IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
absolute best audio quality settings for lame?
ThB303
post Sep 18 2010, 08:50
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 18-September 10
Member No.: 83946



Hello,

I tried to search for an answer here and on google aswell but without luck.


So I ask my question here now smile.gif


Which settings do I need to get the absolute best possible audio quality with lame and mp3?

Right now I am using these switches:

--preset insane -q 0

can it be any better? maybe with adjusting the frequency ranges or something like that?

the size of the mp3s or time for encoding does not matter (well ok, a 70mb wav should not be a 50mb mp3, I could use flac then smile.gif)


thnx in advance!

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Northpack
post Sep 18 2010, 09:13
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 455
Joined: 16-December 01
Member No.: 664



Seems like you didn't try very hard...

http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Lame

This post has been edited by Northpack: Sep 18 2010, 09:13
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ThB303
post Sep 18 2010, 09:50
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 18-September 10
Member No.: 83946



and it seems you didn't read my question very hard oO

the wiki entry says -b 320 is the best. I already got that (--preset insane -q 0), even better with the -q 0 switch

I asked if it can be any better than this! there are various more switches but I got no clue if they make it better or worse!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
twostar
post Sep 18 2010, 10:10
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 487
Joined: 5-August 02
From: Manila
Member No.: 2939



If there were switches that made quality better than -b 320 it would be there in the wiki.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ThB303
post Sep 18 2010, 10:25
Post #5





Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 18-September 10
Member No.: 83946



sorry but I doubt that, because it also doesn't say anything about the -q 0 switch (which improves the quality according to the inbuilt help of lame.exe)

what about these switches?

PSY related:
--temporal-masking x x=0 disables, x=1 enables temporal masking effect
--nssafejoint M/S switching criterion
--nsmsfix <arg> M/S switching tuning [effective 0-3.5]
--interch x adjust inter-channel masking ratio
--ns-bass x adjust masking for sfbs 0 - 6 (long) 0 - 5 (short)
--ns-alto x adjust masking for sfbs 7 - 13 (long) 6 - 10 (short)
--ns-treble x adjust masking for sfbs 14 - 21 (long) 11 - 12 (short)
--ns-sfb21 x change ns-treble by x dB for sfb21

Filter options:
--lowpass <freq> frequency(kHz), lowpass filter cutoff above freq
--lowpass-width <freq> frequency(kHz) - default 15% of lowpass freq
--highpass <freq> frequency(kHz), highpass filter cutoff below freq
--highpass-width <freq> frequency(kHz) - default 15% of highpass freq


I guess they are there not just for fun...

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Billytheonion
post Sep 18 2010, 10:43
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 178
Joined: 25-May 10
Member No.: 80883



-b 320 is the highest quality as stated by others.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lvqcl
post Sep 18 2010, 10:49
Post #7





Group: Developer
Posts: 3439
Joined: 2-December 07
Member No.: 49183



QUOTE (ThB303)
I guess they are there not just for fun...

Take a look at https://sourceforge.net/blog/potm-201005/ or just http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....st&p=703914
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ThB303
post Sep 18 2010, 10:56
Post #8





Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 18-September 10
Member No.: 83946



guys, can't you understand what I mean or don't you want understand I mean?

of coz I know -b 320 (--preset insane) is the best possible audio quality/bitrate.

I already wrote that in my first message.

Some time ago I found the -q 0 switch:

QUOTE
Noise shaping & psycho acoustic algorithms:
-q <arg> <arg> = 0...9. Default -q 5
-q 0: Highest quality, very slow


So I'd like to know if can use some other switches too to pimp the quality A LITTLE BIT!

what about changing the cutoff frequency range for example?

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Northpack
post Sep 18 2010, 10:56
Post #9





Group: Members
Posts: 455
Joined: 16-December 01
Member No.: 664



QUOTE (ThB303 @ Sep 18 2010, 09:25) *
I guess they are there not just for fun...

That's right. However, they are not for the end user to mess with, but for development purposes. -b 320 has been optimized for the best possible quality according to extensive listening tests. When new versions of the encoder are developed it may become necessary to fine tune these parameters again, that's the reason why they are there.

Btw. -q 0 is not used because it slows down encoding without providing any audible advantage.

Similary, any other parameter has been carefully fine-tuned for optimal results with the -b or -V setting you use. Messing around with the above posted settings will thus most probably decrease sound quality. That's especially the case when changing the --highpass parameter.

This post has been edited by Northpack: Sep 18 2010, 11:00
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
twostar
post Sep 18 2010, 11:01
Post #10





Group: Members
Posts: 487
Joined: 5-August 02
From: Manila
Member No.: 2939



This forum is frequented by LAME developers. Forum members have been ABX testing LAME for years. If there were switches to improve quality, they would be in the wiki. It's not like this is the first time this question has been asked.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ThB303
post Sep 18 2010, 11:07
Post #11





Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 18-September 10
Member No.: 83946



ok, that were good answers! a bit more explaination is very helpful!

thnx smile.gif

PS: I wish some mp3 shops would read that wiki... many of them (including beatport) are still using fullstereo...

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Billytheonion
post Sep 18 2010, 12:21
Post #12





Group: Members
Posts: 178
Joined: 25-May 10
Member No.: 80883



If you are being tod -b 320 is the best quality possible why are you disagreeing.

If there was a superior setting we would tell you.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Slipstreem
post Sep 18 2010, 12:33
Post #13





Group: Members
Posts: 966
Joined: 7-July 06
Member No.: 32660



You may also want to ask yourself the question, "Do I need the best possible quality?", as it's extremely likely that you could create files averaging less than two-thirds the size in VBR at -V2 and hear no difference whatsoever.

This post has been edited by Slipstreem: Sep 18 2010, 12:47
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ThB303
post Sep 18 2010, 14:49
Post #14





Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 18-September 10
Member No.: 83946



QUOTE (Billytheonion @ Sep 18 2010, 13:21) *
If you are being tod -b 320 is the best quality possible why are you disagreeing.

If there was a superior setting we would tell you.


I never thought or said there is something better than -b 320, I just thought there may some additional switches which could improve
the audio quality a little bit.

the problem was the lack of explaination on the first answers here


QUOTE (Slipstreem @ Sep 18 2010, 13:33) *
You may also want to ask yourself the question, "Do I need the best possible quality?", as it's extremely likely that you could create files averaging less than two-thirds the size in VBR at -V2 and hear no difference whatsoever.



for home listening I like the -v2 switch. But I need the maximum audio quality for djing with Traktor/Itch.
and does size really matter nowadays, in an age when 2tb drives cost around 100€ ? surely not!
I would also use higher bitrates for this purpose if they would be available. Of coz I could use WAV too but
I prefer to have all the metadata in the ID3 tags which WAV doesn't support at all (at least not that I know)

This post has been edited by ThB303: Sep 18 2010, 14:49
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
pdq
post Sep 18 2010, 15:07
Post #15





Group: Members
Posts: 3443
Joined: 1-September 05
From: SE Pennsylvania
Member No.: 24233



QUOTE (ThB303 @ Sep 18 2010, 05:56) *
what about changing the cutoff frequency range for example?

In theory one could increase the quality by lowering the cutoff frequency. By spending less bits on high frequencies that are not audible, there are more bits to spend on the lower frequencies that ARE audible. I'm not aware of any ABX tests to confirm this, however.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
halb27
post Sep 18 2010, 15:36
Post #16





Group: Members
Posts: 2441
Joined: 9-October 05
From: Dormagen, Germany
Member No.: 25015



My favorite Lame usage is -V0 -b 320 --ns-bass -8 --ns-alto -8 --ns-treble -5 --ns-sfb21 5 --lowpass 16.7, and it leads to an average bitrate of 295 kbps (after applying the fast and lossless mp3packer procedure afterwards).

-b 320 makes best use of the available space for audio data. The available space will not be totally filled with audio data however, which makes sense for the mp3packer procedure to kick off the unused space.

A negative value for --ns-bass, --ns-alto, --ns-treble makes Lame more defensive and brings improvement for certain kind of problem samples. Whether or not it's worth while is a matter of personal taste, as is already the usage of -V0. Lame quality is usually excellent without these additions and with a lower quality level. On the other hand small file size isn't an important thing any more for many people with music players of giant capacity around.

--ns-treble -x --ns-sfb21 x makes sure that the increased defensiveness doesn't work for sfb21, that is the frequency range above 16 kHz. Precision of sfb21 encoding can lead to inadequate inefficiency of the overall encoding. That's why Lame automatically reduces sfb21 accuracy for quality levels below V2. Not a bad idea as we aren't sensitive to this frequency range anyway and it contains little musical information. For V2 and above the same can be achieved by using the -Y switch. Alternatively an explicit lowpass can be used as I do it in my setting above. All a matter of taste.

I have no idea whether this -V0 variant leads to a better quality than plain -b 320. Since 3.98 I like the VBR quality of Lame, that's why I personally prefer VBR to CBR.
I did positively ABX the above setting against plain -V0 for certain problem samples, but I did no ABXing against CBR 320. Maybe I should do it some day.

This post has been edited by halb27: Sep 18 2010, 15:41


--------------------
lame3100m -V1 --insane-factor 0.75
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Northpack
post Sep 18 2010, 16:04
Post #17





Group: Members
Posts: 455
Joined: 16-December 01
Member No.: 664



@halb27: I don't think it is any good to give advises like this to inexperienced users. It just raises confusion and encourages people to mess around with switches they can't really understand from their limited experience.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
MichaelW
post Sep 18 2010, 18:20
Post #18





Group: Members
Posts: 631
Joined: 15-March 07
Member No.: 41501



QUOTE (ThB303 @ Sep 19 2010, 01:49) *
I would also use higher bitrates for this purpose if they would be available. Of coz I could use WAV too but
I prefer to have all the metadata in the ID3 tags which WAV doesn't support at all (at least not that I know)


I don't know your systems, but there are lossless encoders that do support tags, and which are guaranteed to be of identical quality to the CD. FLAC is widely supported (though not, alas, universally).

There seem to be a few instances where any lossy encoder can lose transparency. Whether or not your patrons would actually register these moments in the heat of dancing isn't clear, but if FLAC works for you, it would give you peace of mind.

Edit: removed unnecessary information.

This post has been edited by MichaelW: Sep 18 2010, 18:34
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
halb27
post Sep 18 2010, 18:32
Post #19





Group: Members
Posts: 2441
Joined: 9-October 05
From: Dormagen, Germany
Member No.: 25015



@Northpack: That's why I explained the options. In case my explanations aren't clear enough, I can try to explain them in more detail.

I think you're more concerned about 'stick to the standards'. You're right that this is the way to go for those who don't want to care about details. Obviously the OP doesn't belong to this group.

This post has been edited by halb27: Sep 18 2010, 18:33


--------------------
lame3100m -V1 --insane-factor 0.75
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ThB303
post Sep 18 2010, 18:38
Post #20





Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 18-September 10
Member No.: 83946



QUOTE (MichaelW @ Sep 18 2010, 19:20) *
I don't know your systems, but there are lossless encoders that do support tags, and which are guaranteed to be of identical quality to the CD. FLAC is widely supported (though not, alas, universally); the other relatively widely used one is ALAC, the Apple proprietary format, which is unlikely to be supported on third-party systems, and which ought to go away.

There seem to be a few instances where any lossy encoder can lose transparency. Whether or not your patrons would actually register these moments in the heat of dancing isn't clear, but if FLAC works for you, it would give you peace of mind.



I was thinking about FLAC too but Serato Itch (the software which is bundled with my desired Vestax VCI-300 MK2) doesn't support it yet.
NI Traktor Pro does but I think prefer Itch. Since people are yelling for FLAC support in Serato Forum I doubt it will take that long until they support it.

Beside this I noticed another advantage of FLAC... I have plenty old and rare CDs. Would suck to lose them due to their age.
FLAC is the way to go I think. Until Itch supports FLAC I stick with 320kbit CBR.


Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Sep 18 2010, 19:52
Post #21





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10256
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



QUOTE (ThB303 @ Sep 18 2010, 02:56) *
So I'd like to know if can use some other switches too to pimp the quality A LITTLE BIT!

Assuming you can't tell the difference between -b320 and the original how do you plan on demonstrating that quality has been improved with additional switches?

Assuming you can tell the difference, then experiment and provide us with double-blind test results.


--------------------
Your eyes cannot hear.
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: 27th November 2014 - 00:25