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: Lame 3.98a11 (Read 25922 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Lame 3.98a11

Reply #25 –
Isn't Lamedropxpd with 3.98a11 avaiable somewhere? 

Lame 3.98a11

Reply #26 –
Sorry if this doesn't belong here, but I had one bit of a technical issue I'm hoping someone can straighten me out with...Over the past few alphas and a11 as well, I have been trying to get the lowpass disable switch (-k) to work, but no matter what I try it still implements the lowpass filter and audition clearly shows frequencies above 18khz attenuated in comparison to the original wav file. My current switch config is '-b 64 -m j -h -V 2 -B 320 -q 2 -k'

Lame 3.98a11

Reply #27 –
from changelog:
Quote
Changes in lame frontend switches: -k removed, add lowpass and highpass switches if you need to change them; --short/noshort/allshort - degraded into DEVELOPER ONLY switches normal users shouldn't use them; -X -Z degraded to DEVELOPER ONLY switches, -X is too tough to communicate to end users and -Z isn't used actualy

source: http://lame.cvs.sourceforge.net/*checkout*...ml/history.html
(emphasis is mine)
Wavpack Hybrid: one encoder for all scenarios
WavPack -c4.5hx6 (44100Hz & 48000Hz) ≈ 390 kbps + correction file
WavPack -c4hx6 (96000Hz) ≈ 768 kbps + correction file
WavPack -h (SACD & DSD) ≈ 2400 kbps at 2.8224 MHz

Lame 3.98a11

Reply #28 –
Ah...tyvm. Guess I didn't read that part. And before anyone asks, I do know the nuances of using -k for everyday use. Already done the searches on the forum. I merely toy with these kinds of extra switches just to be toying with them.

Lame 3.98a11

Reply #29 –
Quote
[X' date='Jan 7 2007, 14:49' post='462509']
Isn't Lamedropxpd with 3.98a11 avaiable somewhere? 

I'll try to make one available over the next few days.  Sorry I haven't replied before, but I only just saw your request.

Lame 3.98a11

Reply #30 –
Quote
[X' date='Jan 7 2007, 14:49' post='462509']
Isn't Lamedropxpd with 3.98a11 avaiable somewhere? 

It's at Rarewares now.

Lame 3.98a11

Reply #31 –
@John33: Support for lossless audio as input format would be nice for Lamedropxpd 3.98 final  :)

Lame 3.98a11

Reply #32 –
Quote from: john33 on
Quote
[X' date='Jan 7 2007, 14:49' post='462509']
Isn't Lamedropxpd with 3.98a11 avaiable somewhere? 

It's at Rarewares now.


Tnx,your work is always appreciated

Lame 3.98a11

Reply #33 –
Quote from: naturfreak on
@John33: Support for lossless audio as input format would be nice for Lamedropxpd 3.98 final 

When I have a sufficient amount of time, I want to introduce many of the oggdropXPd features into lamedropXPd including the lossless input. I just need to be able to dedicate a chunk of time to concentrate on it and get it done. It won't happen tomorrow, but I will have it done at some point.

Lame 3.98a11

Reply #34 –
Ok. I just had a quick thought here that I'm hoping some of you more seasoned experts can answer me and this once again falls back on the lowpass filter in LAME:

As it is now after reading up, it is known that the reason for using the lowpass filter is to eliminate any noise and 'undiscernable' audio above a certain threshhold as to not waste bits on that where they could be better put to use elsewhere in the spectrum. My question though is this: Say I have a song or two which are from a normal 44.1khz audio cd and it was ripped to mp3 format but for some reason the lowpass filter has everything above 16khz attenuated, effectively limiting the overall resolution to 32khz. Would it not be ideal to lose the lowpass filter altogether in this case if say I decided to re-encode that down to 32khz? IS there any reason to continue using it at this point and effectively further limiting the overall frequency response? I'm just genuinely curious on this. Because as I see it the lowpass filter is merely there to keep the large amounts of inaudible samples above a certain threshhold like 18khz in check and keeping the available bitrate available to audible samples. And unless I am mistaken, this threshhold would not change as you change the overall frequency resolution of the audio file in question, right? So say if I encoded down to 22khz, or 11khz per channel, there really should be no lowpass attenuation as all the samples there are completely audible or at least SHOULD be since they are well within the range of human hearing. The only question would be what samples are masked by others which is handled by a different part of the encoder altogether which really is the meat of how the mpeg 1 layer 3 standard operates.

Again, just genuinely curious on this as I really haven't seen it discussed too much past the fact that the lowpass filter is necessary when encoding 44.1khz material and such as from ripped cd's.

Lame 3.98a11

Reply #35 –
As an MPEG1 Layer III Frame consists of a constant number of samples - 1152 - a 32 kHz frame would play for a considerably longer time than 44.1 or 48 kHz.
Because MP3, like other lossy compressors, has problems with pre-echo when encoding impulses. Encoding adjustments are done only once for each frame (or subframe), so if something with very high bandwith and high volume happens at the end of a frame, everything inside the frame will be processed as if it had the characteristics of this impulse. Low volume sounds will be show heavy quantization noise, overtones might be masked out.
The longer the runtime is, the more such errors become audible. Therefore low sampling rates are only used with very low bitrates, where other encoding errors also become audible.
MPEG2 frames only contain half the amount of samples, the sampling rate also being halved. But this really is only for very low bitrates :shudder:
 

Lame 3.98a11

Reply #36 –
Quote from: john33 on
Quote from: naturfreak on

@John33: Support for lossless audio as input format would be nice for Lamedropxpd 3.98 final 

When I have a sufficient amount of time, I want to introduce many of the oggdropXPd features into lamedropXPd including the lossless input. I just need to be able to dedicate a chunk of time to concentrate on it and get it done. It won't happen tomorrow, but I will have it done at some point.


Wow, that sure would be nice! -even if it could be done for 3.97