|
|
Posted by NRen2k5 on 10/15/03 11:36
Nope, no problems here. But you might want to check up on something -
the current recommended version is 3.97b2. It has some quality
improvements. And here's the really nice thing: The 128kbps lower limit
has been removed. So your old mono recordings will sound just as good
and take up even less space.
http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Lame_Compiles
http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/lame/lame/doc/html/history.html?rev=1.79
http://rarewares.org/mp3.html
- NRen2k5
pstromer@gmail.com wrote:
>At least to my ears, anyway. I notice a big improvement over 192 CBR
>on modern recordings such as St. Anger. Using Winamp, I can see when
>it jumps up to 256 or 320 on the more complex portions. I rip my CDs
>using dBpoweramp Lame 3.96.1.
>
>I also like the space saving on simpler music, some of my older music
>(Sinatra, Bird) which I re-encoded (from the original CDs, I never
>transcode from lossy to lossy formats). The VBR drops all the way down
>to 128 for most of this mono material from the 1950s, with no (at least
>to my ears) loss of audio quality.
>
>I've always heard that 192 CBR was the recognized "gold standard," but
>I think it's a big waste of space compared to 128 CBR. The really
>complex pieces need to go over 192 anyway, so if space saving is
>paramount, you may as well go for 128. If sound quality is paramount,
>go for Alt Preset Standard.
>
>My only question: Has anyone used Alt Preset Standard, and been
>dissatisfied with it? I have about 1,000 CDs to re-rip, so I'm seeking
>input before going all out on this project.
>
>Thanks for any responses.
>
>--
>Philip
>
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|