IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Lame 3.94a11
JohnV
post Feb 14 2003, 18:32
Post #30





Group: Developer
Posts: 2797
Joined: 22-September 01
Member No.: 6



QUOTE (yourtallness @ Feb 14 2003 - 06:04 PM)
When will there be a LAME version which will totally improve on version 3.90.2?
Hydrogenaudio has been recommending 3.90.2 for ages now... Can we expect
anything exciting from the LAME front in the foreseeable future?

I'm just asking because I have a mass ripping & encoding session planned and
I'm wondering if there's a reason to postpone it in the event of a LAME 3.94
release...

Not much reason to postpone if you use --alt-preset standard -Z with 3.90.2. Currently 3.94a --preset standard does not have as good pre-echo control, and if no tweaking is done, I suppose it will stay that way. If you use -Z with 3.90.2 --alt-preset standard, you either avoid completely or diminish the known problems very clearly with relatively small bitrate increase.

Also 3.90.2 --alt-preset performs better with serioustrouble and such (less ringing/dropouts).
In order to compensate --alt-preset standard's code level tweaks in this case, alpha imo needs switched to adjust mid/side masking and ms/lr switching separately. At the moment, if mid/side resolution is increased, it also gives more lr-frames and it leads to clearly higher bitrates, which takes most of the quality/size benefit away.

People with good pre-echo hearing can easily hear that 3.90.2 --alt-preset standard is better than a11 --preset standard for example with bassdrum, and it's no wonder when you look the following bitrate distribution graphs:

Lame 3.90.2 --alt-preset standard
average 207.7kbps:


Lame 3.94a11 --preset standard
average 172.2kbps:


--------------------
Juha Laaksonheimo
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
yourtallness
post Feb 14 2003, 19:11
Post #31





Group: Members
Posts: 488
Joined: 8-October 02
From: Vrilissia, Athens
Member No.: 3503



QUOTE
Not much reason to postpone if you use --alt-preset standard -Z with 3.90.2.


I've never used -Y or -Z with the --alt-presets before. Is there no down side
to using -Z?

I'm sure the experimental switches have been discussed before, but I'd like to
know if they make any difference...

Can -Z be used with ape and api too?


--------------------
Wanna buy a monkey?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
JohnV
post Feb 14 2003, 20:00
Post #32





Group: Developer
Posts: 2797
Joined: 22-September 01
Member No.: 6



QUOTE (yourtallness @ Feb 14 2003 - 08:11 PM)
I've never used -Y or -Z with the --alt-presets before. Is there no down side
to using -Z?

No quality down sides with using Lame 3.90.2 --alt-preset standard -Z what so ever, only positive quality effects. But a bit higher bitrate sometimes. And using -Z here is not experimental, Gpsycho has always used noise shaping type 1, which is quality wise safer choice. Noise shaping type 2 is used with nspsytune vbr only because of one reason: to increase quality/size ratio by lowering bitrate, but it does not work 100%. erhu is a good example, where ns-type 2 fails badly.
QUOTE
Can -Z be used with ape and api too?
Do not use it with api, since it already uses noise shaping 1, and you don't want to switch it back to 2. But it's ok to use it with 3.90.2 ape.


--------------------
Juha Laaksonheimo
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
yourtallness
post Feb 14 2003, 20:14
Post #33





Group: Members
Posts: 488
Joined: 8-October 02
From: Vrilissia, Athens
Member No.: 3503



Thanx John V smile.gif


--------------------
Wanna buy a monkey?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Marcb
post Feb 15 2003, 11:54
Post #34





Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: 14-February 03
Member No.: 4997



QUOTE (JohnV @ Feb 14 2003 - 11:00 AM)
QUOTE (yourtallness @ Feb 14 2003 - 08:11 PM)
I've never used -Y or -Z with the --alt-presets before. Is there no down side
to using -Z?

No quality down sides with using Lame 3.90.2 --alt-preset standard -Z what so ever, only positive quality effects. But a bit higher bitrate sometimes. And using -Z here is not experimental, Gpsycho has always used noise shaping type 1, which is quality wise safer choice. Noise shaping type 2 is used with nspsytune vbr only because of one reason: to increase quality/size ratio by lowering bitrate, but it does not work 100%. erhu is a good example, where ns-type 2 fails badly.
QUOTE
Can -Z be used with ape and api too?
Do not use it with api, since it already use noise shaping 1, and you don't want to switch it back to 2. But it's ok to use it with 3.90.2 ape.

Interesting; Dibrom of the preset settings say that the -z switch is not needed for the alt presets:

Copy&paste from topic http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....t=ST&f=16&t=593
-
JohnV about covered the rest, but I'll just add a small comment here about this issue. First, the --alt-preset switches have been tuned to a level to where -Z is no longer needed.
-

I am talking about version 3.90.2; I know this is a bit off-topic.................. unsure.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
gazzyk1ns
post Feb 15 2003, 15:50
Post #35





Group: Members
Posts: 125
Joined: 24-January 03
From: Suffolk, UK
Member No.: 4714



Mithrandir:
Thatnks for the clarification about the --preset medium settings, I see exactly what was meant now.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Gabriel
post Feb 16 2003, 19:56
Post #36


LAME developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 2950
Joined: 1-October 01
From: Nanterre, France
Member No.: 138



I just commited some updated abr/cbr presets. That way you can now compare abr against medium (I'd suggest you to wait tommorow in order to be sure that new compiles have the new abr presets).

I did not want to bump the alpha, as I'd like to take care of the pre-echo regression for standard before.
Btw, now that you pointed it, it seems obvious to me that current standard should regress in pre-echo compared to previous versions.

Damn, all this tuning is awfully time-consuming.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
glauco
post Feb 16 2003, 21:27
Post #37





Group: Members
Posts: 77
Joined: 16-February 03
Member No.: 5030



This is my first post ( but as i've been playing with LAME versions since 3.70, I don't consider myself a real newbie biggrin.gif )

I've tried --preset medium with a collection of 50 of my favorite songs (50 diferent autors, music of very different kinds) and i've obtained an average bitrate of 172 kbps; which i think it's the ideal target bitrate for the medium preset. Not to low (at 150 kbps the quality can suffer a lot); neither to high (for such a high bitrate we already have --preset standard); it seem to me like the perfect equilibrium for portable players.

As a reference, LAME 3.90.2 goes to 203 kbps on the same collection of songs.

Gabriel, on some of those songs -- preset medium sounds to me a little better than medium1, but i haven't done a real blind test, so don't take it as something serious. I'll wait for the abr-tunned version to compare with --preset 172.

Hope that helps...


--------------------
Just a thought...
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
john33
post Feb 17 2003, 00:45
Post #38


xcLame and OggDropXPd Developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 3760
Joined: 30-September 01
From: Bracknell, UK
Member No.: 111



New win32 binaries uploaded and available at my 'Other' page at Mirror 1 (link at foot of homepage).


--------------------
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
My compiles and utilities are at http://www.rarewares.org/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Gabriel
post Feb 17 2003, 09:00
Post #39


LAME developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 2950
Joined: 1-October 01
From: Nanterre, France
Member No.: 138



Note: Takehiro commited some changes during the week-end that are increasing bitrate by 2% on average.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
glauco
post Feb 17 2003, 15:20
Post #40





Group: Members
Posts: 77
Joined: 16-February 03
Member No.: 5030



John33

At your webpage the link is lame 3.94 alpha 11 bundle with a DATE = 2003-02-16

BUT the contained lame.exe has a version output: lame --version as: LAME version 3.94 MMX (alpha 11, Feb 9 2003 11:16:20) (http://www.mp3dev.org/) ; the same as your previous build. The filesize is also the same: 243.200 bytes.

Is this a coincidence? Haven't I found the correct link to the new binaries?


--------------------
Just a thought...
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
john33
post Feb 17 2003, 15:59
Post #41


xcLame and OggDropXPd Developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 3760
Joined: 30-September 01
From: Bracknell, UK
Member No.: 111



QUOTE (glauco @ Feb 17 2003 - 02:20 PM)
John33

At your webpage the link is lame 3.94 alpha 11 bundle with a DATE = 2003-02-16

BUT the contained lame.exe has a version output: lame --version as: LAME version 3.94 MMX (alpha 11, Feb  9 2003 11:16:20) (http://www.mp3dev.org/) ; the same as your previous build. The filesize is also the same: 243.200 bytes. 

Is this a coincidence? Haven't I found the correct link to the new binaries?

You have the correct version. The problem arises, I think, because I only recompiled the changed modules, not a complete recompile. I'll do a full recompile and upload again just to avoid confusion. Give me about 10 mins. The recompile will carry today's date, ie. 17 Feb. wink.gif


--------------------
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
My compiles and utilities are at http://www.rarewares.org/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
yourtallness
post Feb 17 2003, 17:29
Post #42





Group: Members
Posts: 488
Joined: 8-October 02
From: Vrilissia, Athens
Member No.: 3503



I know this is kind of an irrelevant question but I didn't want to start a new thread
over it:

Is there any way to make Windows XP display the bitrate of VBR mp3 files correctly?
I've encoded many files with the --alt-presets and when I open a folder with my
mp3s, the bitrates in the "bitrate" column are all wrong (and exaggerated). Can
this be fixed?


--------------------
Wanna buy a monkey?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
glauco
post Feb 17 2003, 18:37
Post #43





Group: Members
Posts: 77
Joined: 16-February 03
Member No.: 5030



QUOTE
I'll do a full recompile and upload again just to avoid confusion. Give me about 10 mins. The recompile will carry today's date, ie. 17 Feb.


THANKS!!!!

Well; it's not THAT important. It's only a doubt I had. But thank you; you guys are doing a really good job with this.


--------------------
Just a thought...
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
saratoga
post Feb 18 2003, 05:45
Post #44





Group: Members
Posts: 5039
Joined: 2-September 02
Member No.: 3264



QUOTE
Is there any way to make Windows XP display the bitrate of VBR mp3 files correctly?
I've encoded many files with the --alt-presets and when I open a folder with my
mp3s, the bitrates in the "bitrate" column are all wrong (and exaggerated). Can
this be fixed?


Not that I know of. sad.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
gazzyk1ns
post Feb 19 2003, 19:58
Post #45





Group: Members
Posts: 125
Joined: 24-January 03
From: Suffolk, UK
Member No.: 4714



Just finished testing a lot of "medium vs. meduim1" samples in ABC/hr.

I agree with most people here, --preset medium is slightly better. --preset medium1 tended to sound rather "swishy" at the top end, for a good example encode "Common People" by Pulp, and what I mean should be fairly obvious. I can provide a flac if anyone needs it.

One thing I was a little uneasy about was that to me (again, using ABC/hr) --alt-preset 192 sounded much better than --preset medium... and bearing in mind that I found --preset medium produced many encodes which averaged at around 180, --ap192 is by far the preferable option.

This post has been edited by gazzyk1ns: Feb 19 2003, 19:59
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
LordofStars
post Feb 19 2003, 22:39
Post #46





Group: Members
Posts: 353
Joined: 28-April 02
Member No.: 1894



are the options to control sfcsi or scale factor included in this version? I read something about them on lame dev but haven't been able to remember them exactly. What about the replaygain patches? Have they been applied or ... ? When are they planned to be included.
Thanks
Lossy


--------------------
r3mix zealot.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mithrandir
post Feb 20 2003, 00:18
Post #47





Group: Members
Posts: 669
Joined: 15-January 02
From: SE Pennsylvania
Member No.: 1032



QUOTE (gazzyk1ns @ Feb 19 2003 - 01:58 PM)
One thing I was a little uneasy about was that to me (again, using ABC/hr) --alt-preset 192 sounded much better than --preset medium... and bearing in mind that I found --preset medium produced many encodes which averaged at around 180, --ap192 is by far the preferable option.

I'm not totally suprised because --alt-preset 192 (er, are you using 3.90.2 or 3.94a11 for this?) is ABR and at this bitrate, ABR is generally very good all around. Much better? I'm not so sure about that one but maybe your musical choices have something to do with that. If --preset medium is giving you 180kbps, then you've tried more "difficult" music. If you start encoding a lot of music (like hundreds and hundreds of files), you'll find medium averages around 165kbps. Then one could easily say 165kbps vs. 192kbps is not a fair comparison.

An ABR medium preset will be added in a12 so you should find this addition interesting. (I assume Gabriel will choose something in the 160-170kbps range).

This post has been edited by mithrandir: Feb 20 2003, 00:19
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
gazzyk1ns
post Feb 20 2003, 02:07
Post #48





Group: Members
Posts: 125
Joined: 24-January 03
From: Suffolk, UK
Member No.: 4714



Yeah, I deliberately chose music I thought would be quite hard to encode for the purpose of testing the new alpha. And yup, I'm using the Feb 17th Alpha 11.

In hindsight, saying that --ap 192 was much better may have been an exaggeration, but it was certainly "significantly" better, i.e. more or less transparent where the 181kbps --preset medium had some fairly prominent artefacts.

I will post a couple of flac samples tomorrow when I can use a friend's webspace to host them, that way you can see what I'm talking about. I take it there are no copyright issues etc. with posting a few differently encoded versions of a 10 second sample?

This post has been edited by gazzyk1ns: Feb 20 2003, 02:13
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Gabriel
post Feb 20 2003, 09:16
Post #49


LAME developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 2950
Joined: 1-October 01
From: Nanterre, France
Member No.: 138



I agree that abr192 should be better than preset medium.
Medium is targetted to 165kbps, and I think that overall, it really fits into this target.
It seems to me that abr 170 would be more fair to compare with preset medium.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dr. TaaDow
post Mar 8 2003, 09:32
Post #50





Group: Members
Posts: 41
Joined: 13-February 03
From: Plastic City America
Member No.: 4989



any idea when v3.94 will become beta and/or final? biggrin.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rnergy
post Mar 11 2003, 21:47
Post #51





Group: Members
Posts: 13
Joined: 15-January 03
Member No.: 4594



this is a alpha version now lame 3.94 alpha 11 . rolleyes.gif

laugh.gif

This post has been edited by rnergy: Mar 11 2003, 21:48
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dvdmeister
post Mar 13 2003, 20:22
Post #52





Group: Members
Posts: 22
Joined: 9-January 03
Member No.: 4489



I have been testing the medium vs. medium1 presets in the latest alpha11 (28th Feb 03), and I can hear a difference between the two but in my tests, medium1 has more definition - more 'sparkly' high-frequencies if that makes any sense - but it doesn't seem to sound worse than medium in any other respect. This seems to fly in the face of everyone elses opinion, so I'm wondering if anyone could provide a couple of test encodes that show medium sounding noticeably 'better' than medium1.
The only difference I can hear is that there is more treble definition in medium1, whereas medium is more flat but tends to make 'busy' tracks sound muddy and undefined. I dunno, maybe its just me...
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
feces1223
post Apr 22 2003, 02:30
Post #53





Group: Banned
Posts: 154
Joined: 30-March 03
Member No.: 5756



just tested 3.94 Alpha11. Although i can't ensure that its the same exact quality as 3.90.2, i couldn't tell the difference on my expensive sony headphones (using both aps presets). The lame.exe was a 100 or so kb bigger than 3.90.2's lame.exe however, it cut down considerably from 5.41mb to 5.1xish. And the speed was noticably faster. Since the Dos prompt was showing bitrate levels too fast to catch on, i compared both mp3s with EncSpot. I got these results:


3.94 a11.:. <1 - 32kbps, <1 - 96kbps, 1 - 112kbps, 5 - 128kbps, 17 - 160kbps, 22 - 192kbps, 32 - 224kbps, 19 - 256kbps, 3 - 320kbps, AVERAGE BITRATE -208 kbps


3.90.2.:. <1 - 32kbps, 6 - 128kbps, 18 - 160kbps, 21 - 192kbps, 21 - 224kbps, 22 - 256kbps, 12 - 320kbps, AVERAGE BITRATE -218 kbps


Very close bitrates with both compiles although the 224kbps, and 320kbps were somewhat different.


My final conclusion of 3.94 a11 is that the sound quality is the same/less quality than the 3.90.2 compile. The filesize is considerably cut down for similar quality results, and speed seems to be cleaned up to be a bit faster. It seems like LAME is getting out of the 3.93 chaos situation and is really analyzing the sucess and downfalls of previous compiles. They definitely are programming in the right direction and if this does become final anytime soon, I believe it won't improve the sound quality over 3.90.2 but, definitely will cut down processing times and mb size. Hope this was somewhat useful research for you guys. Thanks for the link to download it!!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
feces1223
post Apr 22 2003, 03:12
Post #54





Group: Banned
Posts: 154
Joined: 30-March 03
Member No.: 5756



*alpha13 is what i meant i suppose (at least thats what the rar i got off john33 says)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 21st October 2014 - 12:15