No, lame doesn't know anything about the Windows registry at all, and therefore doesn't alter any settings. lame is not a windows only application. In fact it is developed on Linux systems.
Ross. Ian Moss wrote: > Hey everyone. > > I'm no computer programer por anything so I was wondering if > you guys could answer this question for me. Firstly I'll give > you a bit of a background before ask. > > I use to encode using Xing, buggled as "Audio catalyst". > Thought this was great until a year or so ago I stumbled over > the LAME encoder, never gone back. I use to encode in Full > VBR with Xing and found that on average it would enocde > around the 192kbps mark maybe less. It was rare for a song to > have an average bitrate higher than 200kbps when encoded in > full VBR. I have the lame encoder installed and have been > happy using its VBR encoder with my settings set at my > desired quality. The other day however I was in a rush to > encode a couple of Cd's, so I used Xing, (as you know its a > screaming fast encoder). After encoding the cd's I found that > the average bitrates of those files were quite high, all over > the 200kbps mark. This made me start to think....xing never > encoded so high before, and I used the encoder for years with > it, so I am very famialr with what it does. I encoded some > cd's which I had already econded before with xing to see if > it was just me or was the xing actually encodeding at a > higher quality than ever before.... I used the Album > "Chemical Brothers - Surrender". When I encoded this > songalbum orginal with Xing @ full VBR, files had an average > bitrate between 112kbps to about 140kbps. That was not good > enough for me so I enocded at a constant bitrate of 192kbps. > However when I enocded the Cd again, this time xing encoded > the files in full VBR with a much higher bitrate average > across the files, ie using higher bitrates when it encoded > than before. So whats the go??? My question is? does the lame > encoder do something weird with the xing encoder? Like stuff > around with the registries or something. Does the lame > encoders settings actually change or alter the xing encoder > as well? Something is up with xng, cause it has never encoded > so high before. Any comments? > > > > _______________________________________________ > mp3encoder mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/mp3enc> oder > _______________________________________________ mp3encoder mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/mp3encoder
