IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Is it really necessary to re-encode everything to the latest LAME vers
SonicBooom!
post Apr 8 2012, 00:22
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 118
Joined: 16-February 11
Member No.: 88210



The title says it all. I have tons of FLACs and every one of them has a copy in MP3 encoded in LAME 3.98.4 and some are in 3.99.3. 3.99.5 is the new latest version now, should this mean I have to re-encode those FLACs to 3.99.5? I would gladly want to hear opinions of others.


--------------------
sin(α) = v sound/v object = Mach No.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
saratoga
post Apr 8 2012, 00:43
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 5149
Joined: 2-September 02
Member No.: 3264



No.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SonicBooom!
post Apr 8 2012, 01:02
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 118
Joined: 16-February 11
Member No.: 88210



May I ask WHY?


--------------------
sin(α) = v sound/v object = Mach No.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
IgorC
post Apr 8 2012, 01:50
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 1580
Joined: 3-January 05
From: ARG/RUS
Member No.: 18803



QUOTE (SonicBooom! @ Apr 7 2012, 21:02) *
May I ask WHY?

Nobody can answer the question. Only You. Because You will listen your music. Not us.

It all depends of your ears, music, hardware, LAME's settings.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Remedial Sound
post Apr 8 2012, 02:08
Post #5





Group: Members
Posts: 508
Joined: 5-January 06
From: Dublin
Member No.: 26898



The goal of lossy compression like mp3 is to achieve perceptual transparency at bitrates a fraction of the lossless original. Barring the exceptional problem sample, lame, when used properly, has been producing perceptually transparent encodes for quite some time though (going back who-knows-how-many versions).

So if your current mp3s are satisfactorily transparent to you then there's no need to re-encode.

This post has been edited by Remedial Sound: Apr 8 2012, 02:10
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Porcus
post Apr 8 2012, 02:22
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 1995
Joined: 30-November 06
Member No.: 38207



QUOTE (SonicBooom! @ Apr 8 2012, 01:22) *
The title says it all. I have tons of FLACs and every one of them has a copy in MP3 encoded in LAME 3.98.4 and some are in 3.99.3. 3.99.5 is the new latest version now, should this mean I have to re-encode those FLACs to 3.99.5? I would gladly want to hear opinions of others.


Joining in the choir here ...

You haven't even specified what settings you used. There were changes from 3.98.4 to 3.99 intended to improve upon quality. But that is quality for a given bitrate. (Also, some changes were done to the presets, I think, effectively changing the bitrate on a few of those.) So in principle, you could get fewer and less annoying artifacts for given bitrate. Or -- probably a more fruitful point of view -- the same subjective quality at a slightly smaller file.

If there are audible artifacts, then you should change the setting. By all means upgrade the version, but that's probably a smaller difference. (And if you do, check that the presets do mean the same, I think that the 'tuning on VBR scale and resulting bitrates' change to 3.99 means they don't.)

From 3.99.3? Only if you experience the issues addressed in the upgrade: http://lame.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/lam...ml/history.html

This post has been edited by Porcus: Apr 8 2012, 02:24


--------------------
One day in the Year of the Fox came a time remembered well
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
odious malefacto...
post Apr 8 2012, 06:09
Post #7





Group: Members
Posts: 253
Joined: 17-June 03
Member No.: 7228



QUOTE (Porcus @ Apr 7 2012, 17:22) *
From 3.99.3? Only if you experience the issues addressed in the upgrade: http://lame.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/lam...ml/history.html


That link shows LAME 3.100 not yet released and . . . LAME 3.10 May 30 1999 blink.gif ?



This post has been edited by odious malefactor: Apr 8 2012, 06:23
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
indybrett
post Apr 8 2012, 07:29
Post #8





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 1352
Joined: 4-March 02
From: Indianapolis, IN
Member No.: 1440



QUOTE (saratoga @ Apr 7 2012, 18:43) *
No.

What he said.


--------------------
flac>fb2k>kernel streaming>audiophile 2496>magni>dt990 pro
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kornchild2002
post Apr 8 2012, 13:12
Post #9





Group: Members
Posts: 2080
Joined: 8-April 05
From: Cincinnati, OH
Member No.: 21277



Furthermore, the use of a higher bitrate setting may allow you to not have to re-encode with every new release. For example, I have a few 256kbps-320kbps FhG mp3 files from back in the day that sill produce transparent results for me. They are 8 years old now but I have absolutely no reason to re-encode the source material again (I can't find the CDs anyway) because they are still transparent. Don't take that to mean that encoding at such high settings will automatically allow you to just scuff things off or that the high bitrate settings produce better results. I also have a bunch of older (5 years) 160kbps VBR AAC files encoded with iTunes that I am not going to bother replacing despite Apple releasing a few updates to their AAC encoder between then and now. I will encode new material with the updated encoder but I don't see a point in going back when what I have is already transparent to me.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Apr 8 2012, 16:41
Post #10





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10338
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



QUOTE (Porcus @ Apr 7 2012, 18:22) *
(Also, some changes were done to the presets, I think, effectively changing the bitrate on a few of those.)

IIRC, the changes in bit rate resulted in bigger files with the newest version; at least at -V0.

FWIW, I'm still encoding with 3.98.4. It works great for my purposes @-V3 so I haven't bothered to upgrade.

This post has been edited by greynol: Apr 8 2012, 16:53


--------------------
Your eyes cannot hear.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Nessuno
post Apr 8 2012, 16:46
Post #11





Group: Members
Posts: 423
Joined: 16-December 10
From: Palermo
Member No.: 86562



If your goal is to reach the same sound quality with smaller files, a way to have a practical answer to your question is to take a relevant part of your collection, say a tenth, and re-encode it with the same quality target settings as the first time. If the space gain satisfy you then go on, else don't...

And it would be very kind of you to let us know the results. wink.gif


--------------------
... I live by long distance.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
db1989
post Apr 8 2012, 19:44
Post #12





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



QUOTE (odious malefactor @ Apr 8 2012, 06:09) *
QUOTE (Porcus @ Apr 7 2012, 17:22) *
From 3.99.3? Only if you experience the issues addressed in the upgrade: http://lame.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/lam...ml/history.html

That link shows LAME 3.100 not yet released and . . . LAME 3.10 May 30 1999 blink.gif ?

…and…?
Both are true.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
skamp
post Apr 8 2012, 19:57
Post #13





Group: Developer
Posts: 1453
Joined: 4-May 04
From: France
Member No.: 13875



QUOTE (db1989 @ Apr 8 2012, 20:44) *
…and…?


And, you could explain that version numbers aren't decimal numbers. 3.9 < 3.10 < 3.100 because it's really 3 & 9, 3 & 10 and 3 & 100. The mark has no other meaning than to separate two numbers.


--------------------
See my profile for measurements, tools and recommendations.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
db1989
post Apr 8 2012, 20:02
Post #14





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



Oh, great point! My bad.

Yeah, they’re just running out of space in their original numbering scheme. wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
JJZolx
post Apr 8 2012, 23:48
Post #15





Group: Members
Posts: 415
Joined: 26-November 04
Member No.: 18345



There could be few reasons why it would, literally, be "necessary". Perhaps if it was known that the version that had been used to encode your existing files introduced bugs or known sound quality problems, but that's not the case.

Then there's the question of whether or not it's desirable. That's debatable, but there arguably hasn't been much progress in sound quality from 3.98 to 3.99. A few members have even suggested the opposite.

For me, the main reasons for switching to 3.99 have been in usability. You can now embed artwork files larger than 128kB. You can now add TXXX Id3v2 frames when encoding. Since anything new that I transcode from FLAC will be done using 3.99.5, I chose to re-encode the entire existing FLAC library. On my server with about 35k tracks, it takes about 3 days running in the background, which isn't really any more work for me than if it took 3 minutes.

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Apr 8 2012, 23:57
Post #16





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10338
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



Personally I find such usage of electricity wasteful.

Regarding artwork, am I not able to embed a >128kb to my 3.98.4 Lame-encoded mp3 with a program like mp3tag? huh.gif

This post has been edited by greynol: Apr 9 2012, 00:00


--------------------
Your eyes cannot hear.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
splice
post Apr 9 2012, 01:03
Post #17





Group: Members
Posts: 140
Joined: 23-July 03
Member No.: 7935



QUOTE (greynol @ Apr 8 2012, 15:57) *
Personally I find such usage of electricity wasteful. ...


"No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, a large number of electrons were seriously inconvenienced."


--------------------
Regards,
Don Hills
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
JJZolx
post Apr 9 2012, 01:11
Post #18





Group: Members
Posts: 415
Joined: 26-November 04
Member No.: 18345



QUOTE (greynol @ Apr 8 2012, 15:57) *
Regarding artwork, am I not able to embed a >128kb to my 3.98.4 Lame-encoded mp3 with a program like mp3tag?


I'm sure you can. When transcoding a library from FLAC to MP3, though, the process (for me) needs to be totally hands-off. With LAME 3.98.4 I think my script was using metamp3 or a similar utility in addition to LAME. Version 3.99 makes things both a little easier and a little faster, since the file doesn't have to be rewritten to add the artwork tag.

An additional usability issue that remains for me is that I'd like the ability to write ReplayGain frames directly to the ID3v2 tag instead of (or in addition to) the LAME header. It's still not clear to me why anyone would bother adding the ability to compute RG values and then store them where few applications will see them. I don't need album RG, so LAME's RG calculations work well for my purposes.

And one more: The ability to copy a timestamp from the input file. When keeping a mirror library, it helps a lot if the resulting MP3 file has the same timestamp as the original. This would make it easier than having to call in a 'touch' utility to alter the MP3 file's mod time after the encoding process.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
damoresh
post May 18 2012, 07:21
Post #19





Group: Members
Posts: 21
Joined: 12-July 09
Member No.: 71413



I have several old mp3 with lame3.90 -lame 3.97 cbr 192kbps etc. I 'd love to upgrade all of them to the latest version 3.99.5 ?
Which is the software that i should use? I don't want to lose any audio information. And only the version should be updated and nothing else should change.

Please tell me some software that does the above job accurately..thanks in advance
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Apesbrain
post May 18 2012, 12:44
Post #20





Group: Members
Posts: 498
Joined: 3-January 04
From: East Coast, USA
Member No.: 10915



@damoresh, see "Lossy-to-lossy transcoding" in this wiki entry. What you propose will most likely not be an "upgrade".
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 December 2014 - 16:05