The main difference between -V0+eco and -V0 is the minimum audio data bitrate for long blocks as you found out. ...... 3.99.5y -V0 corresponds to 3.99.5z -V0+eco. It's not identical but I can't imagine that there's a noticeable difference. No need to re-encode, but maybe you prefer the new possibilities for new encodings.
I have the msvcr100.dll in Windows\System32. Did you run vcredist_x86.exe provided in the zipfile?
Quote from: halb27 on 22 October, 2012, 04:52:21 AMI have the msvcr100.dll in Windows\System32. Did you run vcredist_x86.exe provided in the zipfile?Hmm, that's probably my mistake. I'm using a different version of that distributable, so while I have msvcr100.dll, it's not in the system32 folder. Thanks.
Maybe it's possible now, but I don't know where I can download the latest LAME version.
Is it already possible to use wildcards with LAME?the last time I checked LAME, it wasn't possible to do this:lame -V0 *.wav
halb27, can you help me understand: What is the advantage of using VBR -V0+ over CBR 320, when the resulting file sizes are virtually the same? Does -V0+ use more accurate short frames than the standard CBR mode?EDIT: Also, what are the short frame and long frame bitrate targets for the standard -V0?EDIT 2: From a quality perspective, is there any problem with using -V0+ but setting the --adbr flags to the minimum allowed? Theoretically, wouldn't that allow LAME to use the full range of available bitrates for a short or long frame, and decide to use the smallest one that allows for high quality transparency?
A bunch of stuff