IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

4 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
LAME presets
cd-rw.org
post Oct 19 2001, 13:16
Post #1





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



I think we should get some order to the LAME presets and format them in the MPC-style, getting rid of the --dm-preset and --r3mix.

-insane (dm insane or xtreme?)
-xtreme (dm standard)
-standard (--r3mix or similar bitrate producing MTRH variant - I think speed is also required for the standard. Bitrates should be competitive with 192kbps CBR)
-radio and/or -divx (abr 128kbps stuff?)
-thumb? (something small)

All these personalized presets are just confusing for the newbies I think.


--------------------
http://www.bitburners.com - We Burn a Bit
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dibrom
post Oct 19 2001, 16:36
Post #2


Founder


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



Well I strongly agree that the current preset situation is not optimal at all, and is need of a restructuring. I'm not exactly sure what would be best though. I don't think I would mind what you proposed above (except for the issue below), but I think it may be hard to get other certain people to agree, expecially given the order you proposed. It would imply that certain presets are better quality than others, but a few people still seem to disagree with/deny this, even with all the evidence pointing to this.

Also.. in a situation like this, and given the fact that all of this AQ stuff is likely to make it into LAME, I think it is important to keep the "standard" mode still within the AQ category. As you see in this thread:

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/showth...st&threadid=108

(last page especially)

--r3mix is NOT AQ since it can be shown with 95% certainty that the reference sample (MPC) is perceptually better.

So I'm not sure the solution would be quite as simple as what you proposed..
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
cd-rw.org
post Oct 19 2001, 19:20
Post #3





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



I don't think -standard needs to be such a high bitrate or quality as --dm-preset standard.

Is MPC -standard transparent? Or Psytel AAC -standard?

After standard is supposed to be "in the middle of the pack" solution. Also, I would definitely make the standard MTRH based, since COMMON users may give a damn about the speed too.


--------------------
http://www.bitburners.com - We Burn a Bit
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dibrom
post Oct 19 2001, 19:43
Post #4


Founder


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



QUOTE
Originally posted by cd-rw.org
I don't think -standard needs to be such a high bitrate or quality as --dm-preset standard.

Is MPC -standard transparent? Or Psytel AAC -standard?


If --r3mix is transparent to some people, I can assure you that both of those are very much more transparent at those settings. If you want the truth, I would take mpc -standard over --dm-preset standard anyday. So yes, I would say they usually are to most people.

However, that wasn't my point. My point was that --r3mix which you proposed as "standard" was not AQ, and since AQ is being pushed very heavily by some, it doesn't seem to make sense to me that the default setting wouldn't even conform to that.

QUOTE
After standard is supposed to be "in the middle of the pack" solution. Also, I would definitely make the standard MTRH based, since COMMON users may give a damn about the speed too.


Well I can promise you right now that Roel will [b]NEVER
agree to --r3mix being labeled as a "middle of the pack" solution. If you don't believe me, just go ask him what he thinks of this. Heh.. I can assure you he won't like it. He'll tell you something to the effect that --r3mix is transparent to most people on most equipment (despite the results from the AQ test) and marginalize the difference that --dm-preset standard provides, saying that to most people it doesn't matter. Either that or he will say "well no lossy solution is 100% perfect, --r3mix is good enough, etc, etc". So talking to me about all of this is kind of pointless if you can't even get the other party to agree to any of it first anyway. Perhaps you should go talk to him.

Anyway, my point was that the "standard" mode should be transparent to a certain degree to most people. As I understand it, this was the point behind Roel's AQ test, to determine which settings can be considered "Archive Quality" for most. --r3mix fails here. Considering that mpc's -standard mode is probably more transparent than --dm-preset standard even, and you made the comparison, this is important.

That being said, I do agree that the standard mode should be relatively quick. However, I gather that you think I have no interest in speed at all. This is not true, and infact many of the modifications I am working on I originally was going to try and implement with vbr-mtrh, but right now it is still not ready. It also still does not work with nspsytune optimally or correctly. This will change once Robert implements the new -X modes completely, but right now they aren't done yet.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jord
post Oct 19 2001, 21:26
Post #5





Group: Members
Posts: 19
Joined: 2-October 01
Member No.: 176



I totally agree with cd-rw.

Simplicity is key here.

And obviously it shouldn't a problem of person (once again, Roel vs. Dibrom, etc...)?

If this relative quality issue cannot be solved, why don't we try it with speed?

- fastest
- fast (abr 128 stuff)
- normal (--r3mix)
- slow (--dm standard)
- slowest (--dm insane)

that could work, no?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dibrom
post Oct 19 2001, 21:34
Post #6


Founder


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



QUOTE
Originally posted by jord
I totally agree with cd-rw.


I never said I disagreed with him.

QUOTE
Simplicity is key here.


I agree.

QUOTE
And obviously it shouldn't a problem of person (once again, Roel vs. Dibrom, etc...)?


Umm, the problem isn't Roel vs. Dibrom, the problem is getting someone to be willing to agree to this. That means agreeing to have their setting ranked lower than another setting. If someone is obviously unwilling to make this concession (and I go on past experience here), than how can this possibly work?

QUOTE
If this relative quality issue cannot be solved, why don't we try it with speed?

- fastest
- fast (abr 128 stuff)
- normal (--r3mix)
- slow (--dm standard)
- slowest (--dm insane)

that could work, no?


In this case, faster speed implies lower quality, so that will obviously not work. To add to that, none of the dm-presets are really going to be very different in speed. The exception may be that "insane" is actually faster than standard or xtreme, so again that won't work.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
cd-rw.org
post Oct 19 2001, 21:37
Post #7





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



Just a pointer that I once did a blind test which included MPC -standard as well and it was considered far from transparent. In fact I think --r3mix (v.3.88) was rated higher, but the this was some time ago so I am not 100% sure and the test was a very limited test.

About the transparency...

I think if you take a player and headphones on the street and start asking people, you'll find out that more than 90% of the people will say that 192CBR is transparent.

Actually, one local hifi magazine (respected one) blind tested audiophiles, and they couldn hear the difference in between 192cbr Blade and the original.

I am not going to start arguing about this, but I have found that if you don't know what to look for in the signal (most of the people don't) then lossy compression defects are very hard to hear.


--------------------
http://www.bitburners.com - We Burn a Bit
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dibrom
post Oct 19 2001, 21:46
Post #8


Founder


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



QUOTE
Originally posted by cd-rw.org
Just a pointer that I once did a blind test which included MPC -standard as well and it was considered far from transparent. In fact I think --r3mix (v.3.88) was rated higher, but the this was some time ago so I am not 100% sure and the test was a very limited test.


No offense, but I don't think the test was performed under the best circumstances, and the results may not have even been interpreted correctly. I don't think any of the group tests performed by the community up to the AQ test (except for ff123's test) were very accurate or even performed correctly. In any case, mpc -standard will outperform MP3 and LAME just about every single time on critical samples. But that aside, MPC's quality here is not the point. You want decent quality for standard but I think that if this AQ stuff makes it through, the standard mode should actually still be categorized as AQ.

QUOTE
About the transparency...

I think if you take a player and headphones on the street and start asking people, you'll find out that more than 90% of the people will say that 192CBR is transparent.


Maybe. But supposedly a large portion of people participating in this test didn't think they could hear the difference either, and they did. Considering all of this, speculation about what people should is useless in my opinion. It makes much more sense to actually work with the data that we do have.

QUOTE
Actually, one local hifi magazine (respected one) blind tested audiophiles, and they couldn hear the difference in between 192cbr Blade and the original.


Heh.. if someone is an "audiophile" and they can't hear the difference between an original and blade at 192kbps, then they aren't really an audiophile. But in any case, I am not familiar with that test and don't know any of the details about how it was performed.

QUOTE
I am not going to start arguing about this, but I have found that if you don't know what to look for in the signal (most of the people don't) then lossy compression defects are very hard to hear.


This is probably true but I don't think the quality presets of a psychoacoustic encoder should be tailored with this in mind. They should be tailored to provide quality based on real information gathered from real tests. Not just on speculation.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Drivenbydemons
post Oct 19 2001, 22:40
Post #9





Group: Members
Posts: 4
Joined: 3-October 01
Member No.: 179



QUOTE
I think if you take a player and headphones on the street and start asking people, you'll find out that more than 90% of the people will say that 192CBR is transparent.


This AQ thing is killing this idea. If 90% of the public think 192CBR is transparent that should be good enough for the standard tag. Anything that sounds better than that and is comparable in size would be a bonus (--r3mix). Just make it clear in the documentation that there are better settings if your ears need them.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
JohnV
post Oct 19 2001, 22:46
Post #10





Group: Developer
Posts: 2797
Joined: 22-September 01
Member No.: 6



QUOTE
Originally posted by cd-rw.org
Actually, one local hifi magazine (respected one) blind tested audiophiles, and they couldn hear the difference in between 192cbr Blade and the original.


Hmm, I have totally missed this test. Which magazine and when was it?

Personally I believe there's something wrong with the test settings or something, if audiophiles truely couldn't distinguish 192cbr blade from the orginal. Or, those people can't be called audiophiles. (It doesn't help if you have 1M$ audiophile equipments, you need at least decent ears too...)

Hmm, I don't think --r3mix quality is or ever has been near MPC standard quality. It's easy to hear distortions and transient smear with --r3mix. Actually --r3mix is more closer to --dm-preset standard quality, but dm standard has better overall quality less ringing, has better transient handling which can be easily heard for example with castanets.wav etc..


--------------------
Juha Laaksonheimo
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
JohnV
post Oct 19 2001, 23:02
Post #11





Group: Developer
Posts: 2797
Joined: 22-September 01
Member No.: 6



QUOTE
Originally posted by Drivenbydemons
 
This AQ thing is killing this idea. If 90% of the public think 192CBR is transparent that should be good enough for the standard tag. Anything that sounds better than that and is comparable in size would be a bonus (--r3mix). Just make it clear in the documentation that there are better settings if your ears need them.


Hmm, didn't check the very latest specualtion about r3mix AQ test statistical analysis, but recently the result were (If I'm not mistaken) that with over 95% confidence a group of people found both 192cbr and --r3mix worse than the MPC reference sample. It would be better if a group couldn't distinguish an AQ-setting with so high confidence... That's why I don't think --r3mix should be called archival quality by any means.


--------------------
Juha Laaksonheimo
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dibrom
post Oct 19 2001, 23:38
Post #12


Founder


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



QUOTE
Originally posted by Drivenbydemons
This AQ thing is killing this idea. If 90% of the public think 192CBR is transparent that should be good enough for the standard tag. Anything that sounds better than that and is comparable in size would be a bonus (--r3mix). Just make it clear in the documentation that there are better settings if your ears need them.


As I've been trying to emphasize, it hasn't been proven that 90% of the public think 192kbps CBR is transparent. All I've seen so far is just speculation about what should be [b]good enough
, let alone anything which shows 192kbps is actually even remotely transparent.

For that matter though, this whole AQ thing was never actually my idea at all. I still don't agree with or like the idea behind it, and think it has no place in the LAME encoder itself, but at this point it is looking like we have no choice. So if it is actually going to make its way into the encoder, then the presets need to actually line up with the definition of what IS AQ. We know for a fact that 192kbps and --r3mix are not at the very least.

I think that if "high quality" presets are going to make it into LAME now and entirely replace the old ones, we need to make sure that the default setting will profide sufficient quality for the "average" user. Determining this threshold is the whole point behind Roel's AQ test. Unfortunately, the results from that test eliminate what cd-rw.org is proposing we use as the default setting itself.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
cd-rw.org
post Oct 20 2001, 07:32
Post #13





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



JohnV,

Dig out the Tekniikan Maailma 12/99. Especially page 39, lower right corner has interesting comments about quality and the human ear.

Dibrom,

Perform a test so that you do not know which is the original, and throw those headphones to the trash can and use speakers in a normal room. Also a long time ago EmediaPro had similar test results than the "Tekniikan Maailma", also with Blade 192.

But 192cbr is not the issue here - the topic is VBR presets.

You seem to something against the AQ test. It may not have been the definitive and absolute truth telling test, but it also showed that --r3mix is better than 192cbr. Noe the "-standard" doesn't have to be --r3mix, but a MTRH variant targetting around 200kbs - in other words a 192crb replacement.

192 is THE standard, so "-standard" should be a replcament for it - offering improvoved quality, with little file size gain. Audio quality sufficient for most purposes.


--------------------
http://www.bitburners.com - We Burn a Bit
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Garf
post Oct 20 2001, 10:11
Post #14


Server Admin


Group: Admin
Posts: 4886
Joined: 24-September 01
Member No.: 13



QUOTE
Originally posted by cd-rw.org

but it also showed that --r3mix is better than 192cbr. 


It did not.

1. mpc is better than abr224, r3mix, and cbr192
2. dm-xtrm is better than cbr192
3. dm-std is better than cbr192

From eyeballing the results, it's unlikely we can prove r3mix > cbr192 even with more sensitive analysis.

--
GCP
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
JohnV
post Oct 20 2001, 12:52
Post #15





Group: Developer
Posts: 2797
Joined: 22-September 01
Member No.: 6



QUOTE
Originally posted by cd-rw.org
JohnV,
Dig out the Tekniikan Maailma 12/99. Especially page 39, lower right corner has interesting comments about quality and the human ear.


Umm, don't take this wrong, but I was afraid you say Tekniikan Maailma... smile.gif But, before I totally condemn this general tech magazine old article, I should read it. I have a feeling though I have read it but didn't give it much credit even back then.
Everybody can do their own ABX tests which proves totally the opposite. And even non-audiophile r3mix AQ-test found Lame 192cbr (and --r3mix) not archival quality.

Of course you can find very very easy to encode piece of music which is near transparent with Xing128, but then there's something wrong with the test setups and settings if this kind of music is used. (A bit exaggerated but you get the point.)


--------------------
Juha Laaksonheimo
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
cd-rw.org
post Oct 20 2001, 14:51
Post #16





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



I think some of you are forgetting few things: most of the people don't recognize artefacts of lossy compression-they may hear a difference, but can't tell which is the original. Most people listen to music with speakers which makes fiding artefacts a whole lot harder. I know this-I been into hifi for ten years and I have a pair of Genelec active studio monitors. I can hear a bad freq curve, sloppy bass, hard high register, or any other way in-balanced sound very easily. I can easily listen and give feedback on speakers, but hunting for MP3artefacts is still very hard for me. I have never bothered to look into them either, since they are not so bad if you are not aware of them. Also, not many people have good soundcards. You are the extreme cases and thats why there should be an extrme preset for you and the standard preset for the Joe Average.

Ok, now let's get back to topic, shall we? This wasn't supposed to be a -r3mix vs. dm issue?

Everyone agrees that we should dumb personalized presets, and make things more understandable with a "standard" preset setup in the fashion of MPC or Psytel AAC?

I proposed a MTRH variant settings that produces bitrates around 200kbs: In other words a solution that gives quality improvements over 192cbr, reasonable speed and maintains a good compression ratio. In the middle of the pack solution, a good compromise.

xtreme, like the name implies should the choice for high fidelity, extremely high quality.

insane, would be something to squeeze out the maximum theoretical quality.

I don't quite see the point why -standard should be as HQ as --dm standard, since that's propably not what Joe Average is after. And naturally the help/docs would describe the nature of the presets and incidate that hifi freaks should use -xtreme for improved quality.


--------------------
http://www.bitburners.com - We Burn a Bit
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
serbersan
post Oct 20 2001, 15:04
Post #17





Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 12-October 01
Member No.: 276



Well, in my modest opinion, I think both cd-rw.org and Dibrom have the reason.

Newbies doesn't want any complication (and they are very numerous), but there is people that want quality.

For example, I'm reading those forums of audio-compression about 2 years, trying to find a good parameters to encode a good mp3.

I think to acomplish with both worlds maybe this classification:

-insane (dm insane )
-xtreme (dm xtreme)
-standard (dm standard)
-standard_fast (r3mix)
-divx (abr 128kbps stuff?)
-radio
-thumb? (something small)

or beetwen to standars, perhaps:

-standard_hq -- -standar_lq
-standard_high -- -standard_fast || vbr192

I think the both presets have sense, because to newbies the combination of speed, quality and size of r3mix could be really important. While dibrom standard (dibrom presets) could only be apreciated by a people concerned about audio quality.

I'm studying computer sciences, obtaining mp3 in my faculty is really easy...really. But the quality is really poor 128 (Xing). I have friends who don't want use lame because of it speed vs Xing, or because a good preset size results.

And yes I'm talking about advanced students of Computer Sciences. When I started in mp3 world I believe that if an mp3 encoder (xing) says 128 is cd quality, is true.

Well dibrom I'm trying to say you, that the vast majority of people isn't concerned absolutely nothing about quality(because 128-192 is enough for them), but they produce the majority of mp3 in Internet

This reason is why has sense r3mix in a standard preset, simplicity, speed, quality and size. Many people like I said before would never used dm_standard, even lame.

Personally I'm using dibrom_standard instead r3mix since I have knowlege of it, and it quality. But I couldn't distinguish beetwen them, I encode with db_standard because maybe in future I would have better equipment. Hence I want a standard that offers me a really high quality over speed and size.

Well, I'm only trying to help, if it's possible.

Excuse my poor English, this text is too large to my knowledge¡¡
Sergio
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dibrom
post Oct 20 2001, 16:48
Post #18


Founder


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



QUOTE
Originally posted by cd-rw.org
Perform a test so that you do not know which is the original,


Ever heard of ABX? I use it all the time...

QUOTE
and throw those headphones to the trash can and use speakers in a normal room.


Why? This is how I choose to listen to my music often. If the music doesn't sound good on headphones, I don't care of it sounds OK on speakers.

QUOTE
But 192cbr is not the issue here - the topic is VBR presets.


Exactly, so why did you bring it up?

QUOTE
You seem to something against the AQ test.


No, I have something against certain people spreading mistruths about the results, and meanwhile calling those trying to get something useful out of it liars.

QUOTE
It may not have been the definitive and absolute truth telling test, but it also showed that --r3mix is better than 192cbr.


Sadly it didn't. And this is one of the biggest problems. If you were to go on Roel's "interpretation" of the results, he would have you believe that there was no difference between any setting and the original except for 192kbps. Lately he has gone so far as to say that MPC may not have even been shown to perform better than --r3mix, yet looking at Garf's and ff123's stastical analysis of the results there is such a high probability that there would be no possiblity for this not to be the case!

QUOTE
192 is THE standard, so "-standard" should be a replcament for it - offering improvoved quality, with little file size gain. Audio quality sufficient for most purposes.


Well first of all, I don't give a damn about what the mp3 council thinks is "standard". Their idea of "quality" is just laughable. What I care about is providing a preset which is sufficient quality also. But I think that preset should be one which is reasonably transparent to most people, and also, if the AQ bit goes in, even the standard mode should be considered AQ.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dibrom
post Oct 20 2001, 16:56
Post #19


Founder


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



QUOTE
Originally posted by cd-rw.org
Ok, now let's get back to topic, shall we? This wasn't supposed to be a -r3mix vs. dm issue?


I don't think anyone ever said it was a matter of this issue. Some people seem to think that whenever I say something which is not necessarily favorable towards Roel or his switches that it comes down to this.. heh.

QUOTE
Everyone agrees that we should dumb personalized presets, and make things more understandable with a "standard" preset setup in the fashion of MPC or Psytel AAC?


Yes

QUOTE
I proposed a MTRH variant settings that produces bitrates around 200kbs: In other words a solution that gives quality improvements over 192cbr, reasonable speed and maintains a good compression ratio. In the middle of the pack solution, a good compromise.


Well for one, I would like to state that --dm-preset standard actually isn't too far from this bitrate. And once --vbr-mtrh is upgraded to support these new -X modes, I will be switching to that also. Plus with some of what I am working on, I'm already seeing bitrate decreases of up to 10kbps or more in some cases (though none of it is finalized yet). Considering that --dm-preset standard only averages about 10-20kbps more in bitrate over --r3mix... well you get the point. So it is very possible that in the near future, dm-standard could actually fit all of that criteria. Except for just being a "middle of the pack" solution.

QUOTE
xtreme, like the name implies should the choice for high fidelity, extremely high quality.

insane, would be something to squeeze out the maximum theoretical quality.


I agree on both of those points.

QUOTE
I don't quite see the point why -standard should be as HQ as --dm standard, since that's propably not what Joe Average is after.


1. Because it is possible to allow this.
2. Because AQ has been pushed so hard by some people, and now a standard setting should conform to this rating.
3. Because it may actually be possible to get dm-standard to overcome its current weaknesses (slower speed, and slightly higher bitrate) before too long.

I think just using something lower quality in a hasty manner wouldn't be the most prudent idea.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Drivenbydemons
post Oct 21 2001, 02:21
Post #20





Group: Members
Posts: 4
Joined: 3-October 01
Member No.: 179



QUOTE
Hmm, didn't check the very latest specualtion about r3mix AQ test statistical analysis, but recently the result were (If I'm not mistaken) that with over 95% confidence a group of people found both 192cbr and --r3mix worse than the MPC reference sample. It would be better if a group couldn't distinguish an AQ-setting with so high confidence... That's why I don't think --r3mix should be called archival quality by any means.


That's my point. AQ is killing this idea. Who said the proposed --standard has to be "AQ"???

QUOTE
Also.. in a situation like this, and given the fact that all of this AQ stuff is likely to make it into LAME, I think it is important to keep the "standard" mode still within the AQ category.


QUOTE
I think that if "high quality" presets are going to make it into LAME now and entirely replace the old ones, we need to make sure that the default setting will profide sufficient quality for the "average" user. Determining this threshold is the whole point behind Roel's AQ test. Unfortunately, the results from that test eliminate what cd-rw.org is proposing we use as the default setting itself.


Although I agree with all parties involed that --r3mix is not AQ, I also don't believe the test Roel gave wasn't in any way taken by "average" users. "Average" users are the ones who share all those 128CBR files on winMX. "Average" users just want to slap on their headphones and throw some weights around while stuffing as many MP3's into their portable players as possible. The people who take the time to read these boards and understand the inner-workings of these programs are simply not your typical MP3 listener. The bottom line is this whole "AQ" threshold is going to be impossible to agree upon so why refer to it when deciding on new presets. --standard should be quick with decent quality to please the masses. I won't use it and neither will most users on this board but many will freak out when they see how much better lame --standard (--r3mix) sounds compared with what they have been using.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Drivenbydemons
post Oct 21 2001, 02:27
Post #21





Group: Members
Posts: 4
Joined: 3-October 01
Member No.: 179



Sorry, I didn't read the last couple of posts, I'm kinda in a rush tonight. (wife not feeling good, 2 days overdue with our 2nd kid)

QUOTE
it may actually be possible to get dm-standard to overcome its current weaknesses (slower speed, and slightly higher bitrate) before too long.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
MyMaster
post Oct 21 2001, 03:15
Post #22





Group: Members
Posts: 70
Joined: 4-October 01
Member No.: 199



i must agree with cd-rw.org, simplification needs to made, and i believe that --r3mix should be standard. common guys, almost everyone outhere is trading 128cbr mp3s claiming that those are cd quality, ovbiously --r3mix is better than that, and most of the times it is good enough for the vast majority of users. sure there will be people who require more quality than that, and there's where dibrom's presets kick in. i think it would be wrong to use all dibrom's presets (including standard) because they're are slow, and there are still some of us which are using slow computers, and to be honest speed is also important to me, and quality wise --r3mix is a good compromise between quality and speed and you must remember that after all it is lossy compression.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
cd-rw.org
post Oct 21 2001, 07:33
Post #23





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



You may not give a damn about the MP3 council standard, but I do. Why? Because I don't look at this just as an encoding solution for me or you or the 50 mp3philes that hang around the "LAME scene". I wan't the world to change away from 128-192 to good quality VBR. Currently I am just waiting for your new presets in order to launch a new MP3 encoding article for tens of thousands of people, striking to the core of the MP3 scene.

The people have something against VBR. I think that if they are given dm standard as a default, they'll be scared by the large files and are less likely to use it. But if we can sell a decent VBR setting offering good quality and competitive bitrates, the step to talk them out to switch from -standard -> -xtreme is a whole lot smaller. But first we need to get them to use VBR.

Marketing Dibrom, marketing..

If you are able to cut the bitrate and use MTRH, then that's more than fine. As I said before, it does not have to be -r3mix, but any MTRH variant targeting to the same bitrate range. the dm standard currently shoots 20-30kbps above --r3mix (depends on the music, naturally, but in my case).

Talking about the AQ test, I think that the participants were far for the average. It might be useful info for determining AQ, but certainly it won't tell anything about the Joe Average. The LAME-people tend to have: great sound cards, good headphones, good amps/pre-amps, good speakers, quality wiring all the way...this is not the average people!


--------------------
http://www.bitburners.com - We Burn a Bit
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dibrom
post Oct 21 2001, 08:01
Post #24


Founder


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



QUOTE
Originally posted by cd-rw.org
You may not give a damn about the MP3 council standard, but I do. Why? Because I don't look at this just as an encoding solution for me or you or the 50 mp3philes that hang around the "LAME scene". I wan't the world to change away from 128-192 to good quality VBR. Currently I am just waiting for your new presets in order to launch a new MP3 encoding article for tens of thousands of people, striking to the core of the MP3 scene.


Well I understand your point, I just don't think this is ever going to happen. I've actually been involved in parts of the mp3 scene before and know quite a few of the "higher up" people in the mp3 councils, and I can tell you, they just don't give a damn. I don't think there is anything you can say that is going to change their mind about quality. They are stubborn and they have been doing it the same way for a long time now, it is unlikely that anything is going to change that, except for switching to another format.

QUOTE
The people have something against VBR. I think that if they are given dm standard as a default, they'll be scared by the large files and are less likely to use it.


Well for one, I think it is a common misconception that dm-standard always gives high bitrates. I have plenty of albums that encode in the 160-190kbps range with these settings. Sure, --r3mix may be lower on these particular clips, but while you are comparing --dm-preset standard to 192kbps, keep that in mind. The problem is when you encode metal that you start to see significantly higher bitrates.

QUOTE
But if we can sell a decent VBR setting offering good quality and competitive bitrates, the step to talk them out to switch from -standard -> -xtreme is a whole lot smaller. But first we need to get them to use VBR.

Marketing Dibrom, marketing..


People are so scared of VBR and joint stereo, I don't know how you can ever possibly convince them. There was a thread started recently on this board titled something like "I know sound quality" or something similar. Much of the line of "thinking" you see there, is the same you will see from the people out there convinced that 192kbps fhg is perfect.

Yes, I understand the point in actually trying to convince these people, I've tried before and I've seen many others try as well, and it never works. Considering that, yeah, I am much more willing to cater towards the crowd that DOES care about quality (many of the people here and on r3mix.net). After all, it is these people that are likely to help convince others in the long run. So catering presets to a crowd that more than likely doesn't even care in the first place, doesn't seem to make quite so much sense for me. Not to say they couldn't use all of this though. They would probably rather use a smaller setting than -standard anyway, to save space and possibly get some sort of speed increase.

So the same people you keep talking about using 128kbps that "need" high quality vbr, are probably going to be the first people to ignore the efforts anyway.

QUOTE
Talking about the AQ test, I think that the participants were far for the average. It might be useful info for determining AQ, but certainly it won't tell anything about the Joe Average. The LAME-people tend to have: great sound cards, good headphones, good amps/pre-amps, good speakers, quality wiring all the way...this is not the average people!


Yeah, keep in mind though that the AQ stuff was not my idea. It was someone elses idea, and again, it is likely going to make it into LAME in some form or another. This means that anything else added to LAME should be taking into consideration all of that. If you promote AQ, but your default setting doesn't actually provide AQ, then what does that say? It tells everyone to use a higher quality setting, and basically kills the usefulness of having one setting as a default in the first place.

It may sound elitist of me, but I think those who actually want the higher quality should be those that are catered towards first. After all, they are the ones who have been spending the time and effort performing listening tests and learning all they can to achieve this. Nothing is stopping anyone else from doing the same.. they just aren't as interested. So why should we tailor for them? I'm just not convinced..

Also keep in mind that it would be far better to overshoot the quality margin than it would be to come up too short (at least in my opinion).

If you really want to include some lower quality presets as LAME defaults, that is fine. Just don't expect me to support that kind of thing. I'm not interested in lower quality, and neither are many of the people who's opinions I value the most, so asking me to place that as the highest priority overall is pretty much an impossibility.

I'm doing my best to increase the performance of LAME in regard to the --dm-presets in every way I can think of, and to help integrate all of this into LAME more smoothly, but quality is not something I am willing to sacrifice. For me to do so would be to go against everything I have worked towards so far. Maybe you can understand that, maybe not.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
cd-rw.org
post Oct 21 2001, 08:18
Post #25





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



Oh yes I do understand your view. You consider this issue form your personal perspective, while I try to do it from the perspective of the general audience.

Yes, I know that dm-standard can go lower in some cases. Mellow rap tunes are one example where VBR settings usually dip rather low.

More opinions? Where are the LAME developers?


--------------------
http://www.bitburners.com - We Burn a Bit
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

4 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
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: 2nd October 2014 - 04:01