> Hello,
>
> Hrmm... that is an interesting idea. I completely hadn't thought of this.
Does this actually take away bits from being used to encode the audio frame?
If so then what is the real use of this switch? I had thought this switch
would help to prevent the mp3 from being possibly corrupt
Gargos Chode wrote about the -k switch:
>
> Hrmm... that is an interesting idea. I completely hadn't thought of this.
> Does this actually take away bits from being used to encode the audio
> frame? If so then what is the real use of this switch? I had thought
> this switch would help to prev
Hello,
Hrmm... that is an interesting idea. I completely hadn't thought of this. Does this
actually take away bits from being used to encode the audio frame? If so then what is
the real use of this switch? I had thought this switch would help to prevent the mp3
from being possibly corrupte
if lame writes a 16 bit crc for every frame (using -p switch),
doesn't that mean there are 16 less bits for sound data for each
frame? couldn't that affect sound quality? is this getting
carried away a little too much? :)
On Thu, Oct 05, 2000 at 09:30:23PM +1300, Ross Levis wrote:
> -p & -F
Hello,
On Thu, 05 Oct 2000 20:02:11
Naoki Shibata wrote:
> First, one should not specify "--athlower -35". This may significantly
>degrade sound quality.
>
> I always used -q1 while tuning --nspsytune. I think -q1 doesn't
>degrade sound quality so much with --nspsytune.
>
> Theoretically
--
On Thu, 05 Oct 2000 21:30:23
Ross Levis wrote:
>Gargos Chode wrote:
>
>> -V1 -mj -b128 -q2 -d -p -k -F --nspsytune --athlower -35 -X3.
>
>Some thoughts:
>
>-p & -F will have no effect on sound quality. I have had mixed results with
>nspsytune. -X2 & X3 both produce massively larger ave
Ross> Gargos Chode wrote:
Ross>
Ross> > -V1 -mj -b128 -q2 -d -p -k -F --nspsytune --athlower -35 -X3.
Ross>
Ross> Some thoughts:
Ross>
Ross> -p & -F will have no effect on sound quality. I have had mixed results with
nspsytune. -X2 & X3 both produce massively larger average bitrates than al
Gargos Chode wrote:
> -V1 -mj -b128 -q2 -d -p -k -F --nspsytune --athlower -35 -X3.
Some thoughts:
-p & -F will have no effect on sound quality. I have had mixed results with
nspsytune. -X2 & X3 both produce massively larger average bitrates than all the
others. I've never played with -d.
>At these types of average bitrates, I think you might be better off
>with CBR instead of VBR. This is because with an average bitrate
>230kbs, you only need an extra 90kbs to go up to 320kbs. 90kbs
>is only 40% of the average frame size - these types of fluctuations
>are easily handled by the
>
> pretty much the best I could get but I know for example that
> --nspsytune normally enables -X1, but -X3 sounds quite a bit better
> although it is significantly slower... which isn't too big of a deal
> to me. Also, I know that from earlier conversations --athlower isn't
> perhaps the grea
>
> Hello... I've been lurking on this list for awhile now and I've
> really started to become interested in some of the more advanced
> aspects of lame such as the experimental modes and stuff. Basically
> what I am trying to get out of lame is the highest possible sound
> quality short of usin
Hello... I've been lurking on this list for awhile now and I've really started to
become interested in some of the more advanced aspects of lame such as the
experimental modes and stuff. Basically what I am trying to get out of lame is the
highest possible sound quality short of using 320kbps
12 matches
Mail list logo
