IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
LAME 3.92 --alt-preset standard question
Dr. TaaDow
post May 8 2003, 07:07
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 41
Joined: 13-February 03
From: Plastic City America
Member No.: 4989



ok..... i just ripped my friend's new breakbeat cd and encoded it with LAME 3.92 --alt-preset standard

when the file finished encoding, i got a 131kbps mp3

i thought APS was supposed to be around 192kbps ??

131kbps is way too low of a bitrate average for my taste

This post has been edited by Dr. TaaDow: May 8 2003, 07:07
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
karmakillernz
post May 8 2003, 07:16
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 78
Joined: 15-December 02
Member No.: 4083



Does it sound fine? It all depends on the type of music being encoded. Obviously LAME found it could encode it just as well at around 130kbps so didnt waste using any more bits.

Try ABXing it with the original. See if you can notice any difference. smile.gif

This post has been edited by karmakillernz: May 8 2003, 07:16
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
_Shorty
post May 8 2003, 07:23
Post #3





Group: Banned
Posts: 694
Joined: 19-April 02
Member No.: 1820



probably mono
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dr. TaaDow
post May 8 2003, 07:33
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 41
Joined: 13-February 03
From: Plastic City America
Member No.: 4989



nah, it's not mono

i was there when he recorded it smile.gif

APE bumped it up to 176kbps

that's closer to what i'm looking for

This post has been edited by Dr. TaaDow: May 8 2003, 07:41
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
magic75
post May 8 2003, 07:49
Post #5





Group: Members
Posts: 511
Joined: 2-December 02
Member No.: 3959



But have you compared the -aps encode @ 131 kbps with the original? Chances that you won't be able to hear any difference is substantial. And in that case you are just wasting disk space by using ape. Most people in these forums can't hear any difference between aps and the original, if we are talking about normal music. There are of course some samples where aps fails, but ape is not really that much better.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dub_doctor
post May 8 2003, 07:51
Post #6





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 145
Joined: 2-December 02
From: Melbourne
Member No.: 3952



i agree with karmakillernz [Edit: & magic75, who got in just before me]

Most of my old reggae music encodes to around 130Kbps max with --APS, probably because it isn't that complex (maybe mono). So just because you get a low bitrate doesn't mean the quality will be bad. You really should ABX it with the original rather than unnecessarily bump up the bitrate.

.dd.

This post has been edited by dub_doctor: May 8 2003, 08:00
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dr. TaaDow
post May 8 2003, 07:55
Post #7





Group: Members
Posts: 41
Joined: 13-February 03
From: Plastic City America
Member No.: 4989



QUOTE (magic75 @ May 7 2003 - 10:49 PM)
But have you compared the -aps encode @ 131 kbps with the original?

yeah, i can't really hear much difference

i guess i'll just stick with APS, it's just strange that the majority of the mix is encoded at 128kbps... with house and breakbeat mix cd's i usually get no lower than about 155kbps average with APS

guess this cd didn't need as high of a bitrate as the others biggrin.gif

This post has been edited by Dr. TaaDow: May 8 2003, 08:01
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jebus
post May 8 2003, 08:44
Post #8





Group: Developer
Posts: 1295
Joined: 17-March 03
From: Calgary, AB
Member No.: 5541



Yeh don't worry about it. I have songs as high as 278kbps (some Ministry tracks) and as low as 132kbps for some stuff by Tom Waits. The point is, they both sound identical to the CD. Don't panic just because the bitrate isn't as high as you think it should be.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
torok
post May 8 2003, 09:12
Post #9





Group: Members
Posts: 391
Joined: 24-December 02
From: Eugene, OR
Member No.: 4224



You just don't understand the concept of variable bit rate. It's okay. Hang around here a little more, you'll get it.


--------------------
http://www.pkulak.com
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
_Shorty
post May 8 2003, 09:21
Post #10





Group: Banned
Posts: 694
Joined: 19-April 02
Member No.: 1820



well, stuff that's mono or near mono always ends up being very very close to 128Kbps with --ap-s which is why I mentioned it. For curiosity's sake perhaps you could take one of the tracks that's close to 128Kbps and invert one of the channels and mix it to mono and see how much is actually left over. Any stereo info will be the only thing left after doing so. I'd be surprised if there were much at all.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dalkus
post May 8 2003, 10:28
Post #11





Group: Members
Posts: 34
Joined: 16-April 03
From: WI
Member No.: 6016



I've noticed that problem too (well, it's not really a problem I guess...), that with 3.92 one or two tracks take off in bitrate! If I encode an album, 9 songs outta 10 stay around 180 kbps (standard with the -Y switch) and the 10th will go up to 220 kbps or something. That never happens with 3.90.2. I don't mind though:-)
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 October 2014 - 16:54