IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
-V n (in 3.95.1), Presets, bitrates and lowpass of V value
384kbps
post Sep 1 2004, 06:45
Post #26





Group: Members
Posts: 127
Joined: 19-April 03
Member No.: 6057



QUOTE (Pio2001 @ Aug 26 2004, 11:11 AM)
...so -V1 includes the alt-preset code level tunings,...
*

Thanks, that's just all i wanted to know!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
LoFiYo
post Sep 30 2004, 04:15
Post #27





Group: Members
Posts: 133
Joined: 2-January 04
Member No.: 10896



QUOTE (Pio2001 @ Aug 26 2004, 06:11 AM)
...so -V1 includes the alt-preset code level tunings, but with a bitrate wetween standard and extreme.
I thought Gabriel was trying to move away from Dibrom's tuning (or "hack") by tuning in non-hack ways. In other words, hasn't he been removing more and more of Dibrom's tuning and trying to make it sound good by working from other angles? I don't understand source codes, so I can't be sure, but could someone (or Gabriel himself) comment on this? Sorry if I'm totally mistaken tongue.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Gabriel
post Sep 30 2004, 11:22
Post #28


LAME developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 2950
Joined: 1-October 01
From: Nanterre, France
Member No.: 138



QUOTE (LoFiYo @ Sep 30 2004, 05:15 AM)
I thought Gabriel was trying to move away from Dibrom's tuning (or "hack") by tuning in non-hack ways. In other words, hasn't he been removing more and more of Dibrom's tuning and trying to make it sound good by working from other angles?
*


No. My goal was to change the way those "tunings" are enabled. I wanted to be able to set each of those by separate parameters instead of a few "multi-purpose" parameters.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
detokaal
post Oct 18 2004, 21:30
Post #29





Group: Members
Posts: 191
Joined: 9-November 03
Member No.: 9748



Would it be possible to add the -q switch to the tables? I believe --preset standard is -q 2 whereas --preset medium is -q 3.

Also, I am assuming there is no harm in say, --preset medium -q 0, since it theoretically may increase quality, even though it is much slower?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Gabriel
post Oct 19 2004, 09:56
Post #30


LAME developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 2950
Joined: 1-October 01
From: Nanterre, France
Member No.: 138



QUOTE
I believe --preset standard is -q 2 whereas --preset medium is -q 3

No
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
detokaal
post Oct 19 2004, 22:02
Post #31





Group: Members
Posts: 191
Joined: 9-November 03
Member No.: 9748



Rather than ask again - I just checked myself. --preset medium is qual=3, --preset standard is qual=3, and --preset extreme is qual=3 also according to --verbose command line when using 3.96.1. Interesting that even --preset insane is qual=3. It appears that -q 0/1/2 isn't used in any of the presets, unless I have something in EAC set wrong and it is adding other command line switches I don't know about.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
freakngoat
post Oct 19 2004, 22:19
Post #32





Group: Members
Posts: 170
Joined: 10-January 02
From: Manhattan Beach
Member No.: 979



QUOTE (detokaal @ Oct 19 2004, 09:02 PM)
Rather than ask again - I just checked myself.  --preset medium is qual=3, --preset standard is qual=3, and --preset extreme is qual=3 also according to --verbose command line when using 3.96.1. Interesting that even --preset insane is qual=3.  It appears that -q 0/1/2 isn't used in any of the presets, unless I have something in EAC set wrong and it is adding other command line switches I don't know about.
*


What's with the q-value obsession? I'm not picking on you detokaal, I've been seeing it creeping up in other discussions. AFAIK, the -V settings were tuned using a given q-value and changing this isn't a reliable way to adjust quality. Rather just change the -V value. It seems the -V values have been distributed to cover the full bitrate spectrum, so it seems that anyone could find the ideal quality/space tradeoff for their particular ears and application.

Though I guess if you really want to be experimental, go for it. Might as well start tweaking the code as well. Perhaps Gabriel can either validate or invalidate this point.

This post has been edited by freakngoat: Oct 19 2004, 22:24
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Gabriel
post Oct 20 2004, 08:45
Post #33


LAME developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 2950
Joined: 1-October 01
From: Nanterre, France
Member No.: 138



Yes, changing -V is (generally) a better idea than changing -q.

Btw, I think that using the DEFAULT setting in current versions is fine. That mean that for vbr, you only adjust -V according to your needs and do not change anything else.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ezra2323
post Dec 15 2004, 03:51
Post #34





Group: Members
Posts: 586
Joined: 17-July 02
Member No.: 2631



After reading through this thread, I'm still unclear (forgive me if I just don't GET IT). Is 3.96.1 -v5 a superior alternative to 3.90.3 --alt preset 128?

By superior, I mean superior sound quality for the targeted file size. Also, will the extra lowpass command used in Roberto's listening test improve -V5?

Since 3.96.1 -v5 was selected over 3.90.3 --alt preset 128 for Roberto's multi-format listening test, I ASSUME it is superior but I hate to assume anything in this forum. smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dev0
post Dec 15 2004, 06:12
Post #35





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



QUOTE (ezra2323 @ Dec 15 2004, 03:51 AM)
After reading through this thread, I'm still unclear (forgive me if I just don't GET IT). Is 3.96.1 -v5 a superior alternative to 3.90.3 --alt preset 128?
*

Yes.


--------------------
"To understand me, you'll have to swallow a world." Or maybe your words.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
k.eight.a
post Dec 15 2004, 18:32
Post #36





Group: Members
Posts: 434
Joined: 31-October 03
From: Europe, CZ
Member No.: 9571



QUOTE (Vietwoojagig @ Jan 29 2004, 02:38 AM)
2. When is it more usefull, to use abr rather than -V n (e.g. --preset 120 better than -V 5)?
*

From the very start of this thread I'm still interested...
QUOTE (dev0 @ Dec 14 2004, 09:12 PM)
QUOTE (ezra2323 @ Dec 15 2004, 03:51 AM)
After reading through this thread, I'm still unclear (forgive me if I just don't GET IT). Is 3.96.1 -v5 a superior alternative to 3.90.3 --alt preset 128?
*

Yes.
*

This is only a small part of the answer.

This post has been edited by k.eight.a: Dec 15 2004, 18:33


--------------------
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."
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
whcanilang
post Dec 22 2004, 21:16
Post #37





Group: Members
Posts: 13
Joined: 26-October 04
Member No.: 17852



QUOTE (ezra2323 @ Dec 14 2004, 10:51 PM)
After reading through this thread, I'm still unclear (forgive me if I just don't GET IT). Is 3.96.1 -v5 a superior alternative to 3.90.3 --alt preset 128?

By superior, I mean superior sound quality for the targeted file size. Also, will the extra lowpass command used in Roberto's listening test improve -V5?

Since 3.96.1 -v5 was selected over 3.90.3 --alt preset 128 for Roberto's multi-format listening test, I ASSUME it is superior but I hate to assume anything in this forum.  smile.gif
*


I just noticed that http://lame.sourceforge.net/USAGE now discourages the use of "-V 5" in favor of ABR 128. Where is Roberto's listening comparison test? I missed it and I'd like to read it. Thanks!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
music_man_mpc
post Dec 22 2004, 21:42
Post #38





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 707
Joined: 20-July 03
From: Canada
Member No.: 7895



QUOTE (whcanilang @ Dec 22 2004, 12:16 PM)
Where is Roberto's listening comparison test?  I missed it and I'd like to read it.  Thanks!
*

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=21904


--------------------
gentoo ~amd64 + layman | ncmpcpp/mpd | wavpack + vorbis + lame
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Gabriel
post Dec 23 2004, 09:16
Post #39


LAME developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 2950
Joined: 1-October 01
From: Nanterre, France
Member No.: 138



QUOTE
I just noticed that http://lame.sourceforge.net/USAGE now discourages the use of "-V 5" in favor of ABR 128.

It is not "now". It's just that it hasn't been updated for a while.
note: I'd welcome an updated version
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
esa372
post Jan 19 2005, 18:23
Post #40





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 429
Joined: 5-September 04
From: Los Angeles
Member No.: 16796



QUOTE (ezra2323 @ Dec 14 2004, 07:51 PM)
Is 3.96.1 -v5 a superior alternative to 3.90.3 --alt preset 128?


QUOTE (Cygnus X1 @ Jan 15 2005, 01:15 PM)
For ~ 128kbps VBR, the general consensus has been to use "-V5 --athaa-sensitivity 1" with LAME 3.95.1 or higher. The ATH adjustment was found to result in less warbling/phasing, but may raise the bitrate a little bit.


(From the best settings for 128kbps VBR thread.)



:edit: link

This post has been edited by esa372: Jan 19 2005, 18:24


--------------------
Clowns love haircuts; so should Lee Marvin's valet.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
veikko
post Feb 9 2005, 23:25
Post #41





Group: Members
Posts: 4
Joined: 9-February 05
Member No.: 19719



Hi.

I just registered myself for the first time ever to a forum of anykind smile.gif

But this just seemed like a place of people who know the stuff they talk about,
and that's always good. Also this place has had by far the best attitude towards
"the new guy" making his first post, so bear with me, since this truly is my first post smile.gif

So, here's my thing, I'm in a situation now to encode all of my audio cds
to mp3 format.

By judging form the discussions here, i really should use eac or plextools
for the ripping and lame (3.90.3 or 3.96.1 if i'm correct?) for the encoding.

Even more reading of this forum has led me to the conclusion to use vbr ape
or as you would put it in the format of -V0 while using lame 3.96.1.

So the thing I would like to know is about the q value,
is there any point in adjusting it upwards trough the commandline myself?

I mean seriously, I thought about this long time, that do I even dare to ask such a question,
because I respect what Gabriel has stated about the defaults,
but I just want to know that what are the potential effects of changing
the qval to 2 or even 1 or 0. What does it really change?
Does it affect the quality of the audio in any way?
I even read about it potentially lessening the outcoming quality of the finished "product",
is that still true?

well nothing more at this point, hope this didn't strike you guys as a totally stupid question.

thanks.

This post has been edited by veikko: Feb 9 2005, 23:26
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Gabriel
post Feb 9 2005, 23:34
Post #42


LAME developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 2950
Joined: 1-October 01
From: Nanterre, France
Member No.: 138



A bug regarding -q0 and -q1 has been recently identified and corrected in 3.97 alphas.
3.94-3.96.1 were affected by this problem. Regarding 3.90.3, I do not remember as it is too old.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kwanbis
post Feb 10 2005, 00:30
Post #43





Group: Developer (Donating)
Posts: 2362
Joined: 28-June 02
From: Argentina
Member No.: 2425



Garbiel would this fix be backported to 3.96.x?


--------------------
MAREO: http://www.webearce.com.ar
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Gabriel
post Feb 10 2005, 09:51
Post #44


LAME developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 2950
Joined: 1-October 01
From: Nanterre, France
Member No.: 138



Probably not as we are not working on 3.96 anymore.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
moi
post Feb 26 2005, 21:06
Post #45





Group: Members
Posts: 53
Joined: 23-June 04
Member No.: 14859



QUOTE (Gabriel @ Jan 29 2004, 03:11 AM)
Nice layout.

QUOTE
3. Are the displayed target average bitrates ok (+/- 10 kbps)?

I'd say:
V2 - 190
V3 - 175
V4 - 165
V5 - 130
*



To get the average bit rate closer to 128 kbps, would you recommend"

V5

or--

with the switches used in the listening test--

V5 --athaa-sensitiivity 1 ??

What exactly does that --athaa-sensitiivity 1 mean, and what difference does it make over just V5?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jojo
post Feb 27 2005, 00:40
Post #46





Group: Members
Posts: 1361
Joined: 25-November 02
Member No.: 3873



QUOTE (moi @ Feb 26 2005, 12:06 PM)
To get the average bit rate closer to 128 kbps, would you recommend"

V5

or--

with the switches used in the listening test--

V5 --athaa-sensitiivity 1  ??
*

use LAME 3.96.1 and -V5 --athaa-sensitivity 1. It results better qualits than -V5 (applies to -V5 only!) I've encoded 5 files or so and in average they were 128kbps. However, it is possible that some files have 111kbps and others 134kbps...Even if you get a bit over 128kbps in average, let's say 132kbps...who cares...it's not that much of a difference (in my example 0,5 kilobyte per second = 30 kilobyte per minute)...not a big deal, but the quality is the best mp3 has to offer in the 128kbps range...


--------------------
--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'
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
JEN
post Mar 6 2005, 20:02
Post #47





Group: Banned
Posts: 1131
Joined: 19-September 02
Member No.: 3407



my hearing is either getting really bad (i'm 26 years old!) or lame 3.96.1 is amazing because i cant abx -v6 --vbr-new blink.gif

So I guess that means lame 3.96.1 @ -v6 --vbr-new will be my new portable choice. biggrin.gif

This post has been edited by JEN: Mar 6 2005, 20:03
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dologan
post Mar 6 2005, 20:19
Post #48





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 478
Joined: 22-November 01
From: United Kingdom
Member No.: 519



QUOTE (Jojo @ Feb 26 2005, 05:40 PM)
use LAME 3.96.1 and -V5 --athaa-sensitivity 1. It results better qualits than -V5 (applies to -V5 only!) I've encoded 5 files or so and in average they were 128kbps. However, it is possible that some files have 111kbps and others 134kbps...Even if you get a bit over 128kbps in average, let's say 132kbps...who cares...it's not that much of a difference (in my example 0,5 kilobyte per second = 30 kilobyte per minute)...not a big deal, but the quality is the best mp3 has to offer in the 128kbps range...
*

Actually, the --athaa-sensitivity 1 switch was also recommended for -V4 on some thread I can't seem to find right now. I use it for my -V4 encodes and I haven't noticed any problems at all. (Actually, I can't ABX the difference, but if the golden ears say it's better, I trust them smile.gif)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
schonenberg
post Apr 5 2005, 08:38
Post #49





Group: Banned
Posts: 133
Joined: 28-February 05
Member No.: 20225



QUOTE (veikko @ Feb 9 2005, 04:25 PM)
Hi.

I just registered myself for the first time ever to a forum of anykind smile.gif

But this just seemed like a place of people who know the stuff they talk about,
and that's always good. Also this place has had by far the best attitude towards
"the new guy" making his first post, so bear with me, since this truly is my first post smile.gif

So, here's my thing, I'm in a situation now to encode all of my audio cds
to mp3 format.

By judging form the discussions here, i really should use eac or plextools
for the ripping and lame (3.90.3 or 3.96.1 if i'm correct?) for the encoding.

Even more reading of this forum has led me to the conclusion to use vbr ape
or as you would put it in the format of -V0 while using lame 3.96.1.

So the thing I would like to know is about the q value,
is there any point in adjusting it upwards trough the commandline myself?

I mean seriously, I thought about this long time, that do I even dare to ask such a question,
because I respect what Gabriel has stated about the defaults,
but I just want to know that what are the potential effects of changing
the qval to 2 or even 1 or 0. What does it really change?
Does it affect the quality of the audio in any way?
I even read about it potentially lessening the outcoming quality of the finished "product",
is that still true?

well nothing more at this point, hope this didn't  strike you guys as a totally stupid question.

thanks.
*



That is a valid question, one I bothered people with myself. -q 0 increases the quality of the psychoacoustic algorithm, it does not touch the bitrate at all.
In simple terms Lame will spend much more time examining each sample when encoding.

Lame 3.90.3 at --alt-preset standard is the recommended mp3 settings. Lame 3.97 final might replace 3.90.3 as the best encoder.


I use lame 3.96.1 -V 5 --athaa-sensitivity 1 -q 0, which might not improve the quality much over not using -q, but encodes fast enough for me and sounds good on my apex dvd player and my pc/stereo setup.

For cd's that I have to archive and won't have access to in the future, I use Musepack/MPC at --standard. MPC has fewer problem samples at higher bitrates and is tuned only for high transparent bitrates, but is not supported by any portables dry.gif . It is very good for computer use.

This post has been edited by schonenberg: Apr 5 2005, 08:46
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
guruboolez
post Apr 5 2005, 08:48
Post #50





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 3474
Joined: 7-November 01
From: Strasbourg (France)
Member No.: 420



QUOTE (schonenberg @ Apr 5 2005, 08:38 AM)
Lame 3.90.3 at --alt-preset standard is the absolute best mp3, except in certain samples.
*

preset standard is not the "absolute best" mp3. It's a compromize between transparency (I'd rather say 'robustness') and bitrate. For many people, --preset standard is not a good compromize: they could obtain the same level of transparency at lower bitrate with lower presets. For other people, --preset extreme improves the quality, and not only on killer samples.
For absolute best mp3, use --preset insane (or even freeformat at 640 kbps).
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >
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: 30th August 2014 - 04:04