--aps -b192 with 128/160 frames?
Reply #3 – 2003-10-08 16:55:30
Aha! Thank you magic75 ! I just tested with EAC and LAME 3.92 and I could replicate my problem. I ripped a WAV using EAC and then compressed it with --alt-preset standard as the Additional Command Line Options and first 160 then 224 in the bitrate dropdown. Unlike what cOCo said, my files were NOT identical (224kbps vs. 230kbps average on the sample track I used). And the appropriate number (160 or 224) shows in the minimum-bitrate field of the LAME tag. Hmm - I just tried it once more with 192 this time, and the 192 and 224 versions come out with an identical bitrate distribution. I've experimented a little with command-line parameter order, and this is what I found: Minimum Bitrate command line LAMEtag actual --alt-preset standard -b192 -h 192kbps 192kbps --alt-preset standard -h -b192 192kbps 192kbps -b192 --alt-preset standard -h 192kbps 128kbps -b192 --alt-preset standard 192kbps 128kbps -b192 -h --alt-preset standard 192kbps 128kbps -h -b192 --alt-preset standard 192kbps 128kbps So to interpret that:If -b??? is specified, it's stored in the LAME tag all the time If -b??? is specified before --alt-preset standard (and I assume other presets too, but I haven't tested) it's ignored and the preset's minimum of 128 is used If -b??? is specified after --alt-preset standard (and I assume other presets too, but I haven't tested) it's respected and the preset's minimum of 128 is overidden by whatever you specify I'm not sure if this should really be called a bug, but I'd definitely classify it as unexpected behaviour. I think the result should be the same whether you say --alt-preset standard -b192 or -b192 --alt-preset standard . But what is a bug is the fact that the minimum bitrate as stored in the LAME tag is not neccesarily the same one that LAME used when comrpessing! Can someone look into the LAME source and fix this please?