IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Shouldn't there be a 288kbps bitrate
Jojo
post Dec 17 2004, 17:19
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 1361
Joined: 25-November 02
Member No.: 3873



I wonder why there isn't a 288kbps bitrate. There is just 256kbps and after that 320 kbps...I think this gap is quite big. Isn't that a waste of bits? I mean, let's say in a vbr mode, the encoder 'guesses' that it needs 270 kbps there is no way to use 256kbps and the reservoir to compensate the missing bits...so the encoder would have to use 320 kbps...but then, there is no way to store that many extra bits in the reservoir for the next frame.

Same thing for CBR modes. When mp3 was developed most people used CBR since no one could have guessed about LAME's 3.96.1 excellents --preset standard mode. And it's quite a size difference if I use CBR 256 or 320 kbps...especially back then... unsure.gif

This post has been edited by Jojo: Dec 17 2004, 17:21


--------------------
--alt-presets are there for a reason! These other switches DO NOT work better than it, trust me on this.
LAME + Joint Stereo doesn't destroy 'Stereo'
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rjamorim
post Dec 17 2004, 17:42
Post #2


Rarewares admin


Group: Members
Posts: 7515
Joined: 30-September 01
From: Brazil
Member No.: 81



The bitrate index located at frame headers is limited to 4 bits. That's why the format developers had to limit the amount of available bitrates.

This post has been edited by rjamorim: Dec 17 2004, 17:42


--------------------
Get up-to-date binaries of Lame, AAC, Vorbis and much more at RareWares:
http://www.rarewares.org
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jojo
post Dec 17 2004, 18:01
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 1361
Joined: 25-November 02
Member No.: 3873



QUOTE (rjamorim @ Dec 17 2004, 08:42 AM)
The bitrate index located at frame headers is limited to 4 bits. That's why the format developers had to limit the amount of available bitrates.
*

ok, that makes sense. However, why didn't they make the bitrate index bigger than? Where would be the disadvantage?


--------------------
--alt-presets are there for a reason! These other switches DO NOT work better than it, trust me on this.
LAME + Joint Stereo doesn't destroy 'Stereo'
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Gabriel
post Dec 17 2004, 19:57
Post #4


LAME developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 2950
Joined: 1-October 01
From: Nanterre, France
Member No.: 138



QUOTE
I mean, let's say in a vbr mode, the encoder 'guesses' that it needs 270 kbps there is no way to use 256kbps and the reservoir to compensate the missing bits...so the encoder would have to use 320 kbps...but then, there is no way to store that many extra bits in the reservoir for the next frame.

Well, those extra bits will perfectly fit into the bit reservoir.

As Roberto explained, this is a limitation that comes from the bitrate index in the raw mp3 stream.

I think that Layer III inside mp4 container doesn't have this limitation.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
music_man_mpc
post Dec 17 2004, 21:38
Post #5





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 707
Joined: 20-July 03
From: Canada
Member No.: 7895



QUOTE (Gabriel @ Dec 17 2004, 10:57 AM)
QUOTE
I mean, let's say in a vbr mode, the encoder 'guesses' that it needs 270 kbps there is no way to use 256kbps and the reservoir to compensate the missing bits...so the encoder would have to use 320 kbps...but then, there is no way to store that many extra bits in the reservoir for the next frame.

Well, those extra bits will perfectly fit into the bit reservoir.

As Roberto explained, this is a limitation that comes from the bitrate index in the raw mp3 stream.

I think that Layer III inside mp4 container doesn't have this limitation.
*

If so then would there be a potential quality advantage in encoding directly to MP3 within an MP4 container? If so will this be possible with LAME 4? It sounds like yet another way to squeeze even better quality out of MP3.


--------------------
gentoo ~amd64 + layman | ncmpcpp/mpd | wavpack + vorbis + lame
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Omion
post Dec 17 2004, 21:45
Post #6





Group: Developer
Posts: 432
Joined: 22-February 04
From: San Diego, CA
Member No.: 12180



QUOTE (Jojo @ Dec 17 2004, 09:19 AM)
I wonder why there isn't a 288kbps bitrate. There is just 256kbps and after that 320 kbps...I think this gap is quite big. Isn't that a waste of bits? I mean, let's say in a vbr mode, the encoder 'guesses' that it needs 270 kbps there is no way to use 256kbps and the reservoir to compensate the missing bits...so the encoder would have to use 320 kbps...but then, there is no way to store that many extra bits in the reservoir for the next frame.
*
As sort of a side note, the MP3 bitrates follow a vaguely exponential format:
Between 32 and 64, the steps are 8kbps (32,40,48,56,64)
Between 64 and 128, the steps are 16 (64,80,96,112,128)
Between 128 and 256 the steps are 32 (128, 160, 192, 224, 256)
Between 256 and 512 the steps are 64 (256, 320, 384, 448, 512 (okay, so these don't exist. I stuck them in to finish the pattern))
etc...

However, they could only use 14(*) of those bitrates, so they capped it at 320. This makes it look strange, as the last increment is the only one that has a difference of 64kbps, but it's all just following a pattern.

Hope that clears up why there's a big jump there

(*) The 14 is from using a 4-bit index, but one value is used for freeformat and one is invalid.


--------------------
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!" - Vroomfondel, H2G2
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Gabriel
post Dec 17 2004, 23:25
Post #7


LAME developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 2950
Joined: 1-October 01
From: Nanterre, France
Member No.: 138



QUOTE
If so then would there be a potential quality advantage in encoding directly to MP3 within an MP4 container? If so will this be possible with LAME 4? It sounds like yet another way to squeeze even better quality out of MP3.

No, this doesn't help. It just change the way bits are stored.
Inside mp3 stream, you use fixed frame size and bit reservoir, inside mp4 container you use variable frame size but no bit reservoir.

In both case the upper limit regarding how many bits can belong to a frame is the same.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jojo
post Dec 18 2004, 18:03
Post #8





Group: Members
Posts: 1361
Joined: 25-November 02
Member No.: 3873



QUOTE (Gabriel @ Dec 17 2004, 10:57 AM)
QUOTE
I mean, let's say in a vbr mode, the encoder 'guesses' that it needs 270 kbps there is no way to use 256kbps and the reservoir to compensate the missing bits...so the encoder would have to use 320 kbps...but then, there is no way to store that many extra bits in the reservoir for the next frame.

Well, those extra bits will perfectly fit into the bit reservoir.
*

ok, I always wanted to know how many bits can be stored in the bit reservoir...according to EncSpot it should be 0,5 kilobyte...however, in my example there are 6,25 kilobyte that needed to be stored in the bit reservoir unsure.gif

This post has been edited by Jojo: Dec 18 2004, 18:11


--------------------
--alt-presets are there for a reason! These other switches DO NOT work better than it, trust me on this.
LAME + Joint Stereo doesn't destroy 'Stereo'
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Gabriel
post Dec 19 2004, 01:40
Post #9


LAME developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 2950
Joined: 1-October 01
From: Nanterre, France
Member No.: 138



Nope, they will be used.

The maximum number of bits belonging to a frame is equal to the number of bits that can be stored inside a 320kbps frame.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jojo
post Dec 22 2004, 13:20
Post #10





Group: Members
Posts: 1361
Joined: 25-November 02
Member No.: 3873



QUOTE (Gabriel @ Dec 18 2004, 04:40 PM)
Nope, they will be used.

The maximum number of bits belonging to a frame is equal to the number of bits that can be stored inside a 320kbps frame.
*

great! Is this just a 'LAME' invention or does that came with the mp3 standard...because I don't think FhG uses it that much...


--------------------
--alt-presets are there for a reason! These other switches DO NOT work better than it, trust me on this.
LAME + Joint Stereo doesn't destroy 'Stereo'
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Lev
post Dec 22 2004, 16:42
Post #11





Group: Members
Posts: 524
Joined: 7-November 02
From: Gloucester, UK
Member No.: 3716



Isn't there the ability to create 288kbps streams with MP1? (and even MP2?). I presume the frame header is still limited to 4 bits, 288 seems a more sensible option to have than, say, a lot of options around the 32-64 zone.. smile.gif


--------------------
http://www.megalev.co.uk
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Gabriel
post Dec 22 2004, 17:47
Post #12


LAME developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 2950
Joined: 1-October 01
From: Nanterre, France
Member No.: 138



QUOTE (Jojo @ Dec 22 2004, 02:20 PM)
great! Is this just a 'LAME' invention or does that came with the mp3 standard...because I don't think FhG uses it that much...

It is my understanding of the standard, and FhG uses that much.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Sebastian Mares
post Dec 22 2004, 17:47
Post #13





Group: Members
Posts: 3630
Joined: 14-May 03
From: Bad Herrenalb
Member No.: 6613



Well, complaining now won't help, as changes to the bitrate table aren't possible without breaking compatibility.
MP1 supports 288 kbps, but as stated above, there are no steps between 32 kbps and 64 kbps which might be useful for voice.


--------------------
http://listening-tests.hydrogenaudio.org/sebastian/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 24th September 2014 - 06:57