Tool : LAME3.98r LAME3.99rFile size : 6.75MB (7081929 bytes) 5.76MB (6041127 bytes)Bitrate : 228 kbps 201 kbps
I encoded Song X to 3.98.4 and 3.99.3 and here's the difference I found:Code: [Select]Tool : LAME3.98r LAME3.99rFile size : 6.75MB (7081929 bytes) 5.76MB (6041127 bytes)Bitrate : 228 kbps 201 kbpsIs the difference in file size and bit rate has something to do with quality?
High end VBR target rates has indeed changed with -V1 and -V0. They stayed close to the original for -V2 and below.The bitrate is very much the quality measure for a mature encoder like LAME.
So I should stick with v3.98 rather than upgrading?
Are we upgrading to save space? If we think we can get the same sound quality out of a smaller file then TOS #8 applies.
A critical point to mention is that this forum does not and never will require someone to provide evidence that two things sound the same.
Personally, I think upgrading for the sake of there being a new version is rash.
So if person A states that they went from version X to version Y because the file size is smaller and he/she says they can't hear any difference then asserting TOS#8 looks unwarranted.
Hello there! Quite a while since I last visited this forum. Seems like LAME has released a new version which is v3.99. I would like to ask if should I upgrade to this new version. I'm currently using v3.98.4 as the encoder and -V 2 as the preset when converting my FLAC/CDs to MP3s. Is there any audible differences/regression to 3.99 compared 3.98.4? Any help for the non-techie will do. Thanks
There's no direct relationship between size and quality.
But all else being equal, wouldn't you say that having more bits to work with generally allows more accurate reproduction?
Surely there is a direct relationship between size and quality in an absolute sense. . .