list your favorite video formats you think more stand alone players should support, for example support for switchable subs in ogms or mkvs or whatever.
Name:
Anonymous2005-01-05 8:43
avi. i love avi
Name:
Anonymous2005-01-05 21:22
mpeg4... but most everyone already suports mpeg4... and H.263 mmmmm
which makes it the popularest, of course. also, ogm/mkvs & OGG should be supported by standalones, it's fucking stupid that i have to recode my pr0n befor watching it(my pc sucks so i can't watch it on the PC. -_-).
Name:
Anonymous2005-01-08 8:19
OGG THEORA
Name:
Anonymous2005-01-08 17:07
Oh, it's popular, but that doesn't mean it's broken. Ask some coders about the amazing hackery needed to get VBR audio working in it. AFAIK, the current implementation actually exploits an error in the AVI spec. It also is a lot less capable than other containers.
The only reason it's popular is it was one of the first out the gate, and is the default video container for the most popular operating system.
>>9
Have a nice time trying to get interactivity or Vorbis or proper AAC or subtitles in your AVIs, or anything else LiveStage Pro can do. >>10,11
Do either of you know what VBR is?
Name:
Anonymous2005-01-11 0:24
>> Do either of you know what VBR is?
yes, it's variable bitrate... and for some reason a vbr mp3 with an average bitrate of 239kb/s sounds worse than the same audio encoded as a normal 128kb/s mp3...
I encode almost all of my music in 320 kbps CBR, but there are many older albums that I have in 128 cbr. For a little bit, I did avg. 256 VBR - but it sucked, so now it's the 320
VBR is currently the way to go for most encoding. Anyone claiming otherwise knows very little about the current state of audio codecs (hint: if you're encoding mp3, and NOT using lame with some form of (alt-)preset, stay far away from p2p networks, kthxbye).
More importantly, take >>20's advice and read HydrogenAudio. Read it for a few days. And stop spewing gibberish.
Name:
Anonymous2005-01-17 3:47
i have plenty of hard drive space and since cbr seems to work just fine, that's what i use... all the vbr mp3s i've heard sound sort of fuzzy and have a sort of weird, extremely annoying hiss... i seem to get this using both of the mp3 encoders i have available to me at the moment (lame and whatever itunes uses), and only with vbr...
Name:
Anonymous2005-01-17 6:10
If you like CBR, go for it, but until you successfully ABX a decent VBR encode from CBR nobody with a clue would believe you.
Name:
Anonymous2005-01-17 21:19
>>25
i used foobar2000's abx comparator on a 192 kb/s mp3 and a vbr mp3 encoded from it with 'lame -q 0 -v -V 0 "04 I So Hate Consequences.mp3" ishc.vbr.mp3'...
foobar2000 v0.8.3
2005/01/17 21:00:34
File A: file://C:\Program Files\lame\04 I So Hate Consequences.mp3
File B: file://C:\Program Files\lame\ishc.vbr.mp3
Well, maybe I was a bit harsh, but transcoding an mp3 to mp3 (or any lossy medium to lossy medium) will always result in a worse-quality file. As a rule, you never convert an mp3/jpg/etc to another format because the size will either be larger or the quality worse (or both).
The second conversion has all the artifacts as the first, but with an added layer on top. Never convert lossy, okay? This goes particularly to all the idiots on 4chan I see reposting images that are obviously reconverted jpegs.
Name:
262005-01-18 10:47
i was simply doing exactly what >>25 said... ABX a decent VBR encode from CBR
those LAME options are:
-q <arg> <arg> = 0...9. Default -q 5
-q 0: Highest quality, very slow
-q 9: Poor quality, but fast
-v use variable bitrate (VBR) (--vbr-old)
-V n quality setting for VBR. default n=4
0=high quality,bigger files. 9=smaller files
Name:
Anonymous2005-01-18 15:32
>>29
I know what the lame options are. I also know that they're not the recommended ones. Read those two threads and be enlightened.
Second, I think you missed the point to >>25. The assumption was that you'd make the encodes from the same lossless source (ie, a wav file freshly extracted off a CD). Anybody familiar with mp3 will make that assumption without realizing it. Transcoding is a crime, don't do it, ever.
If you transcode an mp3 to mp3, of course the VBR will sound worse. But if you encode both from the same raw source, VBR will be significantly superior to CBR every time.
Name:
Anonymous2005-01-18 16:05
>>30
i think you're missing the point. the point is that there's a noticeable difference between the highest possible quality vbr mp3 encoded with lame and the source it was encoded from.
Name:
Anonymous2005-01-18 16:35
Stop trying to bullshit your way out >>31. You utterly fucked up and don't have a clue. The more you talk the more you prove you know nothing.
>> the point is that there's a noticeable difference between the highest possible quality vbr mp3 encoded with lame and the source it was encoded from
I rest my case. Go away, okay? If you're not going to listen or learn, stop polluting this thread with your mindless proud wankery. You don't know what you're talking about at all, can I make myself any clearer? It's obvious you don't even know what lossy means.