Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Preset insane, weird problem?
Hydrogenaudio Forums > Lossy Audio Compression > MP3 > MP3 - General
jeffster
Hi,

I've encoded a few albums with API recently to compare them with my usual mode of either APS or APE (LAME 3.90.3), and quite by chance I opened one of the tracks in Windows Media Player 6.4. The file played but with no sound! By skipping forward I'd get sound, but if I stop and begin play from the beginning it would be silent again. huh.gif

I started checking more files encoded with API and found that some files played normally but others would be silent like the first one. In one album for example all files played ok except for one, another album all tracks play without sound (until I seek through the file)... it appears to be random, and yet the same tracks always exhibit the same behaviour if I encode them again. I've found that encoding with preset cbr 256 also gives the same result, but not 224 or VBR.

Does anyone know why this is happening? or what's causing it?

I've just tried the same settings with 3.96.1 (first time I've used this version) and all the encoded files play okay, it's only 3.90.3 that does this.

I've never noticed this before because I normally always use either foobar or Winamp (and the same files play okay in them), also I normally use APS (or APE) not CBR.

I hope someone can explain this weird behaviour. unsure.gif

Thanks.

Oh, one other thing while testing this with 3.96.1, I noticed in the encode log it uses qval=3 for 'insane', whereas 3.90.3 uses qval=2. Just wondered why the change?
music_man_mpc
QUOTE (jeffster @ Dec 26 2004, 03:11 PM)
Oh, one other thing while testing this with 3.96.1, I noticed in the encode log it uses qval=3 for 'insane', whereas 3.90.3 uses qval=2. Just wondered why the change?
*

The presets have been totally rebuilt since 3.90.X. The old presets would not produce optimal results with newer versions of the encoder due to the subsequent changes in the code.
jeffster
Thanks...
I haven't been following the current LAME developments because every time I'd check the recommended compile was/is 3.90.3, and I got the (erroneous?) impression that later versions still had serious flaws.

Perhaps it's time I caught up with what the current version has to offer, as it appears 3.90.3 has it's own idiosyncrasies... but hopefully someone can explain this silent playing files mystery to me.
Jojo
QUOTE (jeffster @ Dec 27 2004, 02:08 AM)
Thanks...
I haven't been following the current LAME developments because every time I'd check the recommended compile was/is 3.90.3, and I got the (erroneous?) impression that later versions still had serious flaws.
*

not exactly true...read that post that summarizes everything in simple words: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....ndpost&p=260399
Never_Again
QUOTE (music_man_mpc @ Dec 27 2004, 04:11 AM)
The old presets would not produce optimal results with newer versions of the encoder due to the subsequent changes in the code.
*

What is that supposed to mean? That --alt-presets are broken in v3.96.x? What are "the old presets"?
Gabriel
QUOTE
What is that supposed to mean?

It means that it is very likely that 3.96 is fine, but that is not 100% for sure. (but neither 3.90.3, btw)
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2009 Invision Power Services, Inc.