Rockbox mail archiveSubject: RE: Lame IS THE ANSWER
RE: Lame IS THE ANSWER
From: Fred Maxwell <rockbox_at_anti-spam.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 18:59:33 -0500
TP Diffenbach wrote:
> > several choices that all use the Lame encoder, they
> > all will give you the same quality encoding, so you
> > should pick one that has the simplicity or complexity
> > of user interface features that you desire.
> Craig's right about this of course, but note: lame can be
> given /lots/ of options that control the quality and size of
> the resulting mp3.
Provided that all of the rippers get an error-free rip, then the resulting
encoded file should be essentially the same. But that assumes that all of
the rippers can use the external .exe version of LAME and can, thus, set all
of the options for VBR, presets, etc.
> Remember, using Rockbox you have about 1.7 MB
> of memory for mp3 data; bigger mp3s mean more reads, and more
> reads mean the battery is used up sooner.
Very good point.
> Definitely record in variable bit rate (VBR); this allows
> lame to allocate more bits to more complicated parts of a
> track, and fewer bits to less complicated parts. Strongly
> consider using joint stereo; some "audiophiles" mistakenly
> think joint stereo produces artifacts in the output, but
> modern encoders, like lame, do not.
Also excellent advice.
> I use lame at quality High (q = 2), and VBR 2, or Very High
> Quality (q=0) and VBR 0, and always use the default VBR
> method, with minimum bitrate 128 and maximum 320. (I have
> some CDs of old 78 records (Gilbert & Sullivan! Yay!, which
> will record to 128), but I also have some modern recordings
> of operas as well (Wagner's Ring! Yay!) so this range makes
> sense for me.) The quality settings are probably too high,
> but I wanted to minimize the number of times I re-ripped.
I use the presets and find the -preset extreme setting to produce really
good quality VBR recordings.
Received on 2003-12-20