From the bitrate table, wma quality vbr 75 might have similar issues.  Of the vbr codecs tested, it has the highest range of bitrates on an album basis.

                3.90.3_ap128   3.96_p128     3.96_V5as1
ATrain             4.3            3.5            4.7
BachS1007          5.0            5.0            5.0
BeautySlept        4.2            3.5            4.0
Blackwater         4.4            4.7            4.5
FloorEssence       4.1            4.6            4.6
Layla              4.1            4.5            4.7
LifeShatters       4.5            4.4            4.8
LisztBMinor        4.9            5.0            4.8
MidnightVoyage     4.0            3.5            4.4
thear1             4.8            4.4            5.0
TheSource          4.6            4.9            4.9
Waiting            2.9            3.6            4.5

Not sure if a newbie like me is welcome in these sort of tests, but I gave it a whirl.  Here are my results:

Not sure if a newbie like me is welcome in these sort of tests, but I gave it a whirl.  Here are my results:

Album bitrate table has been updated to show wma9 std bitrate vbr, which averages 129 kbit/s.

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....ndpost&p=207203

I'm fairly sure at this point that both mpc and vorbis are encoding a bit low at their current settings.

ff123

Quote

Album bitrate table has been updated to show wma9 std bitrate vbr, which averages 129 kbit/s.

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....ndpost&p=207203

I'm fairly sure at this point that both mpc and vorbis are encoding a bit low at their current settings.

ff123

For Vorbis, try q 4.25.

Quote

Quote

Album bitrate table has been updated to show wma9 std bitrate vbr, which averages 129 kbit/s.

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....ndpost&p=207203

I'm fairly sure at this point that both mpc and vorbis are encoding a bit low at their current settings.

ff123

For Vorbis, try q 4.25.

Doing that now.  The last time we ran the bitrate test, q 4.25 was closest to 128 on average.

ff123

But I noticed, as expected, that the VBR command line produced very low bitrate encoding on some quiet tracks. For extreme exemple, I've a stereo piano encoding at 59 kbps! After MP3gain process and played on my portable player, sound is crap.

It's perfectly understandable that lame VBR performs better on difficult tracks as samples tested by users here. And that's a good news. But on less immediately difficult passage, VBR is a contestable choice.

Quote

But I noticed, as expected, that the VBR command line produced very low bitrate encoding on some quiet tracks. For extreme exemple, I've a stereo piano encoding at 59 kbps! After MP3gain process and played on my portable player, sound is crap.

It's perfectly understandable that lame VBR performs better on difficult tracks as samples tested by users here. And that's a good news. But on less immediately difficult passage, VBR is a contestable choice.

Agreed.  I've found the same thing in similiar situations with piano recordings of Bill Evans, Tashiko Akiyoshi and others.  They have bitrates of under 70 and when turned up to hear the more intimate details, they suffer greatly.  It happens to less of a degree in small groups of chamber music and jazz trios i.e. softer music with lots of space or light textures.  No doubt these types of recordings and people who listen to them are in the vast minority of users, but it should be noted that ABR is much superior to -V 5 in these situations.

Quote

But I noticed, as expected, that the VBR command line produced very low bitrate encoding on some quiet tracks. For extreme exemple, I've a stereo piano encoding at 59 kbps! After MP3gain process and played on my portable player, sound is crap.

It's perfectly understandable that lame VBR performs better on difficult tracks as samples tested by users here. And that's a good news. But on less immediately difficult passage, VBR is a contestable choice.

Agreed.  I've found the same thing in similiar situations with piano recordings of Bill Evans, Tashiko Akiyoshi and others.  They have bitrates of under 70 and when turned up to hear the more intimate details, they suffer greatly.  It happens to less of a degree in small groups of chamber music and jazz trios i.e. softer music with lots of space or light textures.  No doubt these types of recordings and people who listen to them are in the vast minority of users, but it should be noted that ABR is much superior to -V 5 in these situations.

Just one thing, for reflexion and not criticism.
I've encoded today various tracks with the VBR command line. The average bitrate is around 128 kbps (sometimes less, sometimes more). It's OK. I can't seriously test anything with the hardware setting in my disposition.
But I noticed, as expected, that the VBR command line produced very low bitrate encoding on some quiet tracks. For extreme exemple, I've a stereo piano encoding at 59 kbps! After MP3gain process and played on my portable player, sound is crap.
On more common tracks, same problem appears on some note extinction, or at the beginning/end of the file.

Quote

Just one thing, for reflexion and not criticism.
I've encoded today various tracks with the VBR command line. The average bitrate is around 128 kbps (sometimes less, sometimes more). It's OK. I can't seriously test anything with the hardware setting in my disposition.
But I noticed, as expected, that the VBR command line produced very low bitrate encoding on some quiet tracks. For extreme exemple, I've a stereo piano encoding at 59 kbps! After MP3gain process and played on my portable player, sound is crap.
On more common tracks, same problem appears on some note extinction, or at the beginning/end of the file.

This wouldnt happen if people applied --scale right to the encoder instead of gaining afterwards. I think this is a big flaw in the rationale behind applying gain after encoding, since encoders take volume into account.