Do any of the programmers have an interest in trying to develop a VBR algorithm which gets the file sizes down to the 128 range or lower?
I know ABR can be used for this practice, but from what I have read in this forum, it sounds like they are not optimized command lines like the VBR presets.
I think a VBR command line, optimized, that produces files with bit rates in the 100-130 range would be really cool for all of us who listen to our music on MP3 portable devices.
Yes, there is a lot of difference between the amount of files one can put on a device at 128 vs 200+ kbps.
Thoughts?
I am referring to LAME pre-sets of course!
Full Version: Portable Vbr Setting?
Try something like
--alt-preset fast standard -V4 -Y -Z
--alt-preset fast standard -V4 -Y -Z
Isn't "fast" lower quality? Why would anyone want to encode at a lower quality when he can encode without fast?
QUOTE (MTRH @ Oct 6 2002 - 10:35 AM)
Try something like
--alt-preset fast standard -V4 -Y -Z
--alt-preset fast standard -V4 -Y -Z
Umm.. why -Z?
Especially for a portable setting, you wouldn't want to use that.
QUOTE
Do any of the programmers have an interest in trying to develop a VBR algorithm which gets the file sizes down to the 128 range or lower?
Yes, there is interest, but not quite down that low. LAME doesn't work well below 128kbps for a few reasons. One is a lack of intensity stereo support.
QUOTE
I know ABR can be used for this practice, but from what I have read in this forum, it sounds like they are not optimized command lines like the VBR presets.
That is correct.
QUOTE
I think a VBR command line, optimized, that produces files with bit rates in the 100-130 range would be really cool for all of us who listen to our music on MP3 portable devices.
Around 140kbps is possible. I've been experimenting on and off with Takehiro's custom branch of LAME in the past month or so, and I think it's possible to get reasonable quality at this bitrate (not transparent of course) with some custom tweaks and a little bit of tuning.
QUOTE
Yes, there is a lot of difference between the amount of files one can put on a device at 128 vs 200+ kbps.
Agreed.
QUOTE
Thoughts?
Stay tuned
Thanks Dibrom!
140 kbps is a LOT better than 220. Of course its not transparent - but portables don't produce enough range to tell the difference anyway.
I have been encoding with ABR 128, and I can't tell the difference from aps on my IPOD (On my stereo is another story). So why don't I use that? I don't like having several versions of the same file for different uses. I would prefer one 'quality but small' version for all uses.
Looking forward to what you come up with!
140 kbps is a LOT better than 220. Of course its not transparent - but portables don't produce enough range to tell the difference anyway.
I have been encoding with ABR 128, and I can't tell the difference from aps on my IPOD (On my stereo is another story). So why don't I use that? I don't like having several versions of the same file for different uses. I would prefer one 'quality but small' version for all uses.
Looking forward to what you come up with!
QUOTE
Stay tuned
Dibrom, do you have any estimate on the time? This month, this year, next year? I onll ask because if it is going to be soon - I will hold off encoding my whole APE file library for now.
I am eager to see your work....and awesome job on the command lines APS and APS -Y!!!!!
Hey, that's exactly what I need !
Can you tell me, which settings are the best (at the moment) at 128 Kbit for my portable mp3 player ? My Priority is file size, it should be about the size of a "--r3mix 128 Kbit mp3"...
As I am a mp3 Noob It would be very nice if you could give me the yomplete options, not just some words I can't understand because of my bad english
Thank you very much !
Vaffa
Can you tell me, which settings are the best (at the moment) at 128 Kbit for my portable mp3 player ? My Priority is file size, it should be about the size of a "--r3mix 128 Kbit mp3"...
As I am a mp3 Noob It would be very nice if you could give me the yomplete options, not just some words I can't understand because of my bad english
Thank you very much !
Vaffa
>>but portables don't produce enough range to tell the difference anyway.
Baloney! A good one like a SlimX will - even with the stock earphones. Not to mention using the line-out jack into a good amp.
Xenno
Baloney! A good one like a SlimX will - even with the stock earphones. Not to mention using the line-out jack into a good amp.
Xenno
If you can tell the difference between LAME aps and LAME aps -Y on a portable, you have amazing hearing. Yes, anyone can tell the difference between LAME aps and a xing CBR 128 MP3 - but those are different encoders!!!!
There is very little difference in the various LAME settings (once you enter the 160 kbps range) unless you are listening on some really good hi-fi equipment. If the Slim-X can produce these frequencies at $150, it must be the best $150 music player for the money - ever!
The $500 IPOD (to my ears) plays LAME 160 CBR and LAME aps the same. I have had several people try the "listening test" and none can tell the difference. I am only interested in a low bit aps setting so that I can listen to the MP3s on a CD on my hi-fi equipment. On THAT equipment, 160 CBR and aps are different. Of course, the equipment-with speakers- costs over $1500.
There is very little difference in the various LAME settings (once you enter the 160 kbps range) unless you are listening on some really good hi-fi equipment. If the Slim-X can produce these frequencies at $150, it must be the best $150 music player for the money - ever!
The $500 IPOD (to my ears) plays LAME 160 CBR and LAME aps the same. I have had several people try the "listening test" and none can tell the difference. I am only interested in a low bit aps setting so that I can listen to the MP3s on a CD on my hi-fi equipment. On THAT equipment, 160 CBR and aps are different. Of course, the equipment-with speakers- costs over $1500.
QUOTE (ezra2323 @ Oct 8 2002 - 03:25 PM)
If you can tell the difference between LAME aps and LAME aps -Y on a portable, you have amazing hearing. Yes, anyone can tell the difference between LAME aps and a xing CBR 128 MP3 - but those are different encoders!!!!
There is very little difference in the various LAME settings (once you enter the 160 kbps range) unless you are listening on some really good hi-fi equipment. If the Slim-X can produce these frequencies at $150, it must be the best $150 music player for the money - ever!
The $500 IPOD (to my ears) plays LAME 160 CBR and LAME aps the same. I have had several people try the "listening test" and none can tell the difference. I am only interested in a low bit aps setting so that I can listen to the MP3s on a CD on my hi-fi equipment. On THAT equipment, 160 CBR and aps are different. Of course, the equipment-with speakers- costs over $1500.
There is very little difference in the various LAME settings (once you enter the 160 kbps range) unless you are listening on some really good hi-fi equipment. If the Slim-X can produce these frequencies at $150, it must be the best $150 music player for the money - ever!
The $500 IPOD (to my ears) plays LAME 160 CBR and LAME aps the same. I have had several people try the "listening test" and none can tell the difference. I am only interested in a low bit aps setting so that I can listen to the MP3s on a CD on my hi-fi equipment. On THAT equipment, 160 CBR and aps are different. Of course, the equipment-with speakers- costs over $1500.
I really can't tell the difference between aps -Y and aps on my SlimX, but I'm pretty sure I could heard the difference between a 140 ABR/VBR (at least on some songs), which is what you were implying earlier:
QUOTE
140 kbps is a LOT better than 220. Of course its not transparent - but portables don't produce enough range to tell the difference anyway.
As for frequency range the SlimX specs are "20Hz ~ 20Khz". I'm sure the iPod is similar.
Have you tried Gabriels commandline? Maybe that'll do fine for you.
Which settings sounds best ?
--alt-preset 96
--abr 96 -h --nspsytune --athtype 2 --lowpass 16 --ns-bass -8 --scale 0.93
Do you know any option giving me better quality with the sime file size ?
--alt-preset 96
--abr 96 -h --nspsytune --athtype 2 --lowpass 16 --ns-bass -8 --scale 0.93
Do you know any option giving me better quality with the sime file size ?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.