Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: LAME 3.92 --alt-preset standard question (Read 4157 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

LAME 3.92 --alt-preset standard question

ok..... i just ripped my friend's new breakbeat cd and encoded it with LAME 3.92 --alt-preset standard

when the file finished encoding, i got a 131kbps mp3

i thought APS was supposed to be around 192kbps ??

131kbps is way too low of a bitrate average for my taste
 

LAME 3.92 --alt-preset standard question

Reply #1 –
Does it sound fine? It all depends on the type of music being encoded. Obviously LAME found it could encode it just as well at around 130kbps so didnt waste using any more bits.

Try ABXing it with the original. See if you can notice any difference.

LAME 3.92 --alt-preset standard question

Reply #2 –
probably mono

LAME 3.92 --alt-preset standard question

Reply #3 –
nah, it's not mono

i was there when he recorded it 

APE bumped it up to 176kbps

that's closer to what i'm looking for

LAME 3.92 --alt-preset standard question

Reply #4 –
But have you compared the -aps encode @ 131 kbps with the original? Chances that you won't be able to hear any difference is substantial. And in that case you are just wasting disk space by using ape. Most people in these forums can't hear any difference between aps and the original, if we are talking about normal music. There are of course some samples where aps fails, but ape is not really that much better.

LAME 3.92 --alt-preset standard question

Reply #5 –
i agree with karmakillernz [Edit: & magic75, who got in just before me]

Most of my old reggae music encodes to around 130Kbps max with --APS, probably because it isn't that complex (maybe mono). So just because you get a low bitrate doesn't mean the quality will be bad. You really should ABX it with the original rather than unnecessarily bump up the bitrate.

.dd.

LAME 3.92 --alt-preset standard question

Reply #6 –
Quote
But have you compared the -aps encode @ 131 kbps with the original?

yeah, i can't really hear much difference

i guess i'll just stick with APS, it's just strange that the majority of the mix is encoded at 128kbps... with house and breakbeat mix cd's i usually get no lower than about 155kbps average with APS

guess this cd didn't need as high of a bitrate as the others 

LAME 3.92 --alt-preset standard question

Reply #7 –
Yeh don't worry about it. I have songs as high as 278kbps (some Ministry tracks) and as low as 132kbps for some stuff by Tom Waits. The point is, they both sound identical to the CD. Don't panic just because the bitrate isn't as high as you think it should be.

LAME 3.92 --alt-preset standard question

Reply #8 –
You just don't understand the concept of variable bit rate. It's okay. Hang around here a little more, you'll get it.

LAME 3.92 --alt-preset standard question

Reply #9 –
well, stuff that's mono or near mono always ends up being very very close to 128Kbps with --ap-s which is why I mentioned it.  For curiosity's sake perhaps you could take one of the tracks that's close to 128Kbps and invert one of the channels and mix it to mono and see how much is actually left over.  Any stereo info will be the only thing left after doing so.  I'd be surprised if there were much at all.

LAME 3.92 --alt-preset standard question

Reply #10 –
I've noticed that problem too (well, it's not really a problem I guess...), that with 3.92 one or two tracks take off in bitrate! If I encode an album, 9 songs outta 10 stay around 180 kbps (standard with the -Y switch) and the 10th will go up to 220 kbps or something. That never happens with 3.90.2. I don't mind though:-)