Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: --alt-preset standard vs. my custom switches... (Read 28656 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

--alt-preset standard vs. my custom switches...

Reply #25 –
Quote
Well, the USAGE file would need to be updated.
But it seems to me that the html documentation is not promoting "exotic" switches, is it?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=257111"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, the examples I linked above are perpetrating one pure myth (-h) and something I'm not sure is particularly useful to anybody anymore and might be a myth too (-f). The HTML command line reference, and all the command line references in my opinion, are going over options that really have no point whatsoever and are just confusing people right now, because their descriptions are hopelessly incorrect. Examples: -h, --allshort, --athtype, -m, --short, --vbr-old, --vbr-new, -X. All these things are either completely obviated by other things or basically shouldn't be used by anybody. So why have them? Plus most of the rest of the options, while quite useful to some people, are easily abused.

More generally, I see this documentation gap where it isn't quite drilled deep enough into peoples' heads that they need to be using the presets unless they have good objective reasons not to. Presets aren't nearly as prominent as they should be. If somebody comes out of reading the manual and ever gets the idea that it's better to roll his/her own command line for transparent encoding rather than using one of the presets, without ABXing, I'd say that is fundamentally a documentation problem.

--alt-preset standard vs. my custom switches...

Reply #26 –
This is why there is a basic switch reference and a full switch reference.
The basic options should be safe.
The full reference is there because otherwise people complain because some switches are not documented. I should perhaps add a disclaimer to the full list.

--alt-preset standard vs. my custom switches...

Reply #27 –
Quote
This is why there is a basic switch reference and a full switch reference.
The basic options should be safe.
The full reference is there because otherwise people complain because some switches are not documented. I should perhaps add a disclaimer to the full list.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=257127"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Yes, please make clear which switches are safe to use, which are experimental and/or which have known issues.

--alt-preset standard vs. my custom switches...

Reply #28 –
Quote
Quote
<snip>
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Oh, by all means, use the LAME documentation to find the settings right for you. Because hey, when the command line help, the [a href="http://lame.sourceforge.net/USAGE]USAGE[/url], the manual, and the examples say exactly the same thing, who are you going to trust - the developers who wrote the documentation, or a bunch of forum hecklers?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=257075"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I've got lost now - remind me - which of us was being sarcastic?

Cheers,
David.

--alt-preset standard vs. my custom switches...

Reply #29 –
Quote
I've got lost now - remind me - which of us was being sarcastic?

Cheers,
David.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=257171"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Both of us?

--alt-preset standard vs. my custom switches...

Reply #30 –
Quote
This is why there is a basic switch reference and a full switch reference.
The basic options should be safe.
The full reference is there because otherwise people complain because some switches are not documented. I should perhaps add a disclaimer to the full list.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=257127"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes, I think a disclaimer and a dichotomy of options is definitely the way to go. I'm mostly bickering about the style of how it is done, rather than the overall organization. Specifically, the basic command line reference doesn't mention the presets at all also mentions options that should never be used (-h and -f). The long command line reference should only be something that people refer to when they have specific hardware or software requirements, not when trying to tweak quality settings.

--alt-preset standard vs. my custom switches...

Reply #31 –
Quote
Specifically, the basic command line reference doesn't mention the presets at all
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=257180"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Maybe this is because from Lame 3.95 on you do not need the --presets any more as all CBR, ABR and VBR settings are mapped to the presets. Actually, if you want to use something in between --preset medium and --preset standard you can only access this mode via -V3. I think this preset mapping was one of the best decisions since the "invention" of Lame, as probably most users dealing with Lame 3.90-3.93 don't know about the presets and use the standard gpsycho mode, mostly with "True" (haha) stereo. I think the best way would be to drop the talk about "presets" in the documentation since they are used by default anyway. It should be pointed out that the best quality is achieved with the VBR modes, with -V2 being the "recommended" setting if transparency is desired. Also the target bitrates of the V modes should be mentioned, IMHO. After this, ABR and CBR modes should be briefly mentioned and their disadvantages pointed out. It should also be explicitly stated that no extra options like -m s or practically anything should be used because it would lead to inferior results.
Proverb for Paranoids: "If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers."
-T. Pynchon (Gravity's Rainbow)

--alt-preset standard vs. my custom switches...

Reply #32 –
Quote
mentions options that should never be used (-h and -f)

Why should they never be used? Sometimes you need more speed.

--alt-preset standard vs. my custom switches...

Reply #33 –
I guess I was mistaken about the presets - -V is definitely the better way to go. I was under the impression that neither -h nor -f were recommended nor actively developed or tested, I could definitely be mistaken.

--alt-preset standard vs. my custom switches...

Reply #34 –
CRC checks are more or less completely useless unless you use them for verifying during streaming... and since they take up space they actually lower quality.

--alt-preset standard vs. my custom switches...

Reply #35 –
Quote
CRC checks are more or less completely useless unless you use them for verifying during streaming... and since they take up space they actually lower quality.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=257265"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I was about to call BS on that one, but decided to check to make sure. Sure enough, the increase in size does not match exactly the extra 16-bit CRC per frame. Not only that, but the bit reservoirs are changed. The files are clearly not encoded the same.

Now that blows my mind, because I figured the file would just be encoded as normal with checksums computed and just stuck on after a frame is encoded, without affecting the bit reservoir. Interesting indeed. Now that I think about it I suppose this would make sense for CBR and ABR, since the encoder is more or less confined to a certain bitrate. I figured VBR wouldn't care, but apparently it works the same--the CRC affects all modes.

--alt-preset standard vs. my custom switches...

Reply #36 –
So... What exactly is wrong with -h? -q0 I know about, but -h is equivalent to -q2, and I've never heard anything bad about that. Heck, I even posted a while back troubleshooting a commandline with -h in it and Gabriel himself didn't say a thing about it.

--alt-preset standard vs. my custom switches...

Reply #37 –
In 3.96.1, the VBR presets default to q3, so you'd be changing that...

--alt-preset standard vs. my custom switches...

Reply #38 –
For the presets, sure, it makes sense. They chose q3 because nobody could ABX between Q2, and it saved time. But let's say the slightly lesser presets. I encode MP3s of my band for internet download using the -V5 --athaa-sensitivity 1 setting, because it saves bandwidth and the time of people who are downloading it. What harm, if any, would using the -h switch in addition to the above do?

--alt-preset standard vs. my custom switches...

Reply #39 –
Different people will probably have some different opinions, but I personnaly see nothing wrong in using -h with 3.96.1.

--alt-preset standard vs. my custom switches...

Reply #40 –
If the presets all use q3 but -h (q2) is recommended in the documentation for high quality encoding. It makes me feel like I should always use the -Vx switch in combination with -h.

The confusion needs clearing up.

--alt-preset standard vs. my custom switches...

Reply #41 –
Quote
If the presets all use q3 but -h (q2) is recommended in the documentation for high quality encoding. It makes me feel like I should always use the -Vx switch in combination with -h.

The confusion needs clearing up.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=257321"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Unfortunately, me too!
Sorry for my poor English, I'm trying to get better... ;)
"The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled, was convincing the world he didn't exist."

--alt-preset standard vs. my custom switches...

Reply #42 –
Interesting... Maybe I'll do some ABX tests when I get home. I am dreading it though; ABXing at this level is extremely fatiguing...

--alt-preset standard vs. my custom switches...

Reply #43 –
Quote
They chose q3 because nobody could ABX between Q2, and it saved time.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=257309"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

In recent LAME versions -q3 is the equivalent of the old -q2 (aka -h). v3.94b introduced a new -q option and that bumped the old options' numbers by one. I.e. -q0 became -q1, -q1 became -q2 and so on.

Quote
LAME 3.94 beta December 15 2003

    * Takehiro Tominaga:
          o fixed block switching of nspsytune
          o best huffman divide in the inner loop. This should improve the quality,
              but PAINFULLY slow. So it is not enabled by default. Use -q0 to use it.
          o Changed -q option mapping. "-q2" until version 3.93 is now "-q3".

--alt-preset standard vs. my custom switches...

Reply #44 –
Quote
Quote
They chose q3 because nobody could ABX between Q2, and it saved time.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=257309"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

In recent LAME versions -q3 is the equivalent of the old -q2 (aka -h). v3.94b introduced a new -q option and that bumped the old options' numbers by one. I.e. -q0 became -q1, -q1 became -q2 and so on.

Quote
LAME 3.94 beta December 15 2003

    * Takehiro Tominaga:
          o fixed block switching of nspsytune
          o best huffman divide in the inner loop. This should improve the quality,
              but PAINFULLY slow. So it is not enabled by default. Use -q0 to use it.
          o Changed -q option mapping. "-q2" until version 3.93 is now "-q3".

[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=257888"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I've been reading here that the new qval 0 is not working well in newer verions of
lame. 3.95.x on newer. Please can some one clear this up. I though that q2 gave
the best speed:quality. Q1 is even higher quality but slower and q0 is the very
best but also very, very slow.

Is this q3 what q2 was and q0 is now even higher quality ?

Thank in advance and this is the best most informitive site ever. Is it also possible
to note the qval settings in the FAQ ? 
Death is the one thing we all face

--alt-preset standard vs. my custom switches...

Reply #45 –
Okay, let's break 'em down...
Quote
-b 160 -m s -h -p -V 0 -B 160 -F -t --vbr-new -Y
Just plain stupid. by setting min and max bitrate to 160kbps, you've essentially told Lame to make a 160kbps CBR MP3. The -p is harmful to quality and probably useless for your purposes.
Quote
-b 256 -m s -h -p -V 0 -B 256 -F -t --vbr-new -Y
This is dumb for all the same reasons except this time you will essentially get a 256kbps CBR MP3.
Quote
--alt-preset standard -p -Y -V 0
Why are you so intent on using -p and -V 0? -V 0 will mostly just make the MP3's bigger (if you actually let them be VBR unlike in your previous example).
Quote
--alt-preset extreme -p -Y -V 0
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=256877"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

--alt-preset standard vs. my custom switches...

Reply #46 –
what about this one;

--abr 256 -q0 --nspsytune --athtype 2 --lowpass 20.0 --ns-bass -6

I've seen a few "experts" who recommend it for optimal results at 256kbps, yet I have a feeling it's not..

--alt-preset standard vs. my custom switches...

Reply #47 –
Quote
what about this one;
--abr 256 -q0 --nspsytune --athtype 2 --lowpass 20.0 --ns-bass -6
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=261869"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

this is just ridiculous! If someone really likes to have such high bitrates, it would be the best to just use --preset extreme
--alt-presets are there for a reason! These other switches DO NOT work better than it, trust me on this.
LAME + Joint Stereo doesn't destroy 'Stereo'

--alt-preset standard vs. my custom switches...

Reply #48 –
Repeat after me: the --alt-presets are there for a reason! These other switches DO NOT work better then it, trust me on this.
iTunes 10 - Mac OS X 10.6
256kbps AAC VBR
iPhone 4 32GB

--alt-preset standard vs. my custom switches...

Reply #49 –
Quote
what about this one;

--abr 256 -q0 --nspsytune --athtype 2 --lowpass 20.0 --ns-bass -6

With 3.96.1, if you want to achieve 256kbps abr, you should use:
--abr 256