IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

> Upload forum rules

- No over 30 sec clips of copyrighted music. Cite properly and never more than necessary for the discussion.


- No copyrighted software without permission.


- Click here for complete Hydrogenaudio Terms of Service

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Verify waste sample (Lame cbr 128)
Schlotter
post Jun 6 2007, 17:15
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 15-March 02
Member No.: 1527



Could anybody verify my listening test? I can hear horrible artifacts with Lame 3.98b3 and Lame 3.97 --preset cbr 128. At 192kbps its ok. What is this around the guitar-echo? Lame 3.96 sounds better with --preset cbr 128.
Attached File(s)
Attached File  waste_original.flac ( 1.83MB ) Number of downloads: 199
 
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
shadowking
post Jun 7 2007, 08:12
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 1523
Joined: 31-January 04
Member No.: 11664



Confirmed nasty warbling on 128~160 cbr/abr. At 128~160, it is not uncommon for different LAME versions to do different things. High quality settings (V2 +) are more secure with all the versions. Differences are only on killer samples. At lower bitrates there is a phenom of artifacts appearing on one version but not the other / on new vbr and not old vbr and vice versa. I also believe you can get reasonable security with cbr/abr no matter what the encoder version is - but only at high bitrates (192 +).


--------------------
Wavpack -b450
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Schlotter
post Jun 9 2007, 15:49
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 15-March 02
Member No.: 1527



I personally prefer -V 2 --vbr-new. I just don't know what make this sample so hard to encode proberly. Only Lame 3.98b3 and 3.97 sound crummy on this with --preset cbr 128, far worse than 3.88 with -b 128 -h !?

This post has been edited by Schlotter: Jun 9 2007, 15:51
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
shadowking
post Jun 9 2007, 16:24
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 1523
Joined: 31-January 04
Member No.: 11664



3.88 used a different psymodel. Its possible that an inferior encoder does better on the odd sample. Generally cbr 128 is a bad idea for quality -v5 is more interesting.


--------------------
Wavpack -b450
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Schlotter
post Jun 11 2007, 18:00
Post #5





Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 15-March 02
Member No.: 1527



Do you think waste_original is a killer sample? I can hear the difference --> original --> preset insane (ABX15/15) . Preset standard work fine on this sample with all versions, but not perfect.

Another one: mama_original.flac (just guitar strumming)

Lame 3.98b3 & 3.97:
preset cbr 128 --> worst, described as "warbling"
-V 5 --> less warbling, audibly there, no alternative !

Lame 3.96:
preset cbr 128 --> better, slight warbling
-V 5 --> same

Lame 3.88:
-128 -q 2 --> best in my opinion

If I had to choose a version, it would probably be 3.96 with -V 5 or 3.88 with -b 128 -q 2 for mp3 at low bitrates ~ 128kbps.

Addendum: Second test I used Sony CD-MDR 370 headphones, at night. 3.96 with V 5 --> slightly more worse than --preset cbr 128.

This post has been edited by Schlotter: Jun 20 2007, 15:29
Attached File(s)
Attached File  mama_original.flac ( 1.08MB ) Number of downloads: 223
 
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kjn_Wds
post Jun 11 2007, 18:59
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: 11-June 07
Member No.: 44246



QUOTE (Schlotter @ Jun 9 2007, 15:49) *
I personally prefer -V 2 --vbr-new. I just don't know what make this sample so hard to encode proberly. Only Lame 3.98b3 and 3.97 sound crummy on this with --preset cbr 128, far worse than 3.88 with -b 128 -h !?



can anybody please explain me what -b## (and maybe also -mj) switches are \ howdo they work work : ?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kjn_Wds
post Jun 12 2007, 10:24
Post #7





Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: 11-June 07
Member No.: 44246



QUOTE (Kjn_Wds @ Jun 11 2007, 18:59) *
QUOTE (Schlotter @ Jun 9 2007, 15:49) *

I personally prefer -V 2 --vbr-new. I just don't know what make this sample so hard to encode proberly. Only Lame 3.98b3 and 3.97 sound crummy on this with --preset cbr 128, far worse than 3.88 with -b 128 -h !?



can anybody please explain me what -b## (and maybe also -mj) switches are \ howdo they work work : ?




Solved, btw smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Schlotter
post Jun 13 2007, 16:40
Post #8





Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 15-March 02
Member No.: 1527



Second test: 3.88 (-b 128 q2), 3.90, 3.91, 3.92 (--alt-preset 128, --alt-preset cbr 128, -V 6), 3.93.1, 3.96, 3.97, 3.98b3 (--preset cbr 128, --preset 128, -V 5).

Only 3.97 and 3.98b3 seems to have the problem with this heavy warbling at bitrates around 128kbps on both samples.

Add
ABC/HR CBR 128 Results: mama_cbr128_test
ABC/HR V 6/V 5 Results: mama_V_test
ABC/HR ABR 128 Results: mama_abr128_test

This post has been edited by Schlotter: Jun 23 2007, 16:05
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: 23rd July 2014 - 21:52