IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
VBR V0 Bitrates close to 300 kbps
Degausser
post Jul 5 2012, 19:52
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 5
Joined: 5-July 12
Member No.: 101201



I use EAC + Lame to rip mp3s. I use the setup recommended by Uberstandard, however I use -V0 %s %d instead of -V2 %s %d in the additional command line options. Upon doing this I've noticed that my mp3s often come out to bitrates around or close to 300 kbps. Reading various charts and websites it says V0 is suppose to only be around 245kbps and ranging from 220-260. My bitrates are always substantially greater than that. I've tried several different types of music and they all come out in the high 200 range. Is there something I need to change in the command line to keep the bitrates closer to 245 like V0 is suppose to be? Thanks.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
db1989
post Jul 5 2012, 20:01
Post #2





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



QUOTE
Reading various charts and websites it says V0 is suppose to only be around 245kbps and ranging from 220-260.
VBR encoding is not ‘supposed’ to target any bitrate. VBR targets quality, not bitrate. Any bitrates you see quoted anywhere in reference to any VBR mode are, by definition, based upon a specific and limited set of tracks. Divergence is to be expected. Such figures are for reference only – and sometimes seem to be a little more trouble than they are worth.

QUOTE
Is there something I need to change in the command line to keep the bitrates closer to 245 like V0 is suppose to be?
If you want a lower average bitrate, the solution is simple: use a lower (i.e. numerically higher) VBR setting.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Porcus
post Jul 5 2012, 20:25
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 1842
Joined: 30-November 06
Member No.: 38207



It is a bit strange, though, that all your genres end up in the high 200's. Are you sure that whatever tool you use to measure, doesn't calculate filesize [including metadata!] divided by length?


--------------------
One day in the Year of the Fox came a time remembered well
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
db1989
post Jul 5 2012, 20:29
Post #4





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



A good question, most relevant if embedded artwork is involved.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Degausser
post Jul 5 2012, 20:47
Post #5





Group: Members
Posts: 5
Joined: 5-July 12
Member No.: 101201



QUOTE (Porcus @ Jul 5 2012, 14:25) *
Are you sure that whatever tool you use to measure, doesn't calculate filesize [including metadata!] divided by length?


I have no idea. If you're talking about what I use to find out the bitrate, I just add the folder to iTunes and click on the summary tab and it shows the bitrate for each song.

QUOTE (db1989 @ Jul 5 2012, 14:29) *
A good question, most relevant if embedded artwork is involved.


The songs don't have any embedded artwork.


I know the charts for V0, V1, V2, etc. are just examples and the bitrates can vary, but I think it's weird that everytime I rip at V0 they all hover in the high 200s. I still feel like I have something setup wrong.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
db1989
post Jul 5 2012, 21:07
Post #6





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



QUOTE (Degausser @ Jul 5 2012, 20:47) *
I still feel like I have something setup wrong.
Now that you mention it: Do you have EAC configured to use LAME as a user-defined encoder, rather than the built-in preset for LAME? If not, do so. Because otherwise, the bitrate setting will be interpreted as an instruction for a minimal bitrate, which might inflate the resulting files.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
halb27
post Jul 5 2012, 21:11
Post #7





Group: Members
Posts: 2429
Joined: 9-October 05
From: Dormagen, Germany
Member No.: 25015



3.99 -V0 accuracy demands were increased.
For my test set of various pop music average bitrate is 252 kbps, but bitrate can be higher for specific music.
If you don't like that, use -V1 (which also has increased accuracy compared to 3.98).
By this quality scale is extended at the high end.


--------------------
lame3100m -V1 --insane-factor 0.75
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
db1989
post Jul 5 2012, 21:18
Post #8





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



You’re assuming Degausser is using 3.99. In contrast, if s/he meant “us[ing] the setup recommended by Uberstandard” completely literally, then s/he’ll be using 3.98, as provided in their “Extraction Package” – whose version of EAC is similarly archaic. We’re all left guessing since the version of LAME wasn’t specified, which isn’t much use.

This post has been edited by db1989: Jul 5 2012, 21:21
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
JJZolx
post Jul 5 2012, 21:47
Post #9





Group: Members
Posts: 396
Joined: 26-November 04
Member No.: 18345



I've posted the results of encoding a variety of music at different -V quality levels in a couple of other threads. Most end up in the 220 to 260 kbps average bitrate range, but I did see several over 290 kbps. Overall, LAME 3.99 increased the average bitrate of -V0 encoding compared to 3.98 to the point where you almost have to wonder if something is broken.

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....st&p=796662

Here's a track that jumped from 253 kbps in LAME 3.98.4 to 299 kbps in LAME 3.99.5:

CODE

M:\_Test-MP3>metamp3 --info "Ottmar Liebert - August Moon-V0-rw-3.98.4.mp3"
metamp3 v0.91 - Copyright © 2006 by Tycho

File: Ottmar Liebert - August Moon-V0-rw-3.98.4.mp3

Type : mpeg 1 layer III
Mode : joint stereo
Frequency : 44100 Hz
Frames : 9671
Length : 00:04:12
Max. Reservoir : 208
Av. Reservoir : 66
Emphasis : none
Scalefac : 1.2%
Bad Last Frame : no
Encoder : Lame 3.98

Bitrate (average) : 253
-----------------------------------------------------------
64 0.0%
80 0.0%
96 0.0%
112 0.1%
128 0.4%
160 | 1.4%
192 |||||||||||||||| 15.3%
224 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 36.9%
256 |||||||||||||| 13.2%
320 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 32.6%
-----------------------------------------------------------

Lame Header:

Quality : 100
Version String : Lame 3.98
Tag Revision : 0
VBR Method : vbr-mtrh
Lowpass Filter : 19500
Psycho-acoustic Model : nspsytune
Safe Joint Stereo : yes
nogap (continued) : no
nogap (continuation) : no
ATH Type : 4
ABR Bitrate : 32
Noise Shaping : 1
Stereo Mode : Joint Stereo
Unwise Settings Used : no
Input Frequency : 44.1kHz

ID3 Tags:


M:\_Test-MP3>metamp3 --info "Ottmar Liebert - August Moon-V0-rw-3.99.5.mp3"
metamp3 v0.91 - Copyright © 2006 by Tycho

File: Ottmar Liebert - August Moon-V0-rw-3.99.5.mp3

Type : mpeg 1 layer III
Mode : joint stereo
Frequency : 44100 Hz
Frames : 9671
Length : 00:04:12
Max. Reservoir : 511
Av. Reservoir : 286
Emphasis : none
Scalefac : 3.1%
Bad Last Frame : no
Encoder : Lame 3.99

Bitrate (average) : 299
-----------------------------------------------------------
128 0.0%
160 0.0%
192 0.4%
224 || 4.4%
256 ||||||||||||| 24.4%
320 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 70.7%
-----------------------------------------------------------

Lame Header:

Quality : 100
Version String : Lame 3.99
Tag Revision : 0
VBR Method : vbr-mtrh
Lowpass Filter : 22100
Psycho-acoustic Model : nspsytune
Safe Joint Stereo : yes
nogap (continued) : no
nogap (continuation) : no
ATH Type : 5
ABR Bitrate : 32
Noise Shaping : 1
Stereo Mode : Joint Stereo
Unwise Settings Used : no
Input Frequency : 44.1kHz

ID3 Tags:
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
halb27
post Jul 5 2012, 22:17
Post #10





Group: Members
Posts: 2429
Joined: 9-October 05
From: Dormagen, Germany
Member No.: 25015



For users who often get at an average bitrate close to 300 kbps Omion's lossless mp3packer tool has a good chance to bring down bitrate by a noticeable amount.


--------------------
lame3100m -V1 --insane-factor 0.75
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Degausser
post Jul 5 2012, 22:18
Post #11





Group: Members
Posts: 5
Joined: 5-July 12
Member No.: 101201



I'm using the Uberstandard package which is LAME 3.98 (3.98.2 I believe). Perhaps the high bitrates are just a coincidence with the particular CDs I've extracted, however since you've suggested different versions of LAME produce different results, then maybe it's just the version I have installed which is causing the Bitrates to spike. Weird though, since you said using 3.98.4 the bitrates came out closer to what the V0 chart suggest.

Also, this is a dumb question, but how do you figure out the avg vbr for the entire album?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
halb27
post Jul 5 2012, 22:23
Post #12





Group: Members
Posts: 2429
Joined: 9-October 05
From: Dormagen, Germany
Member No.: 25015



I load all the tracks into foobar, have them marked. Average bitrate is shown when looking at the properties.


--------------------
lame3100m -V1 --insane-factor 0.75
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Destroid
post Jul 5 2012, 22:26
Post #13





Group: Members
Posts: 550
Joined: 4-June 02
Member No.: 2220



QUOTE (JJZolx @ Jul 5 2012, 20:47) *
Overall, LAME 3.99 increased the average bitrate of -V0 encoding compared to 3.98 to the point where you almost have to wonder if something is broken.
Not sure if something broke. I also noticed where VBR 3.99.x was higher than its predecessor.
Same behavior at -V5, summarized:
3.89.4 = 137.8 kbps
3.99.5 = 151.8 kbps

edit: while writing this post OP submitted to using 3.98 and not 3.99.

This post has been edited by Destroid: Jul 5 2012, 22:47


--------------------
"Something bothering you, Mister Spock?"
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
db1989
post Jul 5 2012, 22:32
Post #14





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



QUOTE (Degausser @ Jul 5 2012, 22:18) *
I'm using the Uberstandard package which is LAME 3.98 (3.98.2 I believe).
OK, and does that have LAME set to a user-defined encoder, as I asked earlier?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
JJZolx
post Jul 5 2012, 22:32
Post #15





Group: Members
Posts: 396
Joined: 26-November 04
Member No.: 18345



QUOTE (Degausser @ Jul 5 2012, 15:18) *
Also, this is a dumb question, but how do you figure out the avg vbr for the entire album?


See the text in the codebox I posted above. Using metamp3 (an old command-line mp3 utility) I just read it straight from the --info output. But average bitrate is really just the size of the compressed audio portion of the file divided by the length of time of the recording.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Degausser
post Jul 5 2012, 22:40
Post #16





Group: Members
Posts: 5
Joined: 5-July 12
Member No.: 101201



I'll have to check out both foobar and metamp3

"OK, and does that have LAME set to a user-defined encoder, as I asked earlier?"

Yea, it's set to user-defined encoder

This post has been edited by Degausser: Jul 5 2012, 22:41
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
halb27
post Jul 5 2012, 22:53
Post #17





Group: Members
Posts: 2429
Joined: 9-October 05
From: Dormagen, Germany
Member No.: 25015



3.99's accuracy demands are not higher in general, only for the high quality levels better than -V2.
With -V5 or similar average birate is rather a little bit lower compared to 3.98.
With respect to specific tracks of course things can look different.


--------------------
lame3100m -V1 --insane-factor 0.75
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
splice
post Jul 5 2012, 23:35
Post #18





Group: Members
Posts: 119
Joined: 23-July 03
Member No.: 7935



I've noticed that some bitrate reports, such as the summary produced by "hover over" an mp3 file on Windows Explorer, show the bitrate of the first frame in the file. For VBR, this can be quite different from the bitrate averaged across all the frames.


--------------------
Regards,
Don Hills
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
db1989
post Jul 6 2012, 07:07
Post #19





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



That does nothing to explain Degausser’s reports of bitrates “close to 300 kbps” or “in the high 200 range”, seeing as bitrates reported by Explorer in that incorrect manner would be restricted to defined per-frame bitrates (e.g. 256 kbps, 320 kbps) by definition.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Degausser
post Jul 6 2012, 17:52
Post #20





Group: Members
Posts: 5
Joined: 5-July 12
Member No.: 101201



Guys, I'm just going to start ripping everything at 320 kbps instead, since many files are coming out in the high 200s. Space is not an issue, but I don't want to go lossless.

Thanks again for everyone who submitted suggestions and and gave input.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
db1989
post Jul 6 2012, 18:02
Post #21





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



Is there some reason that you cannot use a lower setting to obtain the lower average bitrate that you apparently desired?
QUOTE (db1989 @ Jul 5 2012, 20:01) *
QUOTE
Is there something I need to change in the command line to keep the bitrates closer to 245 like V0 is suppose to be?
If you want a lower average bitrate, the solution is simple: use a lower (i.e. numerically higher) VBR setting.
Anyway, many people will probably chime in to tell you that 320 kbps CBR is excessive and wasteful.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Porcus
post Jul 6 2012, 19:04
Post #22





Group: Members
Posts: 1842
Joined: 30-November 06
Member No.: 38207



QUOTE (Degausser @ Jul 6 2012, 18:52) *
Space is not an issue, but I don't want to go lossless.


If space is not an issue, but bitrates are, why not go lossless? Then you can transcode from lossless, and transcode again from lossless with overwrite if the result doesn't suit you.


--------------------
One day in the Year of the Fox came a time remembered well
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
skamp
post Jul 6 2012, 19:44
Post #23





Group: Developer
Posts: 1430
Joined: 4-May 04
From: France
Member No.: 13875



LossyFLAC might be a suiting alternative.

This post has been edited by skamp: Jul 6 2012, 19:47


--------------------
See my profile for measurements, tools and recommendations.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
soundping
post Jul 6 2012, 20:25
Post #24





Group: Members
Posts: 36
Joined: 3-February 12
Member No.: 96900



I ripped the rolling stones "england's newest hit makers" using -V0/CLI: -q0 the average was 128-224 kbps and sounding excellent.

dBpoweramp / Lame 3.99.5 (64bit)

This post has been edited by soundping: Jul 6 2012, 20:30
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
JJZolx
post Jul 6 2012, 20:45
Post #25





Group: Members
Posts: 396
Joined: 26-November 04
Member No.: 18345



QUOTE (soundping @ Jul 6 2012, 13:25) *
I ripped the rolling stones "england's newest hit makers" using -V0/CLI: -q0 the average was 128-224 kbps and sounding excellent.


Do you mean that the average bitrate per track ranged between 128 kbps and 224 kbps? I'd be surprised to see tracks ripped at -V0 averaging 128 kbps unless the audio on the track was very unusual.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
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: 30th August 2014 - 01:59