Originally posted by JohnV Vorbis is totally flexible VBR, you could use full stereo (or lossless channel coupling in Vorbis' case) even with -q 0. All it would do is, that VBR scales the bitrate higher. There's no quality issues with Vorbis why you couldn't use lossless channel coupling even with -q 0. Of course when you use lossless coupling, the bitrate will be higher.
Originally posted by Frank Klemm MP3 Lame is totally flexible VBR, you could use LR stereo (or MS or IS stereo) even with -V 0. All it would do is, that VBR scales the bitrate higher. There's no quality issues with MP3 why you couldn't use LR stereo even with -V 0. Of course when you use LR stereo, the bitrate will be higher than using MS stereo.I can repeat this with MPC, MP2 and AAC. You mentioned aVBR property, not a Ogg Vorbis property. Note that this posting implies no quality assessment of any codec, only tries to correct your portrayal.
Originally posted by JohnV MP3 Lame is not totally flexible VBR. First you have the bitrate limit of 320kbps, which is quite low for max bitrate, secondly you have fixed frame sizes (...128,160,192,...).Still of course I didn't mean that flexible VBR is only Vorbis property, of course it's MPC's as well, but the original question was about Vorbis, so I used Vorbis as an example.
Originally posted by Frank Klemm 320 kbps limit: That's right, but there are only some trackswhere this makes trouble (the most famous not artifical isfatboy). BTW I expect that OoOE of fatboy would be ableto allow transparency of fatboy at 320 kbps.
Originally posted by JohnV Well that depends on your quality needs. There are even whole music genres that would need clearly over 320kbps with mp3 to sound even close to transparent even to a non-audiophile. The problem is of course pre-echo. Fatboy is even not so big problem...
Originally posted by Frank Klemm Above 256 kbps MPEG-1 Layer 3 makes no sense. If you needsuch bitrates, the reason for this high bitrate are flaws introduced with Layer 3.
Originally posted by 2Bdecided OT:Which layer II implementation are you using Frank?David.
Originally posted by JohnV 320kbps mp3 frames make perfect sense. None of the default Lame VBR presets restrict the bitrate to 256kbps frames. Many times MP3 music needs 320kbps frames, many times high quality Lame VBR preset would need to hit even higher than 320kbps but it's impossible. It's absolutely not recommended to restrict the max bitrate of tweaked Lame VBR preset to 256kbps.It's easy to say that you should use another format then, sure, but many times there are other reasons, like compatibility etc.You ask me to use mpeg1 layer1 or layer2 instead then. Show me one layer1 and/or layer2 codec which has good, well tweaked psychoacoustics. All the codecs I have tested perform even worse than Lame even at much higher bitrate with many difficult test samples, because their psychoacoustics sucks. And even then I should use insanely high CBR bitrate. Does not make sense.Are you also saying that it makes no sense for Vorbis to hit very high bitrates then? Do you think its max bitrate should be forcefully restricted to something like 256k or 320kbps? Does not make sense...
Originally posted by Frank Klemm If there would be a HQ Layer 2 codec it would make sense to usethis HQ Layer 2 codec which outperforms MP3 codecs.MP3 was designed for 128 kbps and it outperforms MP2at data rates at 192 kbps and below.
Originally posted by Frank Klemm MPC2. Is a modified MPC encoder with two modifications anda MPC->MPEG Layer 2 bitstream transformer.
Originally posted by superorc actually the 320 kpbs bitrate limit is not correct. lame can create a free format that can go uptp 600 kpbs, its just that only a few players can play it ie mad
Originally posted by Dibrom Hrmm... this could be very, very interesting. What is the likelyhood of this getting released? I could see many uses for this, since a lot of software/hardware out there is compatible with MP2, and so far there isn't really a "good" MP2 implementation, at least not on the order of what you are speaking of. I, for one, would be very interested in experimenting with this.If you don't plan to release it, is there any reason why not?
Originally posted by Gabriel Freeformat is mp3 compliant. It's part of the standard, and written in the iso docs.BUT:mp3 compliant decoders only have to support freeformat up to 320kbps. They can support higher than 320, but it's not mandatory.
since unlike MP3, each frame can be decompressed independently
since unlike MP3, each frame can be decompressed independentlyso how do mp3DirectCut or mp3Trim work ?don't they cut out specific frames, decompress them and do things frame based-ly ?
Originally posted by RD Frank,Please, please, please (did I say please?) couldyou release MPC2, the"modified MPC encoder with two modifications and a MPC->MPEG Layer 2 bitstream transformer."I would love to test this... and the VCD/SVCD video community would praise you forever....Please give it some consideration....Best,RD