IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

LAME 3.96.1 V2 (PS) inflates on Beatles
ezra2323
post 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! biggrin.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 7)
dreamliner77
post Dec 18 2004, 03:49
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 2150
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'
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ezra2323
post 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.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Rigapada
post Dec 18 2004, 09:10
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 28
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
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Gabriel
post 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...
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Busemann
post 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.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jojo
post 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 smile.gif


--------------------
--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
Canar
post Dec 20 2004, 01:44
Post #8





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 3327
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.


--------------------
∑:<
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: 21st April 2014 - 16:33