LAME 3.96.1 V2 (PS) inflates on Beatles |
  |
LAME 3.96.1 V2 (PS) inflates on Beatles |
 Dec 18 2004, 03:17
Post
#1
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 586 Joined: 17-July 02 Member No.: 2631  |
I have been re-encoding much of my 3.90.3 APS encodings to 3.96.1 V2 (or PS). Why? Much of my music enjoys about a 10% file size reduction moving from 3.90.3 to 3.96.1 - with (as far as I can tell) the exact same audio quality.
Then I started re-encoding my Beatles collection. Wow. 3.96.1 is not nearly as efficient as 3.90.3 when it comes to The Beatles. For example, the Magical Mystery Tour CD inflates from an average bit rate of 196 with 3.90.3 all the way to 213 under 3.96.1. Pretty large increase. Anyone know why old recordings such as The Beatles inflate so much under 3.96.1 vs. 3.90.3? I wish I had not wasted my time re-encoding these! 
|
 |
 
|
|
Dec 18 2004, 03:49
Post
#2
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 2144 Joined: 29-June 02 From: Boston Member No.: 2427 |
It sounds like you are transcoding, which could explain bloated bit rate due to noise added during the intial encoding.
-------------------- "You can fight without ever winning, but never win without a fight." Neil Peart 'Resist'
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 18 2004, 08:06
Post
#3
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 586 Joined: 17-July 02 Member No.: 2631 |
QUOTE It sounds like you are transcoding No, this is a re-rip via EAC from the original CD. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 18 2004, 09:10
Post
#4
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 27 Joined: 8-February 04 From: India Member No.: 11846 |
I also noticed this bitrate bloat on Indian Karnatic Classical songs. For example, song 1: 203kbps vs 220kbps. Song 2: 222kbps vs 245kbps.
Encspot showes quality 78 for 3903 vs 77 for 3961. Another observation: The scalefac is 0.2/0.3 for 3903 vs 10/11 for 3961. This effect is similar for aps & apsy. Any explanation ? After experimenting with one album, I am sticking to 3903, apsy. --Rigapada -------------------- Please visit our Site: www.samritatrust.org
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 18 2004, 11:39
Post
#5
|
|
 LAME developer Group: Developer Posts: 2950 Joined: 1-October 01 From: Nanterre, France Member No.: 138 |
On Beatles this is probably because of the strong stereo separation.
But this is not a huge bitrate increase... |
|
|
|
|
Dec 18 2004, 16:17
Post
#6
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 730 Joined: 5-January 04 Member No.: 10970 |
QUOTE (Rigapada @ Dec 18 2004, 12:10 AM) Encspot showes quality 78 for 3903 vs 77 for 3961.  The quality index isn't very reliable though. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 18 2004, 17:44
Post
#7
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 1361 Joined: 25-November 02 Member No.: 3873 |
based on my testing, LAME 3.96.1 saves you a lot when it comes to pretty recent CD's...especially those fully digitally produced CD's need much less space over LAME 3.90.3. Anyway, overall LAME 3.96.1 still needs less space than LAME 3.90.3
-------------------- --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' |
|
|
|
|
Dec 20 2004, 01:44
Post
#8
|
|
 Group: Super Moderator Posts: 3268 Joined: 26-July 02 From: princegeorge.ca Member No.: 2796 |
It might be that the analog noise underneath the music is inflating the bitrate. Musepack is notable for behaving the same way.
Check to see whether or not there's a correlation between bitrate bloat and analog/digital mastering. -------------------- (atrix|(fb2k->e-mu 0404 usb|audio 8 dj))->hd280|jvc ha-fx35-b
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 19th June 2013 - 11:11 |
