As a consequence I ended up with just one -Vx+ level, -V0+.
…, can one get around this by simply adding -Vx+ after the initial 'preloaded' -Vx? What is the result of a command line -V0 -V0+ ?
lame -V 0 -V 8lame -V 8
lame -V 8 -V 0lame -V 0
I can confirm your idea and chi's result.For two full length tracks I compared the lame3995y -V 0 -V0+ and lame3995y -V0+ results. They were bit-identical.But AFAIK dbPoweramp has a command line interface. Can't you use that?
So you compiled both Lame 3.99.5 and 3.99.5y yourself and got such a big difference in file size. That's real strange, and this goes for the file size difference of 3.99.4 and 3.99.5 as well.323 KB BTW is nearly exactly the size of the 32 bit version I compiled (using MSVC++ 2010 Express).
halb, seeing that -V0+ tends to be in the 300+ kbps range, is there any reason not to use just regular old -b 320 -q 0 (with same lowpass setting)? What one is the best choice for highest quality?
An open question is when struggling for best quality no matter the bitrate whether good old CBR 320 or -V0+ yields the overall better quality.
Quote from: halb27 on 16 April, 2012, 02:31:48 AMAn open question is when struggling for best quality no matter the bitrate whether good old CBR 320 or -V0+ yields the overall better quality.I wondered about that. Isn't 320 kbps the highest a standard MP3 can go? Is there some other parameter to MP3 quality?
Quote from: halb27 on 16 April, 2012, 02:31:48 AMAn open question is when struggling for best quality no matter the bitrate whether good old CBR 320 or -V0+ yields the overall better quality.I wondered about that. Can "brute force" 320 kbps CBR be bested?
3.99.5y -V0+ yields an average bitrate of 256 kbps (266 kbps when not postprocessed by mp3packer) for my usual test set, just a little bit more than -V0 does (252 kbps). Significantly lower than 300 kbps.
Main reason for very high average bitrate is a high percentage of short blocks used. 3.99.5y -V0+ tries to encode them with the maximum accuracy possible.
Big trouble!I managed to put a premature version into the zip file!That's why you got at an average bitrate around 300 kbps, GeSomeone.I'm deeply sorry for this.The correct version is in the zip file now.A big thanks to Dynamic whose findings lead to the revelation of the issue (and will lead to a new version because he found that -V n+ is worth while for lower quality settings too).
is this developer version of Lame recommended for electronic music?