You have to accept though that there are (few) exceptions.Īs for the exceptions things can be in favor for the one or other variant. With this in mind using V0 yields identical quality as using CBR320 or my Lame3995o variant with high bitrate Q settings. One reason is that for many kind of music even V5 works very well. It's difficult to tell which setting works best in the very high bitrate range for any kind of music. Seems LAME's older psy model (the one in 3.97 and older) produced 320k CBR files that used a lot of padding and were more likely to yield significant savings if you used mp3packer. I believe that there is no lowpass filter applied at 320k CBR (at least by LAME 3.98 and later) because it has plenty of data to work with and the global gain probably won't be adjusted too much just to accommodate it at that bitrate, which is probably why there's not much padding. The average bitrate remained at 306 kbps - 319 kbps. I found some 320k CBR files of some Adventure Time soundtracks and tried to use mp3packer on them, and most did not have any real reduction in size. However, this is not necessarily always the case. It's my understanding that thanks to the bit reservoir, a 320k CBR file might be of higher quality than -V0 but that in practice, few would notice and that it's more correct to use -V0 and let the encoder decide because more often than the additional bits available to the reservoir being of use, the encoder will have no use for the rest of a frame and insert useless padding to keep the user (who requested 320k CBR) happy, or encode data that's not terribly important to perceived quality just because it has the room to store it. Quote from: rutra80 on 11:13:03 Thanks to bit reservoir native V0 files may be of higher quality than (repacked) CBR 320 files.
0 kommentar(er)
