IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
i need the help of you wonderful experts!, lame
spicymeatball
post Dec 4 2002, 18:09
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 13
Joined: 21-December 01
Member No.: 710



hello gents,

me and a few guys are starting a little rip circle, and being the big techie, i've been placed in charge of finding our standard lame switches. we're using Lame3.90.2-ICL EXE. i think that's the best lame version out there. we were using --alt -preset cbr 192, but it's joint stereo. we need full stereo. i'd love suggestions, especially if anyone knows which switches some ripping groups use, because their files always sound boss. this is my latest switch test, any thoughts?

-b 192 -h -m s --nspsytune --athtype 2 --lowpass 16 --ns-bass -8 --scale 0.93

not exatly sure if that's the best switch, it sounds pretty good.

thanks in advance for all your help!

:spice:
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Frank Bicking
post Dec 4 2002, 18:17
Post #2





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 1827
Joined: 24-July 02
Member No.: 2776



Why do you need pure stereo? Joint Stereo offers a higher quality.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jan S.
post Dec 4 2002, 18:21
Post #3





Group: Admin
Posts: 2549
Joined: 26-September 01
From: Denmark
Member No.: 21



http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....T&f=15&t=203&s=

Please read the sticky threads in the mp3 forum.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kennedyb4
post Dec 4 2002, 18:36
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 772
Joined: 3-October 01
Member No.: 180



Why CBR?

--alt-preset standard will give basically the same bitrate depending on genre, with far superior quality to cbr 192.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kblood
post Dec 4 2002, 19:08
Post #5





Group: Members
Posts: 223
Joined: 17-October 01
From: NL or ES
Member No.: 306



spicymeatball: I just checked your full list of posts, seeing you had only 7...

And it turns out that a year ago you were doing the same kind of questions...

The answer has not changed:

Joint-stereo in LAME is definitely better than Stereo. It is perfect. No problems at all. Period. Whoever tells you that Joint-Stereo is a problem in LAME has no idea what he is talking about, has not tested, and should not be considered reliable. Are you going to believe him or the guys that develop LAME? Who do you think knows better?

The idea that Joint-Stereo is bad started because years ago, there was a commercial encoder that had a major bug in the way it did Joint-Stereo. But that's not LAME, and it has nothing to do with it.

If you want the best quality at bitrates around 192, use just --alt-preset standard nothing else, nothing more. Yes, it is Joint-Stereo, yes, it is VBR, and yes, it is currently the BEST for that bitrate range in MP3. Those long command lines will only screw things up.

If you need to use CBR (why???), then the best is --alt-preset cbr 192. As above, nothing else, nothing more.

And all of this with Lame 3.90.2, nothing else, nothing more.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Q!
post Dec 4 2002, 19:15
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 98
Joined: 26-August 02
From: PL
Member No.: 3199



QUOTE (spicymeatball @ Dec 4 2002 - 07:09 PM)
especially if anyone knows which switches some ripping groups use, because their files always sound boss.

Interesting. From my experience they usually sound like crap.


--------------------
http://qisgod.host.sk
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
spicymeatball
post Dec 4 2002, 19:34
Post #7





Group: Members
Posts: 13
Joined: 21-December 01
Member No.: 710



well, thank you all for your help. i kind of left myself open and got what i expected. i agree with you all that --alt -preset standard is the best quality. but that's not what i'm trying for. i'm just trying for the best quality at 192 cbr. it seems like stereo is out, and joint it is in. thank you all for that; --alt -preset cbr 192 it is.....
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mithrandir
post Dec 4 2002, 19:45
Post #8





Group: Members
Posts: 669
Joined: 15-January 02
From: SE Pennsylvania
Member No.: 1032



QUOTE (spicymeatball @ Dec 4 2002 - 01:34 PM)
well, thank you all for your help.  i kind of left myself open and got what i expected.  i agree with you all that --alt -preset standard is the best quality.  but that's not what i'm trying for.  i'm just trying for the best quality at 192 cbr.  it seems like stereo is out, and joint it is in.  thank you all for that; --alt -preset cbr 192 it is.....

What are you "trying for"? You should be after top quality, not what the release groups use (after all, if you are simply copying their actions, why even bother?)

alt-preset standard will give you something around 192kbps fairly consistently and forcing your encodes to 192kpbs CBR will automatically limit the quality. For many tracks, MP3 needs 320kbps blocks for proper short block encoding. alt-preset standard's VBR mode can deliver that; fixed 192kbps cannot. And I don't know anything nowadays that can't handle MP3 VBR.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
spicymeatball
post Dec 4 2002, 21:02
Post #9





Group: Members
Posts: 13
Joined: 21-December 01
Member No.: 710



QUOTE
What are you "trying for"?


QUOTE
i'm just trying for the best quality at 192 cbr


thank you all very much for your expert help. when i'm not ripping things for my group, i'll be using --alt -preset standard.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Frank Bicking
post Dec 4 2002, 22:13
Post #10





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 1827
Joined: 24-July 02
Member No.: 2776



Why don't you try to convince your group to use --alt-preset standard instead? Why do you have to use CBR and simple stereo? Just because they don't know better?!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kblood
post Dec 4 2002, 22:19
Post #11





Group: Members
Posts: 223
Joined: 17-October 01
From: NL or ES
Member No.: 306



I have seen already some "Release Groups" using VBR... --alt-preset standard or even --alt-preset extreme (i think)

If you let the rest of your "Release Group" go on ripping --alt-preset cbr 192, well... you'll be behind the times smile.gif

Nevertheless it's definitely an improvement over Xing 192 cbr... biggrin.gif

But please try your best to get --alt-preset standard

Or even --alt-preset 192!!! smile.gifsmile.gif (notice the omission of cbr... abr is already an improvement, and will definitely keep your bitrates in the same range...)

This post has been edited by Kblood: Dec 4 2002, 22:21
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
indybrett
post Dec 4 2002, 22:31
Post #12





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 1350
Joined: 4-March 02
From: Indianapolis, IN
Member No.: 1440



I've recently started using --alt-preset 192. I am really starting to like the ABR mode. The predicibilty of the file size is nice.

I have found this setting to be a good compromise (for my ears) that allows me to use the output on portables & real stereo systems.

I have a portable with a few 64MB flash cards and 128MB flash cards. At this setting, most of my olders CD's will fit on the 64MB card, and for the new ones they all will fit on the 128MB card. One CD per card works for me.

The sound quality is good enough for my car MP3 player as well. Yep, I'm a new ABR convert.


--------------------
flac>fb2k>kernel streaming>audiophile 2496>magni>dt990 pro
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kblood
post Dec 4 2002, 22:34
Post #13





Group: Members
Posts: 223
Joined: 17-October 01
From: NL or ES
Member No.: 306



I usually settle for --alt-preset 145 for my portable needs smile.gif

but it's just a matter of taste, really...

EDIT: but that doesn't change the fact that for "professional quality ripping" and "Release Group" purposes, --alt-preset standard is THE way to go!!!! smile.gif

This post has been edited by Kblood: Dec 4 2002, 22:35
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
floyd
post Dec 4 2002, 23:27
Post #14





Group: Members
Posts: 630
Joined: 18-June 02
Member No.: 2332



use --scale 1 if you plan on mp3gaining your files for volume equalization/clipping protection later (which you should be doing)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
cd-rw.org
post Dec 5 2002, 00:19
Post #15





Group: Members
Posts: 176
Joined: 5-October 01
Member No.: 217



It is my understanding that MP3 distros tend to block files that are not encoded according to the "MP3 Council" standard: 192 or 256 CBR strict stereo. Yeah, I have tried telling them, but it's like talking to a wall.


--------------------
http://www.bitburners.com - We Burn a Bit
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
spicymeatball
post Dec 5 2002, 02:08
Post #16





Group: Members
Posts: 13
Joined: 21-December 01
Member No.: 710



cd-rw.org is exactly right. my distribution channels will only abide standards :-(
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dibrom
post Dec 5 2002, 02:19
Post #17


Founder


Group: Admin
Posts: 2958
Joined: 26-August 02
From: Nottingham, UK
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (spicymeatball @ Dec 4 2002 - 06:08 PM)
cd-rw.org is exactly right.  my distribution channels will only abide standards :-(

What MP3 "Councils" or ripping groups deem as acceptable are hardly standards. They are instead simply arbitrary decisions a group of ignorant people made without really understanding the basic concepts of the technology they were using.

Sorry if it may seem a little offensive to you, but I don't really understand the point in bothering with trying to find the highest quality settings when from the get go you are limited in what you can use by what these ignorant people are telling you is acceptable and what isn't, and that their decisions are not based in actual quality measurements.

It'd be much more worthwhile to encode for yourself than to worry about catering to the politics of the "scene".

This post has been edited by Dibrom: Dec 5 2002, 02:24
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mithrandir
post Dec 5 2002, 03:19
Post #18





Group: Members
Posts: 669
Joined: 15-January 02
From: SE Pennsylvania
Member No.: 1032



QUOTE (Dibrom @ Dec 4 2002 - 08:19 PM)
QUOTE (spicymeatball @ Dec 4 2002 - 06:08 PM)
cd-rw.org is exactly right.  my distribution channels will only abide standards :-(

What MP3 "Councils" or ripping groups deem as acceptable are hardly standards. They are instead simply arbitrary decisions a group of ignorant people made without really understanding the basic concepts of the technology they were using.

Sorry if it may seem a little offensive to you, but I don't really understand the point in bothering with trying to find the highest quality settings when from the get go you are limited in what you can use by what these ignorant people are telling you is acceptable and what isn't, and that their decisions are not based in actual quality measurements.

It'd be much more worthwhile to encode for yourself than to worry about catering to the politics of the "scene".

As since the "scene" are basically a bunch of pirates, why should they be able to mandate anything? It's like being told you can only steal in certain ways. "Lift all the Tylenol you want, but don't touch the Pepto!!" rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
spicymeatball
post Dec 5 2002, 04:07
Post #19





Group: Members
Posts: 13
Joined: 21-December 01
Member No.: 710



haha, consider the can of worms opened.

the standards cater to the lowest common denominator, yes. divx ripping groups are similar, un-willing to adopt the newest methods in favor of more widespread, heavily practiced methods. groups also have bandwidth to consider. anyways, i'd been using presets in my personal rips. --alt-preset standard, in my experience does not produce similar file sizes as 192 cbr; for the record. they almost always have bitrates up towards the 220 max. anyways, thank you all again. i think i've got the information i need biggrin.gif

i'll watch this flame burn out from a safe distance..........
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dev0
post Dec 5 2002, 08:38
Post #20





Group: Developer
Posts: 1679
Joined: 23-December 01
From: Germany
Member No.: 731



QUOTE (spicymeatball @ Dec 5 2002 - 04:07 AM)
haha, consider the can of worms opened.

the standards cater to the lowest common denominator, yes.  divx ripping groups are similar, un-willing to adopt the newest methods in favor of more widespread, heavily practiced methods.  groups also have bandwidth to consider.  anyways, i'd been using presets in my personal rips.  --alt-preset standard, in my experience does not produce similar file sizes as 192 cbr; for the record.  they almost always have bitrates up towards the 220 max.  anyways, thank you all again.  i think i've got the information i need biggrin.gif

i'll watch this flame burn out from a safe distance..........

DivX Ripping Groups started using ABR audio ca. 1 year ago. Audio Ripping Groups still insist on their ignorant 192cbr standard since almost forever...
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
spicymeatball
post Dec 5 2002, 16:10
Post #21





Group: Members
Posts: 13
Joined: 21-December 01
Member No.: 710



yes, many divx groups even use --alt-preset standard, but i didn't clarify that i meant the video compression, as the standard is still DivX 3.11a.

anyways, thanks again guys, my group has decided.

internal release (meant to just be passed between us) will be --alt-preset standard. releases meant for distro will have to be -b 192 -h -m s

p.s. lets not go throwing around the word "pirate" on an mp3 discussion board.....
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Benjamin Lebsanf...
post Dec 5 2002, 16:50
Post #22





Group: Members
Posts: 761
Joined: 29-September 01
Member No.: 40



heh ? why not use --alt-preset cbr 192 -ms then dry.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
bluewer than blu...
post Dec 5 2002, 17:15
Post #23





Group: Members
Posts: 182
Joined: 6-March 02
Member No.: 1450



I'm very well aware that the audio ripping scene does allow JS to be used, so I really don't understand why you eventually chose the typical (but far from perfect) "-b 192 -h -m s" encoding settings. Since it's you that you are the "big techie" of your group and you really do find "--alt preset cbr 192" superior in every way, I just don't understand how your "colleagues" don't realize some simple facts, and don't even take under consideration your technicall knowledge and opinion. IMHO you shouldn't have really taken the trouble to make any kind of research...those guys seem too stubborn and narrow minded. Better find yourself a decent group to participate in...

This post has been edited by bluewer than blue: Dec 5 2002, 17:17
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dibrom
post Dec 5 2002, 17:57
Post #24


Founder


Group: Admin
Posts: 2958
Joined: 26-August 02
From: Nottingham, UK
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (spicymeatball @ Dec 4 2002 - 08:07 PM)
anyways, i'd been using presets in my personal rips.  --alt-preset standard, in my experience does not produce similar file sizes as 192 cbr; for the record.  they almost always have bitrates up towards the 220 max.

I've explained many times that it depends on the music you encode. If you're only encoding heavily compress pop music, or loud industrial/ebm or rock/metal, then yes, bitrate will be higher than 200kbps on average. If you're encoding jazz/classical/some quieter IDM or experimental/avantgarde type music, then the bitrate will be lower.

People usually just encode one type of music and then expect the bitrates are going to be the same for everything. With other codecs which are more efficient and do not have problems with loud high frequency content like MP3 does, this might be correct, but with MP3, this is not the case.

In the ripping "scene", I guess there's not much demand for the music in the latter type of genres that I listed.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
spicymeatball
post Dec 5 2002, 18:17
Post #25





Group: Members
Posts: 13
Joined: 21-December 01
Member No.: 710



haha, this is just getting hilarious. goodbye for now
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: 25th July 2014 - 10:43