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: Is "--nogap" support finished in LAME 3.91? (Read 3720 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Is "--nogap" support finished in LAME 3.91?

Does anyone know whether "--nogap" support is fully functional in LAME 3.90.2/3.91? I'm asking because I would like to be able to reliably encode my music without any annoying bits of silence between tracks, and this would certainly be the most convenient method (as opposed to encoding a single, large file and splitting it on the frame boundaries to break it into individual songs).

  I've already asked more about this in the "192 kbps" thread, so I apologize if anyone just thinks I'm repeating myself.... I've selected 192kbps CBR for reasons already explained there, but wasn't sure how many people would notice the "--nogap" part of the question since it's buried at the bottom of that page.    Anyway, here is the comand line I'm considering, and I would appreciate opinions as to its desirability:

  --alt-preset cbr 192 --nogapout [dir] --nogap

  Is there any reason not to use this combination? Again, I'm open to suggestions, and appreciate the willingness of the forum to entertain my curiosity. 

  Sincerely,
    - M.

Is "--nogap" support finished in LAME 3.91?

Reply #1 –
Quote
Originally posted by M
Does anyone know whether "--nogap" support is fully functional in LAME 3.90.2/3.91?


I'm not sure whether it's "functional" or not since I haven't tried this in a long time, but I'm pretty certain it's not "finished" at any rate.

Is "--nogap" support finished in LAME 3.91?

Reply #2 –
Drat. 

  Dibrom, what would be the effective disadvantages of using the following line to turn off the bit reservoir (aside from truly limiting all frames to an *actual* 192kbps CBR, rather than allowing holdover bits in the reservoir)?

  --alt-preset cbr 192 --nores

  This would allow one to encode an entire album as a single stream, and split the resultant file on frame boundaries (to create separate tracks) without losing any of the encoded music held in the reservoir. But what would be the effective loss in accomodated frequencies, reproduction and such?

  Is there any reason such a file would cause difficulties with any hardware or software decoding mechanism?

  Sincerely,
    - M.

Is "--nogap" support finished in LAME 3.91?

Reply #3 –
I would not recommend the use of --nores at all.  Disabling the bit reservoir could have a seriously negative impact on quality (probably in the form of worse handling of transients, leading to more pre-echo, much higher probability for dropouts, etc.) so I wouldn't use it myself even if it would mean I wouldn't have seamless mp3s.  Many software decoders and most hardware decoders will not play back mp3s gaplessly even if the encoded file isn't part of the problem, so especially if you are doing it for a hardware player it might be a moot point.

The resultant file shouldn't really have an impact on compatibility either way.

Is "--nogap" support finished in LAME 3.91?

Reply #4 –
Hmm... is the bit reservoir ever used in pure 320kbps CBR encoding (aka the "--alt-preset insane" mode)?

  I am trying to accomplish truly gapless encoding, and I know the reservoir can negatively impact a truly "inaudible" transfer if the split separates any of the reservoir information in adjacent frames. If this were your goal, what would you recommend for a (preferably still at 192kbps CBR) command line?

  Sincerely,
    - M.