Full Version: Why bitrate VBR in lame 3.96 is lower than 3.90.3?
I've seen that br in alt-preset mode in the latest lame version is lower (about 20Kbps less from what I've seen) than the 3.90.3 version, is it because 3.96 has a better quality and so even with 20KBps less can offer the same quality of 3.90.3 or is it better to stay with 3.90.3?
the implementations are completely different
...testing is the only way to find out
3.90.3 is still the recommended version
later
...testing is the only way to find out
3.90.3 is still the recommended version
later
I'm going to make the assumption that it is in the way 3.96b1 handles lowpassing the high frequencies. I don't believe it is truly an adaptive lowpass, but I think it is closer to that than is 3.90.3.
Gabriel would be the one to answer this accurately.
Gabriel would be the one to answer this accurately.
i think it's supposed to be the same quality with a reduced size. can you abx the two? if not, go with the newer, of course.
QUOTE(vize84 @ Mar 14 2004, 10:36 PM)
I've seen that br in alt-preset mode in the latest lame version is lower (about 20Kbps less from what I've seen) than the 3.90.3 version, is it because 3.96 has a better quality and so even with 20KBps less can offer the same quality of 3.90.3 or is it better to stay with 3.90.3?
In "--alt-preset standard" mode use only lame 3.90.3, this preset is developed and tested only for lame 3.90.3.
That is not exactly correct.
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....ndpost&p=193678
Edit: It is probably correct to say that it was developed for 3.90, but Gabriel is still modifying the presets to work with the new encoder versions. They have not been tested as much as 3.90.3.
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....ndpost&p=193678
Edit: It is probably correct to say that it was developed for 3.90, but Gabriel is still modifying the presets to work with the new encoder versions. They have not been tested as much as 3.90.3.
...until 3.90.3 is shown to be inferior to <insert whatever mp3 codec version you wish>
i see no reason to not use 3.90.3 @ aps, etc.
later
i see no reason to not use 3.90.3 @ aps, etc.
later
QUOTE
...until 3.90.3 is shown to be inferior to <insert whatever mp3 codec version you wish>
i see no reason to not use 3.90.3 @ aps, etc.
i see no reason to not use 3.90.3 @ aps, etc.
Why whould this be true only for 3.90.3 and not 3.96?
Gabriel,
I find your question is valid and a good one to ask. Regardless, we must remember that HA often works like a hive-mind. I'm writing this for the benefit of others as I'm quite sure you already know how HA works
A some sort of consensus is formed usually based on writings of a vocal minority (who IMHO usually get it right, but who am I to judge).
Then this "truth" is used by almost everyone as the blunt instrument it is, to pretty much suffocate any dissenting opinions (valid or not).
As we know, at HA we had quite a lot of talk/effort/pulling&pushing about 3.90.x series and Dibrom's tunings.
Some sort of silent consensus eventually formed that unless other versions were shown to be superior, 3.90.x would remain superior. A kind "prove it or loose it" attitude so to speak.
Now, whether I agree with this or not, that seems to be the "truth" now for most people and it is used as such (re: blunt instrument).
Hence we have discussions like this thread
Sorry to turn meta-discussion on you, but I thought perhaps it would be useful to us as a community.
friendly regards,
Halcyon
PS I'll start contributing to 3.96 beta testing as soon as I have something worthy to contribute. Currently I can't post useful listening test results myself (pro or against), but I can encourage others to test it...
I find your question is valid and a good one to ask. Regardless, we must remember that HA often works like a hive-mind. I'm writing this for the benefit of others as I'm quite sure you already know how HA works
A some sort of consensus is formed usually based on writings of a vocal minority (who IMHO usually get it right, but who am I to judge).
Then this "truth" is used by almost everyone as the blunt instrument it is, to pretty much suffocate any dissenting opinions (valid or not).
As we know, at HA we had quite a lot of talk/effort/pulling&pushing about 3.90.x series and Dibrom's tunings.
Some sort of silent consensus eventually formed that unless other versions were shown to be superior, 3.90.x would remain superior. A kind "prove it or loose it" attitude so to speak.
Now, whether I agree with this or not, that seems to be the "truth" now for most people and it is used as such (re: blunt instrument).
Hence we have discussions like this thread
Sorry to turn meta-discussion on you, but I thought perhaps it would be useful to us as a community.
friendly regards,
Halcyon
PS I'll start contributing to 3.96 beta testing as soon as I have something worthy to contribute. Currently I can't post useful listening test results myself (pro or against), but I can encourage others to test it...
hive-mind here, speaking as one. if you concentrate you might be able to tune out the echo...
...well, obviously if later versions are >better< than the older is replaced. until that seems realistic, we have 3.90.x to backport features/fixes from upstream
halcyon, it's called ABX. you can read about it in the TOS
later
...well, obviously if later versions are >better< than the older is replaced. until that seems realistic, we have 3.90.x to backport features/fixes from upstream
halcyon, it's called ABX. you can read about it in the TOS
later
I thought the main enhancements in the >3.90.x builds was the reduction of bitrate bloat as seen (and discussed) in 3.90.x preset standard...
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.