IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Enconding @ V0, Need help here please!
calcif3r
post May 19 2009, 00:12
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 3
Joined: 13-May 08
Member No.: 53495



Hi there!

First of all I would like to apologise for my english, since it isn't my "main language" as also if I'm posting on the wrong section/topic.

My problem is the following:

I'm using the iTunes-LAME software from Blacktree (which uses LAME 3.97) to encode my audio CD's collection onto mp3, since iTunes hasn't great reviews for encoding.
I'm a little obsessed and perfectionist with my things, so I've defined that the best encoding bitrate for me is the V 0. The problem is that this program that I use, uses command lines which I don't understand much of it. I've already read some documentation and yet I feel a little bit lost.
I would like to know if the command line "--preset extreme" is enought or if there is a more correct command line.

Thank you for all your attention and help. And once more I apologise for my english or/and any other inconvenient.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ZinCh
post May 19 2009, 00:51
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 171
Joined: 28-September 06
Member No.: 35705



3.97 use old vbr method by default, so you need to use " -V0 --vbr-new " or " --preset fast extreme " for better result with it
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kornchild2002
post May 19 2009, 05:40
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 2071
Joined: 8-April 05
From: Cincinnati, OH
Member No.: 21277



I also suggest that you conduct some blind ABX tests to determine if -V 0 --vbr-new is right for you. Many people find that -V 0 is overkill (too high) for their needs and are perfectly happy with lower settings such as -V 5, -V 4, -V 3, and -V 2. That way you don't fill your hard drive (and/or portable device) with files that have a bitrate that is too high for your needs. You can use Google to find some Mac OS X ABX applications.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Manu
post May 19 2009, 14:12
Post #4





Group: Banned
Posts: 21
Joined: 13-October 01
Member No.: 285



I wouldn't use 3.97. If you can't switch it to 3.98.2, then try something other than iTunes.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
probedb
post May 19 2009, 14:19
Post #5





Group: Members
Posts: 1208
Joined: 6-September 04
Member No.: 16817



QUOTE (Manu @ May 19 2009, 14:12) *
I wouldn't use 3.97. If you can't switch it to 3.98.2, then try something other than iTunes.


Why not? Just wondering.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Manu
post May 19 2009, 14:25
Post #6





Group: Banned
Posts: 21
Joined: 13-October 01
Member No.: 285



3.98.2 is the latest of Lame, why would you settle for anything less?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kornchild2002
post May 19 2009, 18:04
Post #7





Group: Members
Posts: 2071
Joined: 8-April 05
From: Cincinnati, OH
Member No.: 21277



Well, Lame 3.97 continues to provide transparent results for many people (I would even say most people) at -V 3 and above. Let me pose this question: why would anyone upgrade if the older encoder provides the same results while using lower overall bitrates? Technically, I do agree that Lame 3.98.2 is better and my blind ABX results show that it is better for me. However, there are many people still using 3.97 as it still provides transparent results.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Manu
post May 19 2009, 19:23
Post #8





Group: Banned
Posts: 21
Joined: 13-October 01
Member No.: 285



Lame is updated for a reason. Like you said, better results with ABX. I have even been testing Lame 3.99 alpha 1, waiting for the new stable release to come out.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
[JAZ]
post May 19 2009, 19:28
Post #9





Group: Members
Posts: 1772
Joined: 24-June 02
From: Catalunya(Spain)
Member No.: 2383



QUOTE (Manu @ May 19 2009, 15:25) *
3.98.2 is the latest of Lame, why would you settle for anything less?


This is a very bad answer, especially when you first tell not to use a previous one.

So if i haven't been clear, refrain from suggesting things based on your likings, except if the thread is especifically about likings.


3.98 is newer, yes. 3.98 is an improvement, sure. Yet, there haven been several threads (low CBR settings as one), were it was shown that the improvements actually didn't work well.
This is just an example of why you shouldn't be so strong about what you've suggested. I could give more.


@ calcif3r:
ZinCh gave you the correct answer. You may also try what kornchild2002 has suggested you, as you may get surprised of how low a bitrate you actually need for common situations.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
/mnt
post May 19 2009, 20:07
Post #10





Group: Members
Posts: 697
Joined: 22-April 06
Member No.: 29877



LAME 3.97 is still a good encoder to use, when you use --vbr-new. I have doing some small personal listening tests last year, and i found that LAME 3.97 can produce more transparent results then LAME 3.98 at V3, but the artifacts on LAME 3.97 usaully sound worse IMO.


--------------------
"I never thought I'd see this much candy in one mission!"
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
halb27
post May 19 2009, 20:13
Post #11





Group: Members
Posts: 2425
Joined: 9-October 05
From: Dormagen, Germany
Member No.: 25015



QUOTE (/mnt @ May 19 2009, 20:07) *
... but the artifacts on LAME 3.97 usaully sound worse IMO.

I second that.
Most people like to use VBR, and with this there is progress with 3.98 as far as worst case behavior is concerned.
3.98's quality is more homogenous.


--------------------
lame3100m -V1 --insane-factor 0.75
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Manu
post May 19 2009, 20:14
Post #12





Group: Banned
Posts: 21
Joined: 13-October 01
Member No.: 285



QUOTE (/mnt @ May 19 2009, 15:07) *
LAME 3.97 is still a good encoder to use, when you use --vbr-new. I have doing some small personal listening tests last year, and i found that LAME 3.97 can produce more transparent results then LAME 3.98 at V3, but the artifacts on LAME 3.97 usaully sound worse IMO.

I agree about the artifacts with LAME 3.97, they do usually sound worse.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
calcif3r
post May 19 2009, 21:12
Post #13





Group: Members
Posts: 3
Joined: 13-May 08
Member No.: 53495



I don't understand much of audio encoding and I've always used programs like AudioGrabber and AudioCatalyst for encoding my audio collection.
Since I've started to use a Mac I've started to pay a little more attention to it. By what I've read iTunes is one of the worst encoders out there, yet I think it's one of the best players and mp3 managers. Recently I've discovered this wonderful program to encode with Lame using iTunes: iTunes-LAME. Unfortunately the latest version of this program uses 3.97, then I can't use a more recent version of LAME.
If someone knows a great alternative to this program, I'm willing to give a try. smile.gif
Just remember that it has to be Mac OSX compatible.

The reason I've choosen the quality V0 it might sound a little "stupid".
One of my favourite bands (Nine Inch Nails), released their latest album on MP3 (and other audio formats). And the encoding they've used was with LAME set at V0. So I've decided to use this one has my standard. I've also read on the hydrogenaudio wiki that the V0 was great for Home Hi-Fi listening.

What really want is to establish a standard encoding setting/quality. I've already encoded with various different programs and with different qualities and I'm a little tired of always changing things.

By the way, is there any difference between using "-V 0 --vbr-new" and "-V0 --vbr-new" ? Does that gap affects anything? What is the most correct one? Do I get more quality with "--preset fast extreme"?

Thanks for all your attention and help. smile.gif
And once more, sorry for eventual spelling errors.

This post has been edited by calcif3r: May 19 2009, 21:16
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
/mnt
post May 19 2009, 21:23
Post #14





Group: Members
Posts: 697
Joined: 22-April 06
Member No.: 29877



QUOTE (calcif3r @ May 19 2009, 21:12) *
Do I get more quality with "--preset fast extreme"?


Nope, its the same as "-V 0 --vbr-new" since LAME 3.94.


--------------------
"I never thought I'd see this much candy in one mission!"
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kornchild2002
post May 19 2009, 21:33
Post #15





Group: Members
Posts: 2071
Joined: 8-April 05
From: Cincinnati, OH
Member No.: 21277



QUOTE (calcif3r @ May 19 2009, 14:12) *
If someone knows a great alternative to this program, I'm willing to give a try. smile.gif
Just remember that it has to be Mac OSX compatible.


I know many Mac OS X user that go with Max for CD ripping. It allows you to rip to all sorts of formats, I think it is more secure than iTunes (it just won't plow through an error, iTunes does this all the time), and you can update the encoders it uses (this means that you can use Lame 3.98.2 if you wanted to).

QUOTE (calcif3r @ May 19 2009, 14:12) *
One of my favourite bands (Nine Inch Nails), released their latest album on MP3 (and other audio formats). And the encoding they've used was with LAME set at V0. So I've decided to use this one has my standard. I've also read on the hydrogenaudio wiki that the V0 was great for Home Hi-Fi listening.


Trent used that setting to keep his fans happy. He also released Ghosts I-IV encoded at 320kbps CBR with Lame 3.97. Does that mean that it is the best setting? Absolutely not. The best setting for you is one that fits your ears. Feel free to go with -V 0 if you want, just know that your ears more than likely need a bitrate a lot lower in order to be happy.

QUOTE (calcif3r @ May 19 2009, 14:12) *
By the way, is there any difference between using "-V 0 --vbr-new" and "-V0 --vbr-new" ? Does that gap affects anything? What is the most correct one? Do I get more quality with "--preset fast extreme"?


The gaps don't affect anything. -V 0 --vbr-new = -V0 --vbr-new When using Lame, I always put a gap in between the -V and the number. I believe that Lame 3.98.2 can read both versions just fine, I am not sure about Lame 3.97 though. The older command lines have been done away with. So --preset fast extreme = -V 0 --vbr-new The presets were changed to correlate to different -V values (as shown in the Lame wiki chart). -V 0 --vbr-new corresponds to --preset fast extreme, -V 2 --vbr-new corresponds to --alt-preset standard fast, and so on. Stick to using the -V values.

As I said, give Max a try. Many Mac OS X users prefer it over iTunes when it comes to CD ripping. My main gripe about using iTunes to rip CDs is that it will just plow through errors. Smudges, dust, fingerprints, hair, a jittering drive, etc. iTunes will continue to rip a track and not let you know that it encountered an encoding error. This can result in audible noise in your resulting files (such as bleeps, bloops, and small instances of silence). Max will let you know when it has encountered an error, it also has a much better secure ripping mode than iTunes. Lastly, Max is compatible with AccurateRip. This is an online database that contains the ripping information for CDs. Max will compare your rip results to this online database to make sure that they are accurate.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
/mnt
post May 19 2009, 21:43
Post #16





Group: Members
Posts: 697
Joined: 22-April 06
Member No.: 29877



QUOTE (calcif3r @ May 19 2009, 21:12) *
One of my favourite bands (Nine Inch Nails), released their latest album on MP3 (and other audio formats). And the encoding they've used was with LAME set at V0.


I think Trent Reznor decided to use 320 CBR or V0 since there is alot of people on certain sites such as Digg, Slashdot and torrent sites think they need Mp3 bitrates to be higher then 256+, also Apple and Amazon encoding at 256 is also another motive.

This post has been edited by /mnt: May 19 2009, 21:44


--------------------
"I never thought I'd see this much candy in one mission!"
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
odyssey
post May 19 2009, 22:30
Post #17





Group: Members
Posts: 2296
Joined: 18-May 03
From: Denmark
Member No.: 6695



QUOTE (calcif3r @ May 19 2009, 22:12) *
Do I get more quality with "--preset fast extreme"?

If you are demanding more quality just to please your mind, you shouldn't be using mp3 at all. mp3 will always be an assumption of the source and not a pure copy. Maybe you should consider a lossless format like FLAC or ALAC to store your music. This way you keep it exactly the way it was on the CD with no loss of quality.

That said I still believe that mp3 is strong especially for high quality portable solutions at a low bitrate. Personally I store all my music in FLAC and with todays prices of harddrives I can store an extremely large amount of music with no problems. For portable uses I go with lame -v5. To me is has no audible effects, and I can always go back and make a different encode from the source if I like.


--------------------
Can't wait for a HD-AAC encoder :P
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
calcif3r
post May 19 2009, 22:43
Post #18





Group: Members
Posts: 3
Joined: 13-May 08
Member No.: 53495



But doesn't iTunes-LAME program do exactly the same, since it uses a "command line"?

But anyway, I'm willing to give a try with MAX.
But since I'm a n00b (sorry the expression) is anyone there that could help me to set up and configure MAX with the latest version of LAME? I can give my Messenger e-mail.

This post has been edited by calcif3r: May 19 2009, 23:00
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

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: 20th August 2014 - 21:39