I was wanting to not allocate 320kps for some sound tracks, but occasionally, I
_wondered_ (imagined,reasoned, theorized, whatever), that VBR might not
give me the optimal possible for the 'bits' in the music (i.e. even if there
was a low bitrate, maybe a "jump" to a higher bitrate might not "immediately"
jump and I might lose a minor (probably undetectable to my ears) amount --
but that on a good stereo, it might be possible for someone to 'tell'.
So I "reasoned", that maybe if I set the minimum bit-rate at 160kps, that
should give me a minimum "floor" of quality -- and that the average (depending
on how VBR works, would be between 160-320 (~240) OR at least ~200 and
that should give better than pure VBR at less space than a full 320.
Indeed, it _seems_ to be near the 240 mark, but that could just be the
music I'm encoding.
So what do people think? Should it be better? Or am I just getting
a 'feel-good' effect?
A second 'question'....would it be _practicle_ to split a song by
the number of available CPU's to encode N-CPU times faster? There would
be a slight amount of efficiency loss at the division points, but would
it be enough to notice? Just curious... Would any of the 64-bit
arithmetic speed up encoding?
Thanks for any experiences/ideas/knowledge...
Linda
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/_______________________________________________
Lame-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lame-dev
