Full Version: Best Lame setting for a podcast?
Just wondering what audio experts here would use for a podcast if you want excellent quality at a reasonable filesize.
QUOTE(neoufo51 @ Aug 9 2005, 09:05 PM)
Just wondering what audio experts here would use for a podcast if you want excellent quality at a reasonable filesize. :huh:
Are you fussed about stereo reproduction or is mono going to be good enough? And is the podcast only voice, or voice and instruments? And by "excellent quality" do you mean "no perceptable artifacts for the vast majority of listeners"?
I'm using cbr 128 joint stereo
I would use -V5 --vbr-new, in this case.
QUOTE(Shade[ST] @ Aug 9 2005, 04:35 AM)
I would use -V5 --vbr-new, in this case.
what LAME version, pray tell...? 3.97 alpha 11, perhaps?
Generally, I would stick to the presets. Just do some testing yourself.
Assuming it's all voice (most podcasts are), try encoding with these settings:
--preset 32
--preset 48
--preset 64
If you want to encode in mono, add "-m m" to all of those.
If you want to test some even smaller encodes, add "--resample 22" to the command line.
Then go with what sounds good to you, on decent equipment, at a reasonable filesize. If those still sound bad, jump it up to --preset 96 and possibly --preset 128 and see what it sounds like then.
Encoding voice at small filesizes is tricky, using LAME. It's not optimized for most of those cases.
Assuming it's all voice (most podcasts are), try encoding with these settings:
--preset 32
--preset 48
--preset 64
If you want to encode in mono, add "-m m" to all of those.
If you want to test some even smaller encodes, add "--resample 22" to the command line.
Then go with what sounds good to you, on decent equipment, at a reasonable filesize. If those still sound bad, jump it up to --preset 96 and possibly --preset 128 and see what it sounds like then.
Encoding voice at small filesizes is tricky, using LAME. It's not optimized for most of those cases.
QUOTE(Otto42 @ Aug 9 2005, 02:15 PM)
Generally, I would stick to the presets. Just do some testing yourself.
Assuming it's all voice (most podcasts are), try encoding with these settings:
--preset 32
--preset 48
--preset 64
If you want to encode in mono, add "-m m" to all of those.
If you want to test some even smaller encodes, add "--resample 22" to the command line.
Then go with what sounds good to you, on decent equipment, at a reasonable filesize. If those still sound bad, jump it up to --preset 96 and possibly --preset 128 and see what it sounds like then.
Encoding voice at small filesizes is tricky, using LAME. It's not optimized for most of those cases.
Assuming it's all voice (most podcasts are), try encoding with these settings:
--preset 32
--preset 48
--preset 64
If you want to encode in mono, add "-m m" to all of those.
If you want to test some even smaller encodes, add "--resample 22" to the command line.
Then go with what sounds good to you, on decent equipment, at a reasonable filesize. If those still sound bad, jump it up to --preset 96 and possibly --preset 128 and see what it sounds like then.
Encoding voice at small filesizes is tricky, using LAME. It's not optimized for most of those cases.
Thanks!
For what it's worth, using LAME 3.97 alpha 11, I encoded several different professionally recorded voice recordings, male and female. I played with CBR, ABR, and VBR, mono and stereo, and resampling. I came up with the following:
I prefer VBR over ABR or CBR.
I prefer mono over stereo.
I prefer resampling at 22kHz more than any other rate (unless you consider 44kHz and a highish bitrate).
I have settled on: LAME -V6 --vbr-new --resample 22 -m m
I have been getting a mean bitrate of 47kbps, which amounts to about 20MB an hour (this is better than what I have been using for a while with another LAME version, averaging 56kbps). Does the encode sound the same as the original? No. Does it sound good enough to me and a couple of other folk here (all mid 30s)? Yes.
I prefer VBR over ABR or CBR.
I prefer mono over stereo.
I prefer resampling at 22kHz more than any other rate (unless you consider 44kHz and a highish bitrate).
I have settled on: LAME -V6 --vbr-new --resample 22 -m m
I have been getting a mean bitrate of 47kbps, which amounts to about 20MB an hour (this is better than what I have been using for a while with another LAME version, averaging 56kbps). Does the encode sound the same as the original? No. Does it sound good enough to me and a couple of other folk here (all mid 30s)? Yes.
QUOTE(LadFromDownUnder @ Aug 10 2005, 08:02 AM)
For what it's worth, using LAME 3.97 alpha 11, I encoded several different professionally recorded voice recordings, male and female. I played with CBR, ABR, and VBR, mono and stereo, and resampling. I came up with the following:
I prefer VBR over ABR or CBR.
I prefer mono over stereo.
I prefer resampling at 22kHz more than any other rate (unless you consider 44kHz and a highish bitrate).
I have settled on: LAME -V6 --vbr-new --resample 22 -m m
I have been getting a mean bitrate of 47kbps, which amounts to about 20MB an hour (this is better than what I have been using for a while with another LAME version, averaging 56kbps). Does the encode sound the same as the original? No. Does it sound good enough to me and a couple of other folk here (all mid 30s)? Yes.
I prefer VBR over ABR or CBR.
I prefer mono over stereo.
I prefer resampling at 22kHz more than any other rate (unless you consider 44kHz and a highish bitrate).
I have settled on: LAME -V6 --vbr-new --resample 22 -m m
I have been getting a mean bitrate of 47kbps, which amounts to about 20MB an hour (this is better than what I have been using for a while with another LAME version, averaging 56kbps). Does the encode sound the same as the original? No. Does it sound good enough to me and a couple of other folk here (all mid 30s)? Yes.
Exactly the commandline string that I settled on myself, earlier today, for encoding sermons to post on my church's website (I'm the sound guy at my church). Glad to see someone else using it.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.