IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
LAME, CBR, VBR,.... I'm confused!
Oge_user
post Mar 28 2003, 10:52
Post #26


A/V Moderator


Group: Members
Posts: 317
Joined: 20-August 02
Member No.: 3123



QUOTE (Immo @ Mar 27 2003 - 12:08 PM)
I tried to use Lame 3.93.1 with the same CBR settings:  -b 192 -m j -q 0.

What do we see? In the 3.91 there is no clear cut at 16kHz, as opposed to 3.93.1, where we can distinguish a cut much better.

You used -q 0 for your test, and this setting cause quality problems on Lame.
Maybe you get those unexepted results because of -q 0.

Try to use -q 2 on both Lame 3.91 and 3.93.1 to see if it's the same problem.


--------------------
[ Commodore 64 Forever...! ]
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
DigitalDictator
post Mar 28 2003, 11:57
Post #27





Group: Members
Posts: 313
Joined: 9-August 02
From: SoFo
Member No.: 3002



sony666

QUOTE
If you plan to use your encodes for listening on the PC and playing them in your car/portable/DVD player, "--alt-preset cbr 192"


If you wanna stick with files around 192 kbps why don't you use "--alt-preset 192" instead? (ABR). That would surely give better quality than 192 CBR.

neorenegade

QUOTE
Mainly Dibrom works on the Alt Presets.


I'm pretty sure Dibrom has quit working on the LAME presets. Too bad though... Since his presets in 3.90.2 are so extremely well tuned, It'd be cool if he could do some wonders with 3.94! JohnV and Gabriel and the rest of the guys are doing a great job nontheless!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Immo
post Mar 28 2003, 19:12
Post #28





Group: Members
Posts: 25
Joined: 26-March 03
From: Latvia
Member No.: 5684



Roman: I guess ti prav explaining how VBR acts smile.gif

But although I'm conscious of the basic principle of VBR, the mystery to me was - why doesn't the CBR codec apply the same or even lower low-pass filter than the VBR codec, because it's perfectly possible and, judging from what VBR does with the high frequencies, a good idea. Although the CBR codec doesn't have the possibility to vary bps, there is still nothing, as far as I'm concerned, keeping it from using the available (192 in this case) bits on lower frequencies depending on situation.

But I've kinda lost a bit of interest in this investigation tongue.gif since I was practically the only one being surprised by that fact.

My greatest concern is at the moment - why is LAME 3.93.1 a good deal slower than 3.91. Could it be a bad compilation?

Cheers and poka,
Immo
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Immo
post Mar 28 2003, 19:25
Post #29





Group: Members
Posts: 25
Joined: 26-March 03
From: Latvia
Member No.: 5684



Oge_user:I just tried it, the results weren't 100% the same, but essentially the same: no visible tendency in any direction.

Immo
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
sony666
post Mar 28 2003, 23:48
Post #30





Group: Members
Posts: 573
Joined: 22-February 02
Member No.: 1375



QUOTE (DigitalDictator @ Mar 28 2003 - 11:57 AM)
sony666

QUOTE
If you plan to use your encodes for listening on the PC and playing them in your car/portable/DVD player, "--alt-preset cbr 192"


If you wanna stick with files around 192 kbps why don't you use "--alt-preset 192" instead? (ABR). That would surely give better quality than 192 CBR.

Because it would result in a mp3 with variable bitrate again (ABR), and that is exactly what you might not want when you aim at hardware playback.
I know the quality of ABR/VBR is potentially better, but I wanted to point out the advantage of CBR in regard to hardware devices in this topic.

This post has been edited by sony666: Mar 28 2003, 23:50
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
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: 23rd November 2014 - 04:37