IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Difference in LAME versions - 320 CBR, [moved from Tech]
seehazy
post Oct 18 2013, 01:06
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 15-October 13
Member No.: 110975



Can anyone comment on quality differences between older versions of LAME in terms of its 320kbps CBR encoding?

I am cleaning my library and I suppose I am looking for a cutoff point to shoot for in terms of quality. I have some 3.82, 3.89b, 3.90, etc. Most of my music is LAME3.97 and above... but should I replace my older MP3's?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
saratoga
post Oct 18 2013, 03:41
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 4866
Joined: 2-September 02
Member No.: 3264



3.82 is really old, but at that bitrate it probably doesn't make much difference. I wouldn't bother updating.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
eahm
post Oct 18 2013, 04:26
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 1036
Joined: 11-February 12
Member No.: 97076



You'll keep replacing every time they update? Until the day you go lossless? Go lossless now.

This post has been edited by eahm: Oct 18 2013, 04:26


--------------------
/lwAsIimz
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
testyou
post Oct 18 2013, 05:56
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 99
Joined: 24-September 10
Member No.: 84113



LAME Changelog: history.html

This post has been edited by testyou: Oct 18 2013, 06:07
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
shadowking
post Oct 18 2013, 09:19
Post #5





Group: Members
Posts: 1523
Joined: 31-January 04
Member No.: 11664



Don't touch anything from 3.90 onwards. For earlier versions the main 'quality' jump would be gapless encoding if thats applicable.


--------------------
Wavpack -b450
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
seehazy
post Oct 18 2013, 18:10
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 15-October 13
Member No.: 110975



QUOTE (testyou @ Oct 18 2013, 00:56) *


Thanks. Yeah I came across this page on my own but didn't find many references to 320 CBR encoding. Most of the changes involve things that don't concern me. Concerning 320 it does mention a bit reservoir for a couple of releases and fixing padding. I just don't know enough to understand significance.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
seehazy
post Oct 18 2013, 18:14
Post #7





Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 15-October 13
Member No.: 110975



QUOTE (shadowking @ Oct 18 2013, 04:19) *
Don't touch anything from 3.90 onwards. For earlier versions the main 'quality' jump would be gapless encoding if thats applicable.


I definitely want my tracks to be gapless so that's good to know. When encoding from lossless to MP3 is that a standard setting with LAME? I just use the standard 320kbps CBR preset.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
pdq
post Oct 18 2013, 18:45
Post #8





Group: Members
Posts: 3375
Joined: 1-September 05
From: SE Pennsylvania
Member No.: 24233



For version 3.90.3 the --preset-insane preset would have given the best quality 320 kbps encode. After that just use -b 320.

Of course, you could get essentially the same quality in a smaller file if you use one of the vbr settings.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
testyou
post Oct 18 2013, 18:47
Post #9





Group: Members
Posts: 99
Joined: 24-September 10
Member No.: 84113



QUOTE (shadowking @ Oct 18 2013, 01:19) *
Don't touch anything from 3.90 onwards.

What? I hope you mean not anything older?

3.98.4 is a landmark version, with the subsequent versions having different psy and vbr tuning.
Some members have expressed their opinion that 3.98.4 is their preferred version of LAME, I believe during threads discussing disadvantages in the newer tuning implementations.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
binaryhermit
post Oct 18 2013, 21:02
Post #10





Group: Members
Posts: 36
Joined: 23-April 09
Member No.: 69212



I thinbk what (s?)he meant was "keep everything newer than 3.90". But it is an ambiguous statement.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lvqcl
post Oct 18 2013, 21:28
Post #11





Group: Developer
Posts: 3338
Joined: 2-December 07
Member No.: 49183



QUOTE (pdq @ Oct 18 2013, 21:45) *
For version 3.90.3 the --preset-insane preset would have given the best quality 320 kbps encode. After that just use -b 320.

According to LAME changelog, it's --alt-preset insane for 3.90 - 3.92, --alt-preset insane or --preset insane for 3.93.1, and -b 320 for 3.94 and newer.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
binaryhermit
post Oct 19 2013, 01:54
Post #12





Group: Members
Posts: 36
Joined: 23-April 09
Member No.: 69212



I thought --alt-preset insane and --preset insane still worked, they were just mapped to -b 320.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mjb2006
post Oct 19 2013, 12:32
Post #13





Group: Members
Posts: 763
Joined: 12-May 06
From: Colorado, USA
Member No.: 30694



QUOTE (binaryhermit @ Oct 18 2013, 14:02) *
I thinbk what (s?)he meant was "keep everything newer than 3.90". But it is an ambiguous statement.

I did a double-take on that phrasing too, but the OP asked about replacing 320 kbps CBR MP3s; the recommendation is to keep, i.e. do not replace, those that were encoded with post-3.90 versions of LAME.

I'd add that prior to version 3.99, CBR files at bitrates under 192 kbps needed nonstandard -q values (7, 8 or 9) to dodge the issue in bug tracker item 3187397. The initial report and some unrelated testing I did for gapless issues both revealed that 128 kbps encodes were especially susceptible to a risk of audible artifacts.

Of course, I wouldn't worry about redoing any files whatsoever, if they don't actually sound bad.

I also second the recommendation of just going to lossless once and for all if peace-of-mind is really an issue, rather than upgrading every time there's a potential quality improvement in LAME (all those red lines in the changelog). You can store 2000+ FLAC-encoded albums per terabyte, and 3-TB external drives are ~$125 now...
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
seehazy
post Oct 21 2013, 21:24
Post #14





Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 15-October 13
Member No.: 110975



Thanks for the information everyone. Will take the recommendation of only replacing MP3's older than LAME 3.90. Like I have said, this is a tiny proportion of my music collection so it will not be a big deal. (It is actually just a single album by Desmond Dekker... so no biggie AT ALL, easy to fix.)

Very much considering going lossless. At least for my favorite albums. Can't really go lossless when it comes to a lot of rap and hip-hop that is only released via online mixtapes for free. I listen to a wide variety of music, but it is probably more important for keeping lossless quality when it comes to classical, rock, alternative, etc... simply because there are real instruments to be heard.

I also don't have an out of this world sound system, so not really worth all that extra hard drive space to have FLAC since I probably can't tell with my speaker setup. But some day. All subjective and relative blah blah blah. I should invest in some amazing headphones I am thinking... like beats audio, haha jk.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Oct 21 2013, 21:26
Post #15





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



QUOTE (seehazy @ Oct 21 2013, 13:24) *
it is probably more important for keeping lossless quality when it comes to classical, rock, alternative, etc... simply because there are real instruments to be heard.

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=16295


--------------------
Placebophiles: put up or shut up!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mjb2006
post Oct 21 2013, 23:03
Post #16





Group: Members
Posts: 763
Joined: 12-May 06
From: Colorado, USA
Member No.: 30694



QUOTE (seehazy @ Oct 21 2013, 14:24) *
Will take the recommendation of only replacing MP3's older than LAME 3.90. [...] (It is actually just a single album by Desmond Dekker... so no biggie AT ALL, easy to fix.)


If it's that small of an amount of music, why don't you just listen to it and see if there's anything amiss in your current MP3s? If they sound fine, why replace them?

Also, classic reggae is not known for its audio fidelity...

This post has been edited by mjb2006: Oct 21 2013, 23:05
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Fishman0919
post Oct 25 2013, 06:15
Post #17





Group: Members
Posts: 79
Joined: 18-December 03
Member No.: 10554



QUOTE (pdq @ Oct 18 2013, 10:45) *
For version 3.90.3 the --preset-insane preset would have given the best quality 320 kbps encode. After that just use -b 320.

Of course, you could get essentially the same quality in a smaller file if you use one of the vbr settings.


"--preset-insane preset -q 0" would be better

And yes...

QUOTE (binaryhermit @ Oct 18 2013, 17:54) *
I thought --alt-preset insane and --preset insane still worked, they were just mapped to -b 320.


-b 320 -q 0

This post has been edited by Fishman0919: Oct 25 2013, 06:17
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
pdq
post Oct 25 2013, 12:40
Post #18





Group: Members
Posts: 3375
Joined: 1-September 05
From: SE Pennsylvania
Member No.: 24233



Be careful that you are not using one of the versions in which -q 0 actually resulted in worse quality. It is much safer to use the default value.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
UNHchabo
post Oct 29 2013, 02:11
Post #19





Group: Members
Posts: 53
Joined: 16-June 08
Member No.: 54429



QUOTE (seehazy @ Oct 21 2013, 13:24) *
Very much considering going lossless. At least for my favorite albums. Can't really go lossless when it comes to a lot of rap and hip-hop that is only released via online mixtapes for free. I listen to a wide variety of music, but it is probably more important for keeping lossless quality when it comes to classical, rock, alternative, etc... simply because there are real instruments to be heard.

I also don't have an out of this world sound system, so not really worth all that extra hard drive space to have FLAC since I probably can't tell with my speaker setup. But some day. All subjective and relative blah blah blah. I should invest in some amazing headphones I am thinking... like beats audio, haha jk.


Hard drive space is cheap nowadays; you can get a 3TB drive for less than $130 -- that's over 4000 CDs worth of space, if you ripped them all to Wav instead of Flac.

Several years ago when I got my first computer of my own (I had a 30GB hard drive), I was ripping my CDs to 160 CBR using whatever ripping program came with my computer; I couldn't tell the difference on my setup at the time. The next year my CD wallet, containing my entire collection, was stolen from my car. When I got my next new set of speakers, suddenly I could hear all the artifacts in my MP3s, and I was very disappointed. Since then, I've always ripped all of my CDs to Flac, regardless of whether I can tell the difference.

However, since I also own an MP3 player with a very limited storage capacity (2GB), I wrote a program called FlacSquisher to handle the encoding so I can use Oggs or MP3s on those devices. Then I have my Flac archive, and my Ogg or MP3 copies for mobile use. Then if I want to use a new version of Lame or a different bitrate, I can just delete my lossy folder and start over. If I was only going to have my MP3 copy I'd probably use -V0, but since I don't I'm perfectly happy using -V4 for casual listening in noisy environments like the gym, so that means I can fit a wider array of music on my MP3 player.


--------------------
http://sourceforge.net/projects/flacsquisher/
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: 30th July 2014 - 14:48