also want
uggest for good equalized mp3 ... equalize the wave, save the new
wave, then encode the wave
Maybe in can be implemented in encoding process by someone from this
list
Leonardo Stern
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
14 matches
Mail list logo