IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Small Pop between tracks using Lame VBR- V-0
andrew22690
post Jul 20 2010, 04:00
Post #26





Group: Members
Posts: 22
Joined: 3-July 10
Member No.: 82012



QUOTE (andrew22690 @ Jul 20 2010, 04:48) *
QUOTE (dv1989 @ Jul 18 2010, 19:58) *
QUOTE (trout @ Jul 18 2010, 18:19) *
QUOTE (andrew22690 @ Jul 4 2010, 10:05) *
CODE
Additional command line options : -V 0 --vbr-new -q 0 -m s
An observation apart from the gapless issue; Are you sure all of those commands are a good idea?
-q0 is redundant, as values from 0-3 are equivalent under --vbr-new.
-ms is never a good idea, but equally we'll never get a break from having to tell people that. wink.gif


What is the purpose of ms in the command line?


Nevermind I found it.

forced joint stereo
This mode will force MS joint stereo on all frames. It's slightly faster than joint stereo, but it should be used only if you are sure that every frame of the input file has very little stereo separation.


Do you think this could mess up the gap?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
pdq
post Jul 20 2010, 04:04
Post #27





Group: Members
Posts: 3404
Joined: 1-September 05
From: SE Pennsylvania
Member No.: 24233



QUOTE (andrew22690 @ Jul 19 2010, 22:48) *
What is the purpose of ms in the command line?

The -m s switch prevents lame from using mid/side encoding when it would improve sound quality, decrease file size, or both. Needless to say it should not be used.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
pdq
post Jul 20 2010, 04:07
Post #28





Group: Members
Posts: 3404
Joined: 1-September 05
From: SE Pennsylvania
Member No.: 24233



QUOTE (andrew22690 @ Jul 19 2010, 23:00) *
forced joint stereo
This mode will force MS joint stereo on all frames. It's slightly faster than joint stereo, but it should be used only if you are sure that every frame of the input file has very little stereo separation.

Where on earth did you get this from? It is totally wrong. There is no such thing as "forced joint stereo".
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Aleron Ives
post Jul 20 2010, 04:07
Post #29





Group: Members
Posts: 189
Joined: 22-March 10
From: California
Member No.: 79208



QUOTE (andrew22690 @ Jul 19 2010, 19:48) *
What is the purpose of ms in the command line?

It forces the stereo mode to always be L/R stereo and prevents M/S stereo from ever being used.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Glenn Gundlach
post Jul 20 2010, 06:22
Post #30





Group: Members
Posts: 369
Joined: 19-April 08
From: LA
Member No.: 52914



QUOTE (dv1989 @ Jul 19 2010, 01:31) *
But such a DC offset caused click would occur between the source WAV files too, which the OP stated does/did not occur. The problem has been identified as being due to LAME not accounting for any lossily-introduced difference between two tracks' last and first samples respectively.

andrew22690, I wonder how your new command line fixed the issue; it doesn't look to me to have anything that would affect this behaviour.


If there is a 0 offset segment between .WAV files that have a DC offset you'll hear 1 click at each boundary but if the files are simply 'played through' you'll hear no clicks at all. This gets into exactly how the the files are recorded onto the CD. If it IS a DC problem, it's quite easy to identify and repair.

To prove this to myself many years back I intentionally cut a .WAV file into 2 pieces with the cut boundary on a large peak and then made a CD with the files back to back with no added space. Surprise surprise, it played fine with no clicks. It's good to know how your equipment works.

G
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Jul 20 2010, 06:42
Post #31





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



We're talking about consecutive tracks ripped from a gapless disc. There will be no DC issue.

Even if there are gaps between tracks and the disc was mastered so terribly that there are audible clicks resulting from DC shifts between tracks at normal listening levels, the likelihood that they occur exactly at the track transition is extremely slim.

Your raising concerns about DC level seems really out of place in this discussion.

This post has been edited by greynol: Jul 20 2010, 09:00


--------------------
I should publish a list of forum idiots.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
robert
post Jul 20 2010, 10:32
Post #32


LAME developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 788
Joined: 22-September 01
Member No.: 5



Andrew, do you use the latest LAME release, version 3.98.4?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
db1989
post Jul 20 2010, 11:29
Post #33





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 5275
Joined: 23-June 06
Member No.: 32180



QUOTE (andrew22690 @ Jul 20 2010, 04:48) *
What is the purpose of ms in the command line?
I'd have thought you'd be able to tell us, since it was you who included it. It's a good idea to be aware of the purpose of an option before using it.

QUOTE (andrew22690 @ Jul 20 2010, 04:00) *
Nevermind I found it.

forced joint stereo
This mode will force MS joint stereo on all frames. It's slightly faster than joint stereo, but it should be used only if you are sure that every frame of the input file has very little stereo separation.


Do you think this could mess up the gap?
That explanation is for -mf, not -ms. -ms forces simple stereo, which is inadvisable for reasons already given. And no, the stereo coding mode will have no effect on the gap issue whatsoever.

This post has been edited by Peter: Jul 20 2010, 12:38
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Jul 20 2010, 16:45
Post #34





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



QUOTE (dv1989 @ Jul 20 2010, 03:29) *
the stereo coding mode will have no effect on the gap issue whatsoever.

I don't know that I'd say this, though I would not expect one setting to be consistently better or worse than the other.


--------------------
I should publish a list of forum idiots.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Alex B
post Jul 20 2010, 17:49
Post #35





Group: Members
Posts: 1303
Joined: 14-September 05
From: Helsinki, Finland
Member No.: 24472



It would be nice to have the samples available as requested earlier so that the effect of different encoding settings could be evaluated. The 15 last seconds of the first track and the 15 first seconds of the second track would be fine (naturally these must be cut from lossless source tracks).


--------------------
http://listening-tests.freetzi.com
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
db1989
post Jul 20 2010, 18:19
Post #36





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 5275
Joined: 23-June 06
Member No.: 32180



QUOTE (greynol @ Jul 20 2010, 16:45) *
QUOTE (dv1989 @ Jul 20 2010, 03:29) *
the stereo coding mode will have no effect on the gap issue whatsoever.
I don't know that I'd say this, though I would not expect one setting to be consistently better or worse than the other.
That's a better way to put it. I think I must have been made overzealous by my crusade against simple stereo! wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Case
post Jul 20 2010, 18:50
Post #37





Group: Developer (Donating)
Posts: 2221
Joined: 19-October 01
From: Finland
Member No.: 322



These are not original poster's samples but they have worked reliably for showing gapless issues for me. part 1 and part 2.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
googlebot
post Jul 20 2010, 19:26
Post #38





Group: Members
Posts: 698
Joined: 6-March 10
Member No.: 78779



QUOTE (greynol @ Jul 3 2010, 21:47) *
Gapless playback without pops/clicks/etc. with lossy is not a guarantee.


I think this statement is a little bold. The reported problem is due to the fact that LAME's gapless handling is incomplete. It is no necessary property of lossy encoding to suffer from this. The decoder needs complete information about how to reconstruct the original file's start and end. That's only very few samples. Additionally it needs exact length and offset information of the encoded data vs. the original. It just hasn't been implemented as good as it could.

I have never had trouble with Quicktime AAC files, but I don't know if it actually has a better implementation or if it is just such a rare phenomenon.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Jul 20 2010, 19:30
Post #39





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



QUOTE (googlebot @ Jul 20 2010, 11:26) *
The reported problem is due to the fact that LAME's gapless handling is incomplete.

If you mean to say that its ability to tell the player which samples to play back and which to ignore as padding in incomplete, then your statement is nonsense. LAME does in fact provide "exact length and offset information of the encoded data vs. the original." If you mean that LAME is lacking some other method like overlapping encoded data as well as storing proper information to make sure the redundant part of the overlapped data is ignored to ensure the best possible transition (similar to the pcutmp3 approach, but for multiple tracks as the source), then yes there may be room for improvement.

Have you looked at the samples provided by Case above?

The issue isn't the number of samples, it is an audible discontinuity in amplitude between the last sample of one file and first sample of the next file. When I say first and last samples, I am not including padding. This problem is inherent in the nature of lossy encoding in general, not limited to LAME or any other particular lossy encoder.

It isn't like this hasn't been said before. Feel free to go back and read this discussion again.

Gapless playback without pops/clicks/etc. with lossy is not a guarantee.

This post has been edited by greynol: Jul 21 2010, 02:40


--------------------
I should publish a list of forum idiots.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
andrew22690
post Jul 20 2010, 20:25
Post #40





Group: Members
Posts: 22
Joined: 3-July 10
Member No.: 82012



QUOTE (robert @ Jul 20 2010, 11:32) *
Andrew, do you use the latest LAME release, version 3.98.4?


Yes! 3.98.4 this is the Lame command I am using now -V0 --add-id3v2 --pad-id3v2 --ta "%a" --tt "%t" --tg "%m" --tl "%g" --ty "%y" --tn "%n" %s %d
. It hasn't totaly got rid of the click but it is now less obvious. From the Lame wiki site it has %m that apparently should not be in there. should I just edit this out?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Jul 20 2010, 20:26
Post #41





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



QUOTE (andrew22690 @ Jul 20 2010, 12:25) *
From the Lame wiki site it has %m that apparently should not be in there. should I just edit this out?

Why not just use -V0 %s %d and simply let EAC tag the files for you?

This post has been edited by greynol: Jul 20 2010, 23:08


--------------------
I should publish a list of forum idiots.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
trout
post Jul 20 2010, 22:49
Post #42





Group: Members
Posts: 424
Joined: 26-March 09
Member No.: 68400



QUOTE (andrew22690 @ Jul 20 2010, 15:25) *
From the Lame wiki site it has %m that apparently should not be in there.

Did you assume this was related to the -m <stereo mode> switch? Let me explain why this conclusion is false.

For whatever reason, you have chosen to use LAME's command line tagging capability instead of letting EAC automatically handle the tagging. LAME's format for adding a genre tag is --tg "genre". %m is an EAC placeholder variable which will automatically insert the current genre data, that was entered in the main window, for the disc you're ripping (so we don't have to type specific metadata into the command line for each ripping session). So removing "%m" will only break genre tagging, if not the entire encoding process.

If you do not have a specific reason to use LAME's tagging capability instead of EAC's, you can follow greynol's advice - which also happens to echo the instructions in the hydrogenaudio wiki guide for EAC and LAME:
QUOTE (with minor edits)
  • If you wish to have EAC tag your files, you can safely tick Add ID3 tag; and in the Additional command line options box, copy and paste the following string:
    CODE
    -V0 %s %d

  • If you wish not to have tags or prefer to have EAC pass along data so that Lame can do the tagging ...
    [optional command lines]


This post has been edited by trout: Jul 20 2010, 22:59
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Jul 20 2010, 22:59
Post #43





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



I was thinking he found some article discouraging --tg "%m" because of problems which previous versions of Lame had when being passed an unrecognized genre. If you check the history for the wiki article you linked, you'll see we used to include a caveat about this.

I just want to make sure there aren't more articles in need of editing. If this Lame wiki article is not part of the Hydrogenaudio wiki (wiki.hydrogenaudio.org) or the official LAME web page (lame.sourceforge.net) then I'd actually prefer not to have it listed here. There are far too many guides giving sub-standard advice about Lame and/or EAC. They don't need any additional visibility. If this wiki article is part of HA then I'd like to know which one it is so that we can review it.

This post has been edited by greynol: Jul 20 2010, 23:18


--------------------
I should publish a list of forum idiots.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
andrew22690
post Jul 20 2010, 23:34
Post #44





Group: Members
Posts: 22
Joined: 3-July 10
Member No.: 82012



Here is the link to the wiki.

http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=EAC_and_Lame

This post has been edited by greynol: Jul 21 2010, 21:47
Reason for edit: Removed unnecessary full quotation of the previous post.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Jul 20 2010, 23:55
Post #45





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



Ok, so it would seem you need to read Trout's reply again.


--------------------
I should publish a list of forum idiots.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
andrew22690
post Jul 21 2010, 02:21
Post #46





Group: Members
Posts: 22
Joined: 3-July 10
Member No.: 82012



Thank's Greynol now I get it.

This post has been edited by greynol: Jul 21 2010, 21:46
Reason for edit: Removed unnecessary quotation of the previous post.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
googlebot
post Jul 21 2010, 02:48
Post #47





Group: Members
Posts: 698
Joined: 6-March 10
Member No.: 78779



QUOTE (greynol @ Jul 20 2010, 20:30) *
Gapless playback without pops/clicks/etc. with lossy is not a guarantee.


I don't know why you focus on length and offset. I had said "additionally".. It would not take up to much space to save enough metadata for virtually lossless reconstruction of the first and last few samples, but that feature has obviously not been implemented, yet. For any lossless codec this could be guaranteed, though, with sufficient effort.

This post has been edited by googlebot: Jul 21 2010, 02:52
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Diow
post Jul 21 2010, 03:22
Post #48





Group: Members
Posts: 94
Joined: 4-June 06
From: Ponta Grossa,PR
Member No.: 31450



Sorry by the mistake I missed the part "the Glitch is always in the same spot it and is not showing up in the WAV file, only the encoded Lame file".


--------------------
Sorry for my bad english.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Andavari
post Jul 21 2010, 05:57
Post #49





Group: Members
Posts: 935
Joined: 3-June 02
From: USA
Member No.: 2204



Like the example provided by Case in this post what I've always did when wanting to use mp3 via LAME when it doesn't encode perfectly gapless is to do a very short micro-seconds length fades on the problem tracks. The fades are so short it sounds gapless, even though it technically isn't.


--------------------
Complexity of incoherent design.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Jul 21 2010, 07:27
Post #50





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



QUOTE (googlebot @ Jul 20 2010, 18:48) *
For any lossless codec this could be guaranteed, though, with sufficient effort.

We aren't talking about lossless codecs; it seems from your post that you don't know of any lossy codecs. I'm not speaking for all of eternity, mind you, I'm commenting on the state of things today. I won't hold my breath on solutions, but I suppose it's fun to think of some. smile.gif

QUOTE (googlebot @ Jul 20 2010, 18:48) *
I don't know why you focus on length and offset. I had said "additionally"

Additionally to what, this:
QUOTE (googlebot @ Jul 20 2010, 11:26) *
The decoder needs complete information about how to reconstruct the original file's start and end. That's only very few samples.
?

It didn't seem clear to me at the time that you talking about something other than length and offset. What do you propose about the transition from the area where there is complete information back to the area where there is no complete information? Are you suggesting some method of fading in and out some kind of fudge-factor?

I hope you realize that every lossy codec in existence will need to have such a solution for my statement to be false.

This post has been edited by greynol: Jul 21 2010, 18:47


--------------------
I should publish a list of forum idiots.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >
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: 18th September 2014 - 12:09