IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
EAC, LAME and the drop-down bug, Is it worse on the newest version?
AtaqueEG
post Jun 24 2005, 15:00
Post #1





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 1336
Joined: 18-November 01
From: Celaya, Guanajuato
Member No.: 478



Hello.
As most people around here I have been using EAC/LAME for my MP3 encodes.
I have started using EAC 0.9 Beta 2 (the newest one) and LAME 3.97a10 (I know it is not recommended, but I am not archiving and it is hel of a lot faster that the "recommended compile").

As some of you should know, there was a bug a while back on the EAC encoder settings that it you selected "LAME MP3 Encoder", the drop-down quality menu would affect the VBR Tag (IIRC), altough not the file itself, which would be the same file produced using the "User Defined Encoder" setting.

I made some encodes this past weekend, using the "LAME MP3" setting, command line "-V 4 --vbr-new" and the drop-down menu set to 160k.

The files came almost CBR 160. They have very little variation on that rate. Almost as if it where ABR.

I encoded those same files using foobar2000, and they came up as expected (maybe a little higher, averaging 180 per file).

Is the EAC "bug" made worse on this version?

I have not been able to do a bit comparison between the tracks after decoding them to wav to look for actual differences, because I don't have access to those files now.
But I will try to do it tonight.

Does anyone know anything about this?


--------------------
I'm the one in the picture, sitting on a giant cabbage in Mexico, circa 1978.
Reseņas de Rock en Espaņol: www.estadogeneral.com
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Squeller
post Jun 24 2005, 16:04
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 2351
Joined: 28-August 02
Member No.: 3218



Don't know. Why not simply set up a decent command line + cl encoder and thus getting rid of any nasty bug?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
HisInfernalMajes...
post Jun 24 2005, 16:08
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 116
Joined: 15-October 03
Member No.: 9325



QUOTE (AtaqueEG @ Jun 24 2005, 06:00 AM)
Hello.
As most people around here I have been using EAC/LAME for my MP3 encodes.
I have started using EAC 0.9 Beta 2 (the newest one) and LAME 3.97a10 (I know it is not recommended, but I am not archiving and it is hel of a lot faster that the "recommended compile").

As some of you should know, there was a bug a while back on the EAC encoder settings that it you selected "LAME MP3 Encoder", the drop-down quality menu would affect the VBR Tag (IIRC), altough not the file itself, which would be the same file produced using the "User Defined Encoder" setting.

I made some encodes this past weekend, using the "LAME MP3" setting, command line "-V 4 --vbr-new" and the drop-down menu set to 160k.

The files came almost CBR 160. They have very little variation on that rate. Almost as if it where ABR.

I encoded those same files using foobar2000, and they came up as expected (maybe a little higher, averaging 180 per file).

Is the EAC "bug" made worse on this version?

I have not been able to do a bit comparison between the tracks after decoding them to wav to look for actual differences, because I don't have access to those files now.
But I will try to do it tonight.

Does anyone know anything about this?
*


I've ran into this problem before with older EACs (though I haven't tried it with the newer one)... It seems that when you use the LAME Encoder in the pulldown and select a bitrate, it adds "-b [bitrate]" to the command line... The best thing to do would be to just select "User Defined Encoder".

This post has been edited by HisInfernalMajesty: Jun 24 2005, 17:12


--------------------
http://www.last.fm/user/mattimeo18
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: 29th December 2014 - 07:53