Skip to main content

Topic: Lowpass function accuracy in LAME? (Read 2011 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Lowpass function accuracy in LAME?
Hi All,

I was wondering - is the lowpass function used in LAME of a comparable quality to the ones used in Cool Edit Pro? I mean quality in terms of the amount of introduced noise and the reproduction of frequencies.

Is it worthwhile  for quality reasons to perform the lowpass function outside of LAME?

Also, can anyone see anything wrong with the following for 192 CBR (I will exclude -k if lowpass inside lame is high quality)?:

-b192 -m j -h -k --nspsytune -Z 1 -X 1,3 --athtype 2 --ns-bass -2

Which switches are unnecessary because they are default?

The Probel with Troublems

  • Oge_user
  • [*][*][*][*]
Lowpass function accuracy in LAME?
Reply #1
The quality of the lowpass used by Cool Edit Pro is slighty better than the Lame one, but it's almost impossible to hear a difference.
You can hear differences only for a lowpass like 15000-16000 Hz, using a filter like Chebychev 2 (in CEP 2).

And the for commandline, just use alt-preset CBR 192.
  • Last Edit: 15 February, 2003, 09:55:04 AM by Oge_user
[ Commodore 64 Forever...! ]

  • Miguel
  • [*]
Lowpass function accuracy in LAME?
Reply #2
Don't worry about filtering. LAME has well implemented filters and when usign well designed digital filters is impossible to hear any difference.