Is it really necessary to re-encode everything to the latest LAME vers |
Is it really necessary to re-encode everything to the latest LAME vers |
 Apr 8 2012, 00:22
Post
#1
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 118 Joined: 16-February 11 Member No.: 88210  |
The title says it all. I have tons of FLACs and every one of them has a copy in MP3 encoded in LAME 3.98.4 and some are in 3.99.3. 3.99.5 is the new latest version now, should this mean I have to re-encode those FLACs to 3.99.5? I would gladly want to hear opinions of others.
-------------------- sin(α) = v sound/v object = Mach No.
|
 |
 
|
 |
|
Apr 8 2012, 02:22
Post
#2
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 1466 Joined: 30-November 06 Member No.: 38207 |
QUOTE (SonicBooom! @ Apr 8 2012, 01:22)  The title says it all. I have tons of FLACs and every one of them has a copy in MP3 encoded in LAME 3.98.4 and some are in 3.99.3. 3.99.5 is the new latest version now, should this mean I have to re-encode those FLACs to 3.99.5? I would gladly want to hear opinions of others. Joining in the choir here ... You haven't even specified what settings you used. There were changes from 3.98.4 to 3.99 intended to improve upon quality. But that is quality for a given bitrate. (Also, some changes were done to the presets, I think, effectively changing the bitrate on a few of those.) So in principle, you could get fewer and less annoying artifacts for given bitrate. Or -- probably a more fruitful point of view -- the same subjective quality at a slightly smaller file. If there are audible artifacts, then you should change the setting. By all means upgrade the version, but that's probably a smaller difference. (And if you do, check that the presets do mean the same, I think that the 'tuning on VBR scale and resulting bitrates' change to 3.99 means they don't.) From 3.99.3? Only if you experience the issues addressed in the upgrade: http://lame.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/lam...ml/history.html This post has been edited by Porcus: Apr 8 2012, 02:24 -------------------- geocities.com/hydrogenaudio: http://goo.gl/tqYZj
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 8 2012, 16:41
Post
#3
|
|
 Group: Super Moderator Posts: 9258 Joined: 1-April 04 Member No.: 13167 |
QUOTE (Porcus @ Apr 7 2012, 18:22) (Also, some changes were done to the presets, I think, effectively changing the bitrate on a few of those.) IIRC, the changes in bit rate resulted in bigger files with the newest version; at least at -V0. FWIW, I'm still encoding with 3.98.4. It works great for my purposes @-V3 so I haven't bothered to upgrade. This post has been edited by greynol: Apr 8 2012, 16:53 -------------------- Everything sounds the same until it is proven otherwise.
|
|
|
|
SonicBooom! Is it really necessary to re-encode everything to the latest LAME vers Apr 8 2012, 00:22
saratoga No. Apr 8 2012, 00:43
indybrett QUOTE (saratoga @ Apr 7 2012, 18:43) No.
... Apr 8 2012, 07:29 SonicBooom! May I ask WHY? Apr 8 2012, 01:02 IgorC QUOTE (SonicBooom! @ Apr 7 2012, 21:0... Apr 8 2012, 01:50 Remedial Sound The goal of lossy compression like mp3 is to achie... Apr 8 2012, 02:08 odious malefactor QUOTE (Porcus @ Apr 7 2012, 17:22) From 3... Apr 8 2012, 06:09 db1989 QUOTE (odious malefactor @ Apr 8 2012, 06... Apr 8 2012, 19:44 skamp QUOTE (db1989 @ Apr 8 2012, 20:44) …and…?... Apr 8 2012, 19:57 db1989 Oh, great point! My bad.
Yeah, they’re just r... Apr 8 2012, 20:02 kornchild2002 Furthermore, the use of a higher bitrate setting m... Apr 8 2012, 13:12 Nessuno If your goal is to reach the same sound quality wi... Apr 8 2012, 16:46 JJZolx There could be few reasons why it would, literally... Apr 8 2012, 23:48 greynol Personally I find such usage of electricity wastef... Apr 8 2012, 23:57 splice QUOTE (greynol @ Apr 8 2012, 15:57) Perso... Apr 9 2012, 01:03 JJZolx QUOTE (greynol @ Apr 8 2012, 15:57) Regar... Apr 9 2012, 01:11 damoresh I have several old mp3 with lame3.90 -lame 3.97 cb... May 18 2012, 07:21 Apesbrain @damoresh, see "Lossy-to-lossy transcoding... May 18 2012, 12:44 |
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 19th May 2013 - 07:13 |
