Some LAME Encoder Questions

M

macrospect

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 22, 2004
Messages
1,711
I am new to LAME encoder and have a few questions, which I was hoping someone can answer for me. Up until this point I have used another piece of software (Aare MP3 Converter), to do my encoding. I gave LAME a try and it takes at least 5X as long to encode MP3's (at the highest quality). Is LAME better at encoding, is that why it takes longer, or is the compression of a MP3 file equal no matter what program is used- granted I am using a 192K bit rate at the highest encoding quality?

Also, since I rarely have just a singly WAV that needs to be encoded, I was wondering how the heck I do multiple files at once? Is there a way to batch process these?

Thanks!
 
The first part of your question is a little more complex, so someone that is more versed in the arts of LAME should answer it. But, as I understand it, yes, there is a difference. LAME is generally held to be the highest quality compressor in terms of the algorithims that is uses.

The second part, however, is much easier. Go get yourself a copy of RazorLAME, unzip it, point it to your copy of LAME, and batch process to your heart's content. I can't even imagine using LAME by command line, but that's just me.
 
Awesome, thanks a lot. I was using it by command line before. :)

I cant hear much of a difference, but then again I am only using Logitech Z-5500 speakers, not studio speakers. I tried to do a google on LAME vs other encoders, but I found no solid evidence showing why LAME is better.

I also was using the version of LAME that comes with nero. For some reason its really slow, and the final filesize is only a few Kb's larger.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top