were very small ?
-I didn't find how to select MPEG1 or MPEG2 by using the command line version of Lame
(I tried 3.70)
Many thanks for your help,
Pierre Hugonnet
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
Gabriel Bouvigne wrote:
>
> Using Lame 3.70 I saw that it accepts a strange thing:
> using an highpass freq higher than the lowpass one
>
> Of course the result is pure silent.
>
...a good check that filters work OK :-)
Pierre Hugonnet
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list (
Hello,
I use WinAmp (2.62) to play my mp3 files encoded by lame (3.70), and I find it rather
bad. The mp3 files are not faulty, since they sound good with the Windows Media
Player. But Windows Media Player doesn't have playlists, so I'd like to use WinAmp
anyway: are there some particular set
Dmitry Boldyrev wrote:
>
> what's wrong w/ winamp's mp3 decoding? i think it is pretty much compliant
> with FhG spec.
>
Some problems like 'stop & go' : some very short interruptions during play (even when
winamp is the only running application)
Pierre
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://
"E. Zann" wrote:
>
>
> The easiest and fastest thing to try, IMHO, is to
> use in_mp3.dll from 2.22 version of WinAMP, which
> is based on Fraunhofer's decoding engine. One can
> download it from Dmitry Kutsanov's site:
> http://www.chat.ru/~dkutsanov/in_mp3.zip
>
> Personally, I like it better
Dave Brown wrote:
>
> I've found Winamp sounds pretty bad if you enable MMX decoding.
>
> I suggest just sticking with Pentium/Pentium2 decode doesn't seem to affect
> cpu utilisation.
>
It doesn't improve a lot...
It seems in fact that the problem I observe is related to the process priorit
"steve m." wrote:
>
> Nils Faerber wrote:
>
> > Other opinions?
> > CU
> > nils
>
> if it isn't mp3, it kind of limits what one can do... =( sure there may be a
>player, or plug_ins for some players but you lose the freedom that exists in mp3
>being a "standard". for me it would mean that
Helmut Hübers wrote:
>
> It is not possible to set that switch in the dll so I can't do that. You can e-mail
>the LAME developers and tell them to enhance the dll interface so all switches can be
>used with the dll too. I think they are planning to do that but it will not hurt of
>you tell the
Hello,
I have just installed Linux on my PC, and I'm looking for a graphical CD
ripper/encoder. Requirements:
-CDDB access (prefered, but not mandatory)
-use of any command-line mp3 encoder, such as LAME
-auto-balancing of input level
Among the ones you (have) use(d), which one would you recom
Greg Maxwell wrote:
>
> GRIP supports all but 'Auto balancing'.
>
> What do you mean by this? When you RIP you perform a Digital Audio
> Extraction (DAE) which means you get bit accurate output from the CD.
>
> Performing any operation on the output without increasing it's bitdepth
> will lower
Mark Taylor wrote:
>
>
> 1. the current version (default)
>
> 2. -Y enables the true noise shaping VBR mode. It should give
>similar results to #1, but be much faster. Faster because it
>does not use the outer_loop() iterations scheme, but computes
>each scalefactor directly and t
Mark Taylor wrote:
>
>
> To explain how this works, take a 128kbs CBR for example.
> In that case, LAME allocated a base amount of
> bits for each frame. This base amount is about 10% less than
> a 128kbs stream, so that the bit reservoir is slowly built up.
> LAME then allocates extra bits ba
Mark Taylor wrote:
>
> The is one key difference: safe VBR mode chooses the total number of
> bits to use before *any* quantization occurs, based on a simple
> formula (also used by the CBR algorithm). The psycho acoustics are
> only used in allocating the bits among the frequency bands.
>
>
Shawn Riley wrote:
>
> Hi. I have a couple of my own questions about this.
>
> It sounds like what's being referred to as "ABR" would be not only faster,
> but more reliable (in quality terms) than the traditional VBR. So what's
> the use of traditional VBR now?
>From the previous postings, it
Mark Taylor wrote:
> >
> > From the previous postings, it turns that ABR is not a true variable
> > bit rate encoding. It is a compromise between constant bit rate and
> > variable bit rate.
> >
>
> I think both modes are true VBR modes, but one picks the
> bitrate based on perceptual entropy, a
Zia Mazhar wrote:
>
> Kenwood's "Superior Drive": Ground Breaking Technology? Not really.
>
> This is supposed to generate the signals which have been cut off during MP3
>Encoding. Like, CD Audio contains frequencies up to 22.5 kHz, but 128 kBit/s MP3s
>usually have a cut off at 16 kHz. Accord
Mark Taylor wrote:
>
>
> Hi Kenzie,
>
> What about LAME at 128kbs? files size should be about 2.7meg.
>
> Vorbis by the way, is a VQ codec, and it is probably already
> supported by more players than the proprietary vqf :-)
>
> Mark
>
> --
Sure! VQF support is almost non-existent. On www.
Mark Taylor wrote:
>
> Ok, another release with the "old vbr mode" still the default :-)
>
> lame3.85beta is released. This is mostly because 3.84 was using
> 32bit floating point by default, which causes some problems
> with the resampling code.
>
> 3.85 does include some other tweaks to the
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 st
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 f
Shawn Riley wrote:
>
>
> I wonder if that's because it's classical or choral music you're encoding, & not
>heavy metal or techno. Your music may not be forcing the use of short blocks as often
>as some other genres.
> Can we really say whether 32 or 44.1kHz sounds best at 128kBit/sec (or l
Hello,
not purely mp3, but...
I want to buy a soundcard, and am hesitating between the SoundBlaster 128 (~25$) and
the SounBlaster 1024 Live (~60$).
Main Usage:
- playing my mp3 collection (mainly 128kbs quality) on my (very standard) HiFi
equipement
- converting my old audio tapes to mp3
Hello,
I have a interesting (I think) test sample (.wav ~1.6MB), which consists mainly of
cymbal hits, with some drums and bass. The problem here is the the cymbal hits. Small
reports using lame 3.70 (the last stable release) and 3.85b (last beta?) is below.
However: the CBR result was better
still --vbr-old (and not --vbr-new, as
suggested by the doc).
Pierre
Pierre Hugonnet wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I have a interesting (I think) test sample (.wav ~1.6MB), which consists mainly of
>cymbal hits, with some drums and bass. The problem here is the the cymbal hits. S
Hello,
If I've well undertood what the VBR quality setting means (-V x), it is the allowed
number of bands where distortion (in the psycho-model sense) occurs .
I'd like now to take the problem from the other side: in CBR, is there a way to have
statistics about the number of distorded bands (
Robert Hegemann wrote:
>
> hmm, this was the meaning of -V in the very first beginning
> of LAME's VBR code.
>
> Actually you influence the absolute threshold of hearing aka ATH
> and the masking thresholds computed by GPSYCHO. VBR tries to
> avoid distorted bands, but sometimes, when there are
Frank Klemm wrote:
>
> 560 kbps result in distortions.
>
> 551 kbps is the last without heavy artefacts.
>
> --
Could you explain why 560kbs would produce more distorsion than 320kbs ?
Pierre
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
Jaroslav Lukesh wrote:
>
>
>
> layer 1 is absolutely BEST lossy audio (by me).
>
> If you want to use very high bitrates such as 320, 384 kb, use layer1. If
> you want to use 192..320kb bitrates, use layer 2 and at low bitrates up to
> 160k use layer3. All encoders have different characteristi
Heribert Maier wrote:
>
> Hello folks,
>
> for some reason I have to convert something like 200 CDs to mp3 and
> they should stay on 4CDs. An average bitrate of around 32kbps should
> be o.k..
> As lots of these CDs (old recordings) are actually mono, although it is
> not specified on the cover,
David Bridson wrote:
>
> > Just read Mr. Maier's email. I would also like to know
> > when stereo recordings started being used. Is there an
> > online source that gives a summary of recording technology history?
>
> I know that the first film ever released in Stereo was in 1940.
>
> > Space is
Mark Taylor wrote:
>
>
> This utility will do exactly that:
>
> http://www.chat.ru/~lrsp/English/index.html
>
It seems to be for DOS/WIN only... Is there something equivalent for Unix ?
Pierre
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
Mark Powell wrote:
>
>
> > lame with a CBR of 160 ?
>
> If you want quality go for "-b256 -ms -h". This is about 4-5x realtime on
> my 583MHz PIII.
>
160kbs is probably enough for fm (even top) quality...
Pierre
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
Mark Taylor wrote:
>
> LAME won a "Tuxie"!
>
> I've heard that for the multimedia catagory, the awards were:
>
> 1. xmms
> 2. grip
> 3. lame
> 4. icecast
>
> Mark
>
Congratulations to all lame developers (and testers) !
Pierre
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
David wrote:
>
> Why not do somwthing like VBR to the lowpassfilter ?
> i'll try to explain my idea here below :)
>
> let's say there is a passage in a track that has wery few sounds above
> 13Khz, why not let the lowpassfilter adapt to it and cut at 13Khz where
> there is no need for more ?
>
34 matches
Mail list logo
