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: -V2 -- vbr-new didn't output at ~190 (Read 5132 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

-V2 -- vbr-new didn't output at ~190

Alright. This isn't a complaint. It's more of a curiosity, because even though the resulting file came out at 101Kbps, I can't tell the difference between it and the original.

I encoded a bunch of my music to mp3 using the lame encoder with the options in the topic and alot of them had low bitrates, ranging from 93kbps to 220+ kbps.

Any ideas?

-V2 -- vbr-new didn't output at ~190

Reply #1 –
Is that an overall average bitrate?  If so, then it is completely normal.  This song probably has some sections of silence which Lame will encode at 32kbps dropping the overall bitrate.  I have a 24 minute song with 17 minutes of silence, its overall average bitrate is around 90kbps.

I also have other tracks that don't contain any silence, they are recorded at a low volume and aren't that complex so their overall average bitrates are around 160kbps.  Just remember that -V 2 is a quality level, it won't give you a guaranteed bitrate.  So some tracks don't need to be encoded a ~190kbps to retain their quality (rap/hip-hop), others need a higher bitrate (metal).

-V2 -- vbr-new didn't output at ~190

Reply #2 –
Quote from: kornchild2002 on
Is that an overall average bitrate?  If so, then it is completely normal.  This song probably has some sections of silence which Lame will encode at 32kbps dropping the overall bitrate.  I have a 24 minute song with 17 minutes of silence, its overall average bitrate is around 90kbps.

I also have other tracks that don't contain any silence, they are recorded at a low volume and aren't that complex so their overall average bitrates are around 160kbps.  Just remember that -V 2 is a quality level, it won't give you a guaranteed bitrate.  So some tracks don't need to be encoded a ~190kbps to retain their quality (rap/hip-hop), others need a higher bitrate (metal).

Yes. Try encoding some old records (early Bob Dylan, even older jazz etc.) and you'll see that even V0 sticks at 140kbps...there just isn't anymore music to encode
Les mots d'amour...

-V2 -- vbr-new didn't output at ~190

Reply #3 –
Also could be that the source is mono or "nearly" mono.
"You can fight without ever winning, but never win without a fight."  Neil Peart  'Resist'

-V2 -- vbr-new didn't output at ~190

Reply #5 –
Quote from: dreamliner77 on
Also could be that the source is mono or "nearly" mono.


Yes mono or near mono (a higher than usual correlation between L and R over much of the track) is the most common reason for getting low bitrates on some material. And you are correct in noting that it still sounds like the original, it really is the case that this type of material is just more amenable to compact encoding.

-V2 -- vbr-new didn't output at ~190

Reply #6 –
I'd echo the observations made by the others in this thread.

I'm using -V2 --vbr-new with default settings.  Therefore joint stereo is enabled.

When the RazorLAME interface shows lots of "middle" channel savings going on, the files come out noticeably smaller.

But I also notice that certain types tracks simply require less bits/sec more of the time (the entire histogram is shifted left).  The encoding algorithm simply does not have to use a high bit rate very often to achieve the "V2" quality level for such tracks.  Going to V0 on such tracks seems to make very little difference, since - again - high bits rates are simply not needed to encode them.  This is the beauty of VBR.  It uses high rates only where they are needed - - and for some tracks, they are not needed much at all.
 

-V2 -- vbr-new didn't output at ~190

Reply #7 –
Quote from: Iggy64 on
But I also notice that certain types tracks simply require less bits/sec more of the time (the entire histogram is shifted left).


Yeah, I find it very noticable with tracks that are simple and melodic, say like a track with just voice and cello or voice and flute or something like that.  Especially if it's from media with low background noise (like CD and not vinyl), then I find stuff like that will usually encode very compactly.