Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Encoding speeed using lame standard preset (Read 4063 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Encoding speeed using lame standard preset

I'm using lame with standard preset and only getting about 4x encoding speeds on my 1.2 gig t-bird. I'm not really all that bothered about encoding speed, i was just wondering if that was normal?

Also, the file sizes are rather large (comes out at about 225 kbit/s which is larger than mpc xtreme). This is on the Sehnsucht album by Rammstein, which admitedly should be hard to encode i guess (metal). I thought standard was supposed to give something in the 192 area?

I'm using lame 3.91 MMX.

Encoding speeed using lame standard preset

Reply #1 –
Also, I'm listening to the album now and it doesn't sound all that good: there is distortion when the btis with loads of guitar and drums come in (the choruses) in Du Hast for example. IMO mpc standard sounds better and is about 50 k/s smaller.

Admittedly I haven't tested mpc on this album, but I ripped system of a down - toxicity with mpc (i think this album ought to be harder to encode than Rammstein) and ended up with better sounding 165 k ish files. Should there be such a huge difference?

Unless I've missed something here, I don't think I'll be using mp3 any more.

Should I be using a different version of lame?

Encoding speeed using lame standard preset

Reply #2 –
Didn't 3.91 have a bug in the alt-preset-standard cmd that req'd a fix or something?  My standard encoded files sound fine, compiled on my p4 1600 and the speed is fine too.  Or maybe the buggy one was 3.90.  I dunno.

-Jeffrey

Encoding speeed using lame standard preset

Reply #3 –
Quote
Originally posted by frozenspeed
Didn't 3.91 have a bug in the alt-preset-standard cmd that req'd a fix or something? 
-Jeffrey


No, 3.90 had this bug, and it was fixed in 3.91

Encoding speeed using lame standard preset

Reply #4 –
The bug in question in 3.90 affected only --alt-preset fast standard.
Juha Laaksonheimo

Encoding speeed using lame standard preset

Reply #5 –
So are these bitrates normal or not?

What do you recomment to get something comparable in bitrate to mpc standard (so that i could fairly compare quality)?

Do most people use different formats for different types of music, or always stick to the same one, possibly changing bitrate?

Encoding speeed using lame standard preset

Reply #6 –
Hello Belgain,

the bitrate is ok for that kind of music, it can´t be much more bit
demanding than Rammstein.

4x speed is pretty good for  a 1,2 GHz!

And the distortions you hear is the clipping that my Rammstein encodings
introduced all the time - it doesn´t come much louder than that!

Look for clipping prevention on the forum to prevent it.

Wombat
Is troll-adiposity coming from feederism?
With 24bit music you can listen to silence much louder!

Encoding speeed using lame standard preset

Reply #7 –
Quote
Originally posted by The Belgain
What do you recomment to get something comparable in bitrate to mpc standard (so that i could fairly compare quality)?


Don't forget that for different formats you shouldn't compare on bitrates, but on the size of the files produced, as bitrate loses some meaning for VBR formats.

Think of it like CPU speeds - An AMD at 1Ghz isn't the same speed as a Pentium at 1GHz!

A modest example of this is at
http://audio.ciara.us/compare.htm

Encoding speeed using lame standard preset

Reply #8 –
I encoded the Rammstein album using mppenc 1.04 with standard preset and the average bitrates for each track ranged from 167-179; much smaller than lame preset standard.

The distortion in the loud sounds is still there, but to be fair, they are also noticeable on the origianal CD (could be my speakers not being great at midranges - Altec Lansing ATP3s,  or my soundcard possibly? - C-Media onboard 5.1), but this is at a much lower bitrate and i can't say that the mp3 sounds better.

Encoding speed was a speedy 10x.

@ verloren

I am aware that same bitrate doesn't at all mean same qualilty (I did go intel, and i wouldn't dream of using mpeg1 to back up DVDs

I'm just looking for the best quality at a given bitrate (160-180ish), or alternatively the lowest bitrate at a given quality depending on how you want to look at it.

In the same way as when u buy a CPU you go for the fastest one for a given budget.
 

Encoding speeed using lame standard preset

Reply #9 –
Quote
Originally posted by verloren


Don't forget that for different formats you shouldn't compare on bitrates, but on the size of the files produced, as bitrate loses some meaning for VBR formats.

Think of it like CPU speeds - An AMD at 1Ghz isn't the same speed as a Pentium at 1GHz!

A modest example of this is at
http://audio.ciara.us/compare.htm


Unless the utility you are using is reporting the bitrate or length incorrectly (or is not taking into account possible extra overhead of the format into the bitrate for some reason), then this should not be the case.  2 files with an average bitrate of, say 128kbps, and an identical length, should also be identical in file sizes.

The true bitrate and length of the file should always allow you to calculate the exact file size.