alt preset extreme -m s ?? |
alt preset extreme -m s ?? |
Jan 10 2002, 23:35
Post
#1
|
|
![]() Group: Members Posts: 157 Joined: 10-January 02 From: www.RadioKDUG.com Member No.: 978 |
just wanted to make sure this command line was ok. no conflict or anything? I assume i could use -m s with preset standard as well?
thanks, juglesh |
|
|
|
![]() |
Feb 2 2002, 17:00
Post
#2
|
|
![]() Group: Members Posts: 873 Joined: 12-October 01 From: the great wide open Member No.: 277 |
http://www.digital-inn.de/showthread.php3?threadid=8212
stereo vs. joint stereo - mid/side Hi, I would not damn unregistered so hard. Please remember, everybody has different tastes. alt presets have been tuned regarding different quality aspects of music. One of those is pre echo. ff123 proved, that ap standard is much better regarding pre echo. That was to expect, as castanets is a hard example for pre echo and alt presets have been tuned regarding pre echo. But unreg. did not spoke of pre echo artifacts, he concerns about stereo image. And some of his arguments are quite well. If you want to gain a lot quality and you are not worrying about some bytes in resulting bitrate, then you don't need js in extreme setting. My above sentence is of course not exact enough. VBR mode choses a suitable bitrate regarding a certain level of quality. If you force VBR to use only ms/stereo frames, then the bitrate will increase (not much compared to actually alt extreme setting). One exception: What happens, if music is so complex that VBR would take a higher bitrate than 320 ? Then it would take a 320 mid/side frame. That is the best compromise regarding all, frequency, tonality, stereo image etc. RESULT: From a theoretical point of view you need only joint stereo / mid/side sometimes with difficult music in 320 kbit frames. All other possibilities could be solved with stereo frames, as long as you stay below 320. Overall resulting bitrate would be a little increased over actual alt preset extreme. At the moment users like unreg. have a nearly perfect solution: Overriding --alt-preset extreme with: --alt-preset extreme -ms This solution has got one disadvantage: If music is so difficult, complex, that Lame VBR mode would decide to take a higher bitrate than 320, because then 320 mid/side would be taken and it would be best compromise. But with overriding switch -ms this solution is not possible. Perhaps it is a new idea for Dibrom, to tune --alt-preset extreme regarding stereo image. I would suggest following: Either : ap exterme with normal/old --nssafejoint switch. I remember with this switch there was more use of stereo frames than with ap extrme now. Or: a kind of "If.... then...." routine : in alt extreme: generally -ms frames, only if "Lame" wants more than 320 , then lame takes 320 mid/side. This would lead to only use of stereo frames in bitrates below 320, and in 320: --nssafejoint is enabled, so both, ms, mid/side is possible in 320 kbit frames. I hope I described my ideas, suggestions in a way, you can understand them. aahhh, for unreg there two ad hoc solutions: 1. as described above: overriding --alt-extreme with -ms : --alt-preset extreme -ms (with disadvantage of no use of joint stereo in 320 kbit frames) 2. simply use: --alt-preset insane disadvantage: now you have 320 CBR. But you told us: You would not worry about some extra kbits/s !!! So this is the best solution for anybody who has concerns about quality. But a further investigation of improving stereo image in apexterme could not be bad. Perhaps the samples of unreg. can prove or not artifacts in stereo image in apextreme. ABXing has to be done. -------------------- www.High-Quality.ch.vu -- High Quality Audio Archiving Tutorials
|
|
|
|
juglesh alt preset extreme -m s ?? Jan 10 2002, 23:35
tangent This was asked before many times, mostly by people... Jan 11 2002, 06:08
juglesh no, i havent been brainwashed, but i have washed m... Jan 12 2002, 00:20
Trephin juglesh sounds 31337 enough. He is probably right.... Jan 12 2002, 02:42
JohnV There's gonna be more ringing/dropout artifacts if... Jan 12 2002, 03:15
juglesh ok, i'll give js another chance, but where's this ... Jan 12 2002, 05:06
Wombat Hello juglesh,
Serioustrouble is at http://ff123... Jan 12 2002, 05:17
juglesh in general, lots of stuff ive d/l'ed has been scre... Jan 12 2002, 05:31
AgentMil Hehe the d/loaded stuff may of been encoded with X... Jan 12 2002, 06:02
Hanky QUOTE Originally posted by juglesh
in general, lo... Jan 12 2002, 12:58
tangent There's no need for cleaning of ears or anything. ... Jan 12 2002, 14:40
ff123 QUOTE ff123 proved, that ap standard is much bette... Feb 2 2002, 17:44
Wombat I would be happy when it was possible to release a... Feb 3 2002, 00:14
fewtch Edit -- n/m, it seems my questions are answered on... Feb 18 2002, 14:06
Wombat This is very misleading again, i wish this adaptiv... Feb 18 2002, 14:16
JohnV QUOTE Originally posted by Wombat
Only used in co... Feb 18 2002, 15:11![]() ![]() |
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 19th June 2013 - 17:19 |