![]() Sadly, I don't have the luxury of a better drive. The DVD-ROM drive in my laptop is SLOOOOOW with EAC (ripping and encoding with -vbr-new is about 1.6x speed, which is an improvement from 1.3x when using -vbr-old). I just use the former out of paranoia, and a desire to never have to re-rip these again. Truth be told I doubt I'd be able to tell the difference between -V 0 and -V 2. I'm not sure that my current set of hardware would allow me to detect any differences between my LAME settings above and FLAC files of the same songs. I also don't know what to do with OGG, and there's a bitrate limit on AAC with Rockbox on the iriver H120, so that's out too. ![]() ![]() CBR is a waste, though, so I still use VBR. Yes, I know I could just use FLAC, but FLAC files are still a LOT larger than even CBR 320 MP3s. After some quality concerns raised by others, he decided to start from scratch based on the dist10 sources. Mike Cheng started it as a patch against the 8hz-MP3 encoder sources. Latest LAME release: v3.100 (October 2017) LAME development started around mid-1998. Maybe these were part of the original audio data, or maybe it was just psychological, but I just prefer to keep it closer to the original. LAME is a high quality MPEG Audio Layer III (MP3) encoder licensed under the LGPL. Also, while using -m s does increase the file size (full stereo, rather than the default joint-stereo), I'm just paranoid, and have come across moments in some previously-ripped files that sounded like brief soundstage compression or artifacting. q 0 supposedly doesn't do anything when coupled with -V 0, but I've noticed very slightly smaller files when using it. Now, I'm re-ripping everything to -vbr-new since it's faster, the files are smaller, and supposedly it sounds even better. Since getting laid-off, though, I haven't used my A2, since I haven't been taking the train into Manhattan. I used to use -vbr-old since my Cowon A2 doesn't play -vbr-new files correctly. The bold section is for the quality settings, the rest is for tagging (though I've noticed that these tag settings don't seem to play nicely with AudioScrobbler). That is, if the changes to the newer version focused on that area. Not sure if this will prove anything (probably not), but what is the difference in file size for the same song with a fixed (say, 192) bit rate? I would think the size would be very close to the same, but hopefully, the sound quality would be better. ![]() Is it a big difference, or rather small? I would think a small difference in size and a better output would result. Since you've done the tests, can you share your results with us? I'm interested in what you found. You are selecting VBR, so you can't expect exact file sizes from one version to another. I believe getting smaller file sizes for the same sound quality is one of the objectives for new versions. I am just wondering why I get different results in terms of average bitrate with 3.97 and 3.98 with this. Originally Posted by wolfB /img/forum/go_quote.gif ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |