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: The -q0, -q1, and -q2 (Read 3577 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

The -q0, -q1, and -q2

I need some more info about these -q switches, in particular 0,1, and 2.

Remember, (for me) SPEED IS NOT AN ISSUE, PERIOD. Yes it takes 5x for LAME to encode at -q0 compared to -q2 on 3.96 (4alpha10 is fast) but whatever I don't care.

Does -q0 degrade the quality somehow? I read somewhere in this board that -q0 uses an experimental noise shaping or something and could degrade the quality.

In what version does the -q0 degrade quality? Dibrom's 3.90.3? 3.96? 3.97 alpha 3? or even 4 alpha 10? (That's all I have btw)

I heard a lot about -q0 and -q2, what about -q1?

What does the difference in Huffman compression really do in MP3 CBR 320kbps? Better quality OR lower filesize OR both?

Thanks

The -q0, -q1, and -q2

Reply #1 –
I believe q0 just uses more agressive lossless codeing of the output from the lossy compression stage.  Sort of like using higher compression settings in FLAC.  Which is why its so much slower for such a small gain.

The -q0, -q1, and -q2

Reply #2 –
Quote
I believe q0 just uses more agressive lossless codeing of the output from the lossy compression stage.  Sort of like using higher compression settings in FLAC.  Which is why its so much slower for such a small gain.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=227929"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I'm curious about the supposed experimental tuning (I think by Takehiro) in -q0 also...