IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

> Hydrogenaudio Forum Rules

- No Warez. This includes warez links, cracks and/or requests for help in getting illegal software or copyrighted music tracks!


- No Spamming or Trolling on the boards, this includes useless posts, trying to only increase post count or trying to deliberately create a flame war.


- No Hateful or Disrespectful posts. This includes: bashing, name-calling or insults directed at a board member.


- Click here for complete Hydrogenaudio Terms of Service

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >  
Closed TopicStart new topic
Which LAME VBR settings do you use?, Poll regarding LAME VBR preferences
LAME VBR Preferences
What VBR setting do you use?
-V0 (.XXX) (--[alt-]preset [fast] extreme) [ 125 ] ** [28.28%]
-V1 (.XXX) [ 17 ] ** [3.85%]
-V2 (.XXX) (--[alt-]preset [fast] standard) [ 171 ] ** [38.69%]
-V3 (.XXX) [ 43 ] ** [9.73%]
-V4 (.XXX) (--[alt-]preset [fast] medium) [ 23 ] ** [5.20%]
-V5 (.XXX) [ 52 ] ** [11.76%]
-V6 (.XXX) [ 7 ] ** [1.58%]
-V7 (.XXX) [ 0 ] ** [0.00%]
-V8 (.XXX) or -V9 (.XXX) [ 1 ] ** [0.23%]
Other [ 3 ] ** [0.68%]
What LAME version do you use?
3.98 (.2) [ 385 ] ** [87.10%]
3.97 [ 39 ] ** [8.82%]
3.90.3 [ 12 ] ** [2.71%]
Other [ 6 ] ** [1.36%]
If using 3.98, do you use floating point values?
Yes [ 57 ] ** [12.90%]
No [ 333 ] ** [75.34%]
I don't use 3.98 [ 52 ] ** [11.76%]
Total Votes: 603
  
Slipstreem
post Oct 21 2008, 12:23
Post #26





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



As -V0 -b224 is neither an option in this poll nor a recommended setting, may I respectfully suggest that david.lisb starts his own thread and provides test results to support his claim of "best quality"? I'm sure that many of us would help him with advice on how to do so in his own thread if the procedure is unfamiliar to him. smile.gif

Cheers, Slipstreem. cool.gif

This post has been edited by Slipstreem: Oct 21 2008, 13:30
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
poleepkwa
post Oct 21 2008, 12:42
Post #27





Group: Members
Posts: 53
Joined: 12-March 08
Member No.: 51980



I have been using V5 as well after I Synthetic recommended as such and i have been please with the results...

This post has been edited by poleepkwa: Oct 21 2008, 12:43
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
halb27
post Oct 21 2008, 13:59
Post #28





Group: Members
Posts: 2424
Joined: 9-October 05
From: Dormagen, Germany
Member No.: 25015



QUOTE (david.lisb @ Oct 21 2008, 11:53) *
-V0 -b224

best quality !!

I understand the idea (trying to prevent usage of too low a bitrate in those rare situations where the VBR machinery does so).
I'm afraid it doesn't work. I tried the approach (not exactly yours), but after using mp3packer afterwards average bitrate was the same as when not using the -b switch. It's not a proof that it doesn't work, but it doesn't look promising. Using at least 224 kbps frames doesn't necessarily mean the provided space is really used. Which is a pity of course.

This post has been edited by halb27: Oct 21 2008, 14:33


--------------------
lame3100m -V1 --insane-factor 0.75
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
halb27
post Oct 21 2008, 14:22
Post #29





Group: Members
Posts: 2424
Joined: 9-October 05
From: Dormagen, Germany
Member No.: 25015



QUOTE (kornchild2002 @ Oct 21 2008, 13:08) *
Don't want to go off-topic but why would VBR be a problem? Lame was tuned for VBR encoding and forcing a minimum bitrate like you have only limits the encoder and can cause decreased quality. ...

Prior to 3.98 there were issues with VBR when encoding certain tonal samples of the 'sandpaper' problem and similar kind (for instance Birds, herding_calls, trumpet). Probably the issues are weaknesses in the psy model, but they were enlarged by using VBR. ABR provided better results than VBR here.
It's always personal how to deal with problem samples, but one way out was to use ABR 220+. david.lisb's idea is to kind of bring the ABR idea to the VBR world by using the -b switch. This decreases efficiency of course, but as many users don't have to care any more a lot about average bitrate this is a valid approach. It can't decrease quality. Unfortunately according to my experience the approach doesn't really work. Audio content seems to be the same as when not using the -b switch.

QUOTE (kornchild2002 @ Oct 21 2008, 13:08) *
I wonder who voted for 3.90.3 as that is rather old ...

According to the poll only few people use old Lame versions, and most users use 3.98. So what's the problem? Though Lame development is highly welcome and we should be thankful for any progress with new Lame versions we shouldn't be over-optimistic with progress achieved. It's simply true that already 3.90.3 was great. When it's about optimum quality nobody can really tell whether 3.98 -V0 is better or say 3.93.1 (or 3.90.3) ABR 270, simply because both results are great, and whether the one or other encoder is a tiny bit better depends on the sample under consideration.

It's so much personal decision which encoder and setting to use, and there is seldom a clearly objective decision basis. Beware of opinions like 'it must be newest version' or 'it must be VBR', though using the ever newest version and VBR is the most obvious approach.

This post has been edited by halb27: Oct 21 2008, 14:39


--------------------
lame3100m -V1 --insane-factor 0.75
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
memomai
post Oct 21 2008, 14:48
Post #30





Group: Members
Posts: 264
Joined: 13-February 05
From: Germany, Kempten
Member No.: 19808



QUOTE
I wonder who voted for 3.90.3 as that is rather old ...


some people keep tradition yeahright.gif and think by staying on 3.90.3 they stay on the safe way to get transparency. Why not? 3.90.3 is the only lame one which was highly promised to produce transparency. look to the history of the encoders which are used. Remeber the MPC trend? everyone used it, then 3.90.3 was said to deliver transparency, too, so the trend was back to MP3 again.

Everyone said lame 3.90.3 is the best one, not only hydrogenaudio was happy, also all the others were happy with 3.90.3, and it took a loooong time till a NEWER lame version (3.96.1) was recommended. But not everyone could "trust" the new version, ALTHOUGH it was the new recommended one officially.

version 3.92, especially 3.93, afterwards 3.95 left distrust to users, so everyone stayed with 3.90.3..

This may be the reason why STILL some people stay on 3.90.3. Also /mnt found some samples where 3.90.3 is better than 3.97... Does this really build more trust to users? I don't think so, but since I've realised that I cannot tell the difference between V6 and original, I'm very happy with 3.98.2 and -V 5.


--------------------
FB2K,APE&LAME
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
_Raziel-BG
post Oct 21 2008, 15:05
Post #31





Group: Members
Posts: 128
Joined: 2-December 04
Member No.: 18461



LAME VBR: -V2
LAME version: 3.98.2
Floating point: No
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Synthetic Soul
post Oct 21 2008, 15:18
Post #32





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 4887
Joined: 12-August 04
From: Exeter, UK
Member No.: 16217



With regard to newer versions vs 3.90.3: it should be noted that Hydrogen Audio stated that it would not change the recommended version (3.90.3) until a better - not equal - version was created. 3.97beta finally achieved this accolade.

I'm not saying that it, and any version since are better in all respects, but it's worth noting Hydrogen Audio's thoughts on the subject.


--------------------
I'm on a horse.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kornchild2002
post Oct 21 2008, 15:47
Post #33





Group: Members
Posts: 2066
Joined: 8-April 05
From: Cincinnati, OH
Member No.: 21277



QUOTE (memomai @ Oct 21 2008, 07:48) *
some people keep tradition yeahright.gif and think by staying on 3.90.3 they stay on the safe way to get transparency. Why not?


Why not? I don't know, why use 3.98.2 over 3.97? I was just curious to see which people would respond since I have yet to see someone post "I voted for 3.90.3 as I still use it." Just curious to see who still uses 3.90.3 and why.

QUOTE (halb27 @ Oct 21 2008, 07:22) *
According to the poll only few people use old Lame versions, and most users use 3.98. So what's the problem?


There is no problem, I was just curious. The point of my comment was not to start a flame war or insult people, I was just curious who still uses 3.90.3.

QUOTE (Synthetic Soul @ Oct 21 2008, 08:18) *
With regard to newer versions vs 3.90.3: it should be noted that Hydrogen Audio stated that it would not change the recommended version (3.90.3) until a better - not equal - version was created. 3.97beta finally achieved this accolade.

I'm not saying that it, and any version since are better in all respects, but it's worth noting Hydrogen Audio's thoughts on the subject.


That is what I thought but I wasn't sure what had happened. I thought I remembered when 3.97b1 was the recommended Lame encoder and how some people didn't like that it was a beta encoder.

Just to make it clear: my comment wasn't made to bring back negative arguments or start a "teh 3.98.2 is teh bests and 3.90.3 is teh sucksorz!" line of comments. I was just curious as to who chose 3.90.3 and why. Most people are replying back with what encoder they choose, what setting they are using, and why.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
pdq
post Oct 21 2008, 15:51
Post #34





Group: Members
Posts: 3372
Joined: 1-September 05
From: SE Pennsylvania
Member No.: 24233



QUOTE (kornchild2002 @ Oct 21 2008, 07:08) *
I wonder who voted for 3.90.3 as that is rather old and I thought it was no longer recommended after 3.97b1 came out.

I voted for 3.90.3 because I haven't bought a new CD in about six years (very happy with what I have) so I have not needed any newer version. If I suddenly have a lot of spare time ( laugh.gif ) then I will rerip to lossless and probably encode to something like -V5 (well suited to my 62 year old ears).
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
memomai
post Oct 21 2008, 16:27
Post #35





Group: Members
Posts: 264
Joined: 13-February 05
From: Germany, Kempten
Member No.: 19808



QUOTE
Just to make it clear: my comment wasn't made to bring back negative arguments or start a "teh 3.98.2 is teh bests and 3.90.3 is teh sucksorz!" line of comments. I was just curious as to who chose 3.90.3 and why. Most people are replying back with what encoder they choose, what setting they are using, and why.


Everyone should feel free to choose the codec and setting he or she like to use even on HA wink.gif

EDIT: Hey, where are the Blade lovers? Hands up! biggrin.gif

This post has been edited by memomai: Oct 21 2008, 16:29


--------------------
FB2K,APE&LAME
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Synthetic Soul
post Oct 21 2008, 19:06
Post #36





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 4887
Joined: 12-August 04
From: Exeter, UK
Member No.: 16217



QUOTE (kornchild2002 @ Oct 21 2008, 15:47) *
That is what I thought but I wasn't sure what had happened. I thought I remembered when 3.97b1 was the recommended Lame encoder and how some people didn't like that it was a beta encoder.
That's correct: there was some discussion regarding a beta becoming the new recommendation. FYI, this is the thread that I always remember as being "the time".

QUOTE (kornchild2002 @ Oct 21 2008, 15:47) *
Just to make it clear: my comment wasn't made to bring back negative arguments or start a "teh 3.98.2 is teh bests and 3.90.3 is teh sucksorz!" line of comments. I was just curious as to who chose 3.90.3 and why. Most people are replying back with what encoder they choose, what setting they are using, and why.
I understand this. I did wonder, which is why I included it as an option.

Edit: For my part I am wondering:
  • What the other VBR setting is (maybe david.lisb?).
  • Why 10 people don't use 3.98 in question 2, but only 6 in question 3. smile.gif


This post has been edited by Synthetic Soul: Oct 21 2008, 19:22


--------------------
I'm on a horse.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
/mnt
post Oct 21 2008, 19:51
Post #37





Group: Members
Posts: 697
Joined: 22-April 06
Member No.: 29877



QUOTE (kornchild2002 @ Oct 21 2008, 12:08) *
I wonder who voted for 3.90.3 as that is rather old and I thought it was no longer recommended after 3.97b1 came out.


I would use 3.90.3, if it wasn't so slow. I think the uberstandard ripping group still use it though.

I had to use LAME 3.90.3 to encode Ministry's single collection box set. Since a few tracks (1, 4 and 5) on the first disc had some noticable artifacts on LAME 3.97, while its ok with 3.90.3. You can find the ABX reports of one the tracks here. But am might be better off using V0, since i can pick up regression issues at V2 on both 3.97 and 3.98.

QUOTE (memomai @ Oct 21 2008, 16:27) *
Hey, where are the Blade lovers? Hands up! biggrin.gif


LOL, I don't why alot people bash Xing as the worst mp3 encoder; while Blade was much worse. Am supprised, that a poster sitting in a office at Fhg hasn't bragged how awesome the Fhg sorround mp3 encoder is smile.gif.


--------------------
"I never thought I'd see this much candy in one mission!"
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kornchild2002
post Oct 21 2008, 20:08
Post #38





Group: Members
Posts: 2066
Joined: 8-April 05
From: Cincinnati, OH
Member No.: 21277



QUOTE (memomai @ Oct 21 2008, 09:27) *
Everyone should feel free to choose the codec and setting he or she like to use even on HA wink.gif


I agree, I am not trying to force an encoder/setting on people to match my own methods. I was just curious about who and why since most people seem to be responding back with that information.

QUOTE (pdq @ Oct 21 2008, 08:51) *
I voted for 3.90.3 because I haven't bought a new CD in about six years (very happy with what I have) so I have not needed any newer version. If I suddenly have a lot of spare time ( laugh.gif ) then I will rerip to lossless and probably encode to something like -V5 (well suited to my 62 year old ears).


Very interesting. Thank you for fulfilling my curiosity. That is all I wanted to know, I won't say "your choices is teh suckorz minez iz teh bests" as you can use whatever you want even if it was the Xing mp3 encoder from 2001.

QUOTE (Synthetic Soul @ Oct 21 2008, 12:06) *
That's correct: there was some discussion regarding a beta becoming the new recommendation. FYI, this is the thread that I always remember as being "the time".


Yes, that thread brings back memories. I remember talking to a colleague at work who used the Lame mp3 encoder (I was surprised to find someone else in person who actually used Lame) and refused to update to 3.97b1 as it was a beta. I sat him down, had him conduct some listening tests, and he eventually switched. That is interesting about the current poll results, I wonder what is going on.

Edit: deleted unnecessary quote

This post has been edited by kornchild2002: Oct 21 2008, 20:08
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
null-null-pi
post Oct 22 2008, 18:08
Post #39





Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 11-October 08
Member No.: 59933



hi there, first post for me on ha.org ^^

i use 3.98.2 V6.5 due to the fact that my portable only has 512MB of memory plus it's producing some static-like sounds while scrolling the songtitle on the display (which is almost always the case). it easily out-annoys the artifacts which i encountered using this setting. it's all about tradeoffs...


--------------------
10 FOR I=1 TO 3:PRINT"DAMN":NEXT
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
TRE
post Oct 23 2008, 07:46
Post #40





Group: Members
Posts: 1
Joined: 22-October 08
Member No.: 60699



I use -V5 (3.98.2) as it is a good ratio size / quality

Those files are used to listen music on my computer, on my phone, on my ipod, on my ypz5 and stored on a usb memory stick to listen in my car.

Nobody is able to hear this is MP3 except by ABX'ing with original tracks
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
sketchy_c
post Oct 24 2008, 12:54
Post #41





Group: Members
Posts: 105
Joined: 18-December 06
Member No.: 38800



I listen to my own stuff on Vorbis (q5), but if I'm encoding mixes I've made for others I'll use 3.98 at either -V0 or an ABR ~200-225 if I need to be more considerate of filesizes. I haven't played around with floating point yet.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
audiobookie
post Nov 5 2008, 02:01
Post #42





Group: Members
Posts: 22
Joined: 16-January 07
Member No.: 39699



File size for spoken word is important to me.
Was V8 3.97
Now V9 3.98
This gives about the same file size.

V8 in 3.98 gives much larger than even V7 vbr-new did in 3.97.

I thought vbr-new was just becoming default vbr in 3.98, it seems to have become much more!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Xenno
post Nov 5 2008, 04:23
Post #43





Group: Members
Posts: 393
Joined: 23-July 02
From: Blue Grass, IA
Member No.: 2760



Hangin with 3.96.1 and alt pre ext


--------------------
No one can be told what Ogg Vorbis is...you have to hear it for yourself
- Morpheus
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
halb27
post Nov 5 2008, 18:56
Post #44





Group: Members
Posts: 2424
Joined: 9-October 05
From: Dormagen, Germany
Member No.: 25015



The poll results are very interesting, especially the focusses on -V0, -V2/3, and -V5.
High percentage of -V2 votes was expected due to the traditional 'standard' paradigm and the fact that -V2 is fine with pretty rare exceptions. -V3 addresses more or less the same expectations and so it's no surprise that -V3 gathered pretty many votes though not as much as -V2.
That -V5 has its lovers was also expected as quality usually is fine and there are still many users with restricted storage capacities.
Pretty much of a surprise to me is the rather high percentage of -V0 users. Sure many users can use a higher bitrate with today's storage capacities and thus do the best Lame VBR offers even though this gives a benefit only on rare occasion. But I was surprised about the high number of votes.


--------------------
lame3100m -V1 --insane-factor 0.75
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
pdq
post Nov 5 2008, 19:07
Post #45





Group: Members
Posts: 3372
Joined: 1-September 05
From: SE Pennsylvania
Member No.: 24233



I am not so much surprised that a few people use -V0 as that anybody uses -V1. If you are going to go against conventional wisdom and go beyond -V2, why not go all the way to -V0, or 320 cbr?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
halb27
post Nov 5 2008, 22:32
Post #46





Group: Members
Posts: 2424
Joined: 9-October 05
From: Dormagen, Germany
Member No.: 25015



QUOTE (pdq @ Nov 5 2008, 20:07) *
I am not so much surprised that a few people use -V0 as that anybody uses -V1. If you are going to go against conventional wisdom and go beyond -V2, why not go all the way to -V0, or 320 cbr?

That's why the percentage of -V1 users is so small while the second largest user group is the -V0 users.
It's nothing wrong chosing -V1 as the personal optimum quality/bitrate setting so why should there be no -V1 users at all? Though it can be understood that most people who want to go beyond -V2 go straight to -V0.

This post has been edited by halb27: Nov 5 2008, 22:34


--------------------
lame3100m -V1 --insane-factor 0.75
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Maggi
post Nov 6 2008, 09:31
Post #47





Group: Members
Posts: 122
Joined: 31-May 07
Member No.: 43892



I'm using LAME 3.98 (not yet updated to .2) with -V0 for ripping CDs

[edit]
the -V0 MP3s are played back with Winamp's MAD plugin at 24bit and sent via S/PDIF to my Denon AVR and

I use Winamp's out_lame plugin with -V5 for recompressing them with ReplayGain applied to feed my car stereo mp3 player.
[/edit]

Cheers,
Maggi

This post has been edited by Maggi: Nov 6 2008, 09:58
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Alexxander
post Nov 6 2008, 09:50
Post #48





Group: Members
Posts: 457
Joined: 15-November 04
Member No.: 18143



QUOTE (Maggi @ Nov 6 2008, 10:31) *
I'm using LAME 3.98 (not yet updated to .2) with -V0 for ripping CDs

Then I use -V5 for recompressing them with ReplayGain applied to feed my car stereo.

I'm sure you will get comments on this one because you say you recompress mp3 from -V0 to -V5 and that produces poorer results than compressing from CD or lossless directly to -V5. Maybe you're happy with the quality you get right now but consider ripping to lossless once and forever (check out ripping guides for Windows in HA Wiki). Afterwards you can convert to whatever lossy format and quality you want.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Maggi
post Nov 6 2008, 10:07
Post #49





Group: Members
Posts: 122
Joined: 31-May 07
Member No.: 43892



QUOTE (Alexxander @ Nov 6 2008, 09:50) *
QUOTE (Maggi @ Nov 6 2008, 10:31) *
I'm using LAME 3.98 (not yet updated to .2) with -V0 for ripping CDs

Then I use -V5 for recompressing them with ReplayGain applied to feed my car stereo.

I'm sure you will get comments on this one because you say you recompress mp3 from -V0 to -V5 and that produces poorer results than compressing from CD or lossless directly to -V5. Maybe you're happy with the quality you get right now but consider ripping to lossless once and forever (check out ripping guides for Windows in HA Wiki). Afterwards you can convert to whatever lossy format and quality you want.


Thanx for the note, Alexxander !

I just edited my posting to further explain my usage and since I don't drive a Rolls Royce or any other "silent" car, V5 is more than enough to substitute radio reception ... wink.gif

Admittedly, I could re-rip everything to a lossless format, but my CD collection has grown over the years (approaching 1k), so it would be a huge task that I'm not willing to challenge yet, because -V0 sounds splendid on my Denon and recompressing them to -V5 is still great for in car listening.

Cheers !
Maggi
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
GeSomeone
post Nov 6 2008, 18:43
Post #50





Group: Members
Posts: 921
Joined: 22-October 01
From: the Netherlands
Member No.: 335



up-to-date LAME 3.98.2 tongue.gif
For (my) highest quality mp3's I use -V 1, the rest is routinely -V2 (I use no DAP).
In 3.98 -V 1 makes sometime sense for me, but only for reasonably well recorded/mastered music. I have used -V 1.5 a couple of times (slightly better file sizes) but now I think what the heck, either -V 1 or -V 2.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >
Closed 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: 23rd July 2014 - 22:20