I looked in the lame documentation on switches.... could not find my answer + scoured the net for a few hours.
I am sure it is a nice long line of switches
, but for curiousity sake i would like to see it-thanks
Full Version: --alt-preset standard
What would --alt-preset standard work out to in a normal switch?
I looked in the lame documentation on switches.... could not find my answer + scoured the net for a few hours.
I am sure it is a nice long line of switches, but for curiousity sake i would like to see it
-thanks
I looked in the lame documentation on switches.... could not find my answer + scoured the net for a few hours.
I am sure it is a nice long line of switches
, but for curiousity sake i would like to see it-thanks
QUOTE(yade @ May 7 2004, 12:10 AM)
What would --alt-preset standard work out to in a normal switch?
I looked in the lame documentation on switches.... could not find my answer + scoured the net for a few hours.
I am sure it is a nice long line of switches, but for curiousity sake i would like to see it
-thanks
I looked in the lame documentation on switches.... could not find my answer + scoured the net for a few hours.
I am sure it is a nice long line of switches
, but for curiousity sake i would like to see it-thanks
Hydrogenaudio Forums > Frequently Asked Questions: MP3 > What are the internal switches of Alt presets?
QUOTE(yade @ May 7 2004, 06:10 AM)
What would --alt-preset standard work out to in a normal switch?
I looked in the lame documentation on switches.... could not find my answer + scoured the net for a few hours.
I looked in the lame documentation on switches.... could not find my answer + scoured the net for a few hours.
For 3.95 and 3.96 it is -V 2.
For 3.90 / 3.92 / 3.94 there is none
Watch this.
Really though its a good question.. besides an ambiguous "code level tweaks," what EXACTLY is tweaked?? I am rather curious as to the inner tunings of the presets - both switches and other tweaks.
Failing that, where in the sourcecode could I look?
Failing that, where in the sourcecode could I look?
the code tweaks were explained in that thread as well.
block switching tweaks (long or short block decision...) and some noise-shaping stuff.
i remember once i did a 20-20000 sine sweep at CBR 96 and --alt-preset CBR 96 and got very different results. this says nothing about the _sound_ of it, but in this case it seemed short blocks were being used interleaved with long ones, at least when the sine sweep went above 16000hz. i'm not sure why this is done - no doubt dibrom could explain (if it is his doing...?)
[edit]
this was with 3.92 btw, not 3.90.3. i think the only difference was that code-tweaks were extended to all bitrates in this version. plz someone correct me if not
block switching tweaks (long or short block decision...) and some noise-shaping stuff.
i remember once i did a 20-20000 sine sweep at CBR 96 and --alt-preset CBR 96 and got very different results. this says nothing about the _sound_ of it, but in this case it seemed short blocks were being used interleaved with long ones, at least when the sine sweep went above 16000hz. i'm not sure why this is done - no doubt dibrom could explain (if it is his doing...?)
[edit]
this was with 3.92 btw, not 3.90.3. i think the only difference was that code-tweaks were extended to all bitrates in this version. plz someone correct me if not
One of the reasons why (encoding-method related) static switches cannot do what some of the preset-switches do, is "variable use of encoding methods".
Think, VBR: the bitrate changes depending on whats best for the currently encoded part of the track. Well, now imagine enconding-methods at codelevel and switch-level change depending on whats best for the currently encoded part of the song.
Kind of "variable-encoding-settings". Thats what some of the presets do: YOU specify the quality you desire and the encoder chooses the best methods to archieve that(not just globally for the whole track, but partially also frame-specific). That wouldn't be possible via a manual commandline, because at the commandline you choose settings which apply globally to the whole track. But if the user instead just chooses a desired quality and nothing else, then the encoder can decide on which encoding-methods to use dynamically.
- Lyx
Think, VBR: the bitrate changes depending on whats best for the currently encoded part of the track. Well, now imagine enconding-methods at codelevel and switch-level change depending on whats best for the currently encoded part of the song.
Kind of "variable-encoding-settings". Thats what some of the presets do: YOU specify the quality you desire and the encoder chooses the best methods to archieve that(not just globally for the whole track, but partially also frame-specific). That wouldn't be possible via a manual commandline, because at the commandline you choose settings which apply globally to the whole track. But if the user instead just chooses a desired quality and nothing else, then the encoder can decide on which encoding-methods to use dynamically.
- Lyx
QUOTE
Failing that, where in the sourcecode could I look?
http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/lame...=1.44&view=auto
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.