IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

5 Pages V  « < 3 4 5  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Upgrade the official HA LAME version?, Now (3.96) or wait until 4.0?
Should the officially recommended version of LAME be upgraded now if possible, or should we wait for 4.0?
You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.
Total Votes: 496
Guests cannot vote 
AgentMil
post Mar 14 2004, 06:44
Post #101





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 584
Joined: 19-December 01
From: Australia
Member No.: 688



Ok haven't read the entire thread (needs to be split alot of O/T stuff in it), but these are my comments...

I am sure there are alot of users out there on this board who only upgrade their software if there is some dire need to do so (e.g. new feature/bugfixes e.t.c.). I personally am one of those people, if the software does what it says it will do then I am happy with it why upgrade and possibly ruin the status quo. But then again without upgrades there will be no innovation in the process, but thats where just making --aps the "standard" switch and letting users decide which version of LAME to use. As Pio2001 said "shouldn't be so afraid of a small regression, that would be negligible..." and most serious bugs are found within a week or so anyways. And when there is a "killer" sample that affects a version and everyone runs around shouting "OMG!!" just remember that it most probably effects just that sample cause if it affected more that just that I am sure it would of been found within that first week of a version coming out, hence it will be an isolated case. This solves both problems... those who are happy with the status quo and those who need the latest and greatest (personally I use 3.92 for all my encodings and its yet to fail me).

I will just say any stable release LAME can be used and make the recommended setting --aps, that way its standardised and if something goes wrong we know which version it is.

So to recap make --aps the RECOMMENDED setting which means only 3.90.3 LAME onwards have them.

Regards

AgentMil


--------------------
-=MusePack... Living Audio Compression=-

Honda - The Power of Dreams
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
tigre
post Mar 14 2004, 13:07
Post #102


Moderator


Group: Members
Posts: 1434
Joined: 26-November 02
Member No.: 3890



QUOTE (westgroveg @ Mar 14 2004, 12:43 AM)
I think some people are missing the real issue, that a much older lame code (over 1 year & many releases) is outperforming the latest, ...

Is this a fact? If you've done extensive tests and came to this conclusion, please publish details. Would be a great help for what this thread is about. rolleyes.gif


--------------------
Let's suppose that rain washes out a picnic. Who is feeling negative? The rain? Or YOU? What's causing the negative feeling? The rain or your reaction? - Anthony De Mello
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
sPeziFisH
post Mar 14 2004, 16:56
Post #103





Group: Members
Posts: 380
Joined: 9-October 02
Member No.: 3506



I don't want to join the discussion if it is quite neccessary to retune the presets with LAME 3.96b1 or not, to stay with 3.90.3 or with 3.96b1.
We can fill a lot of pages about talking if there's any need or not (and a lot of pages are filled right now), one means 'yes' cause he likes to push things to its limit to get out the best, another one means 'no' as he is quite happy with the quality of his mp3s.
I like ping-pong but why not go to the next step and do the same thing like everytime - those ones do the work who like to do it.
How to retune those presets? I don't know, I guess some others also doesn't know, but someone in this room could know and has to give detailed explanations or instructions.
At that point we have an additional feature: we are able to do Retuning instead of only talking about it.
Next point would be some organisation stuff, rules of playing, ...whatever
At least I can tell you that I would be interested in Retuning the presets with LAME 3.96b1, but I don't know how (this thread didn't made me know how to,but well,the question was not ask directly), for that I stay tuned *bzzzt*
...And the echo sounded from far away: Sorry, I interrupt your discussion...
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
funkyblue
post Mar 15 2004, 00:09
Post #104





Group: Members
Posts: 322
Joined: 28-November 01
From: South Australia
Member No.: 555



Is a test going to be organised and coodinated? I don't even know where to start..It would be great if some great of HA could come up with a test, so we can finally prove 3.96 is better....
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mp3fan
post Mar 15 2004, 06:23
Post #105





Group: Members
Posts: 94
Joined: 13-October 01
Member No.: 281



I agree with the idea to start by testing "preset standard" and tuning it first.

mp3!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SometimesWarrior
post Mar 15 2004, 07:27
Post #106





Group: Members
Posts: 671
Joined: 21-November 01
From: California, US
Member No.: 514



I'm looking at an old HA thread that links to Lame problem samples. Here's the thread: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....=ST&f=16&t=791&. However, none of the links work anymore. Is there a way to get these links working again? Are they stored somewhere else on the HA site?

Also, I thought the Test Sample Archives sticky used to have a link to a few dozen HA-hosted samples, but perhaps I am mistaken.

This post has been edited by SometimesWarrior: Mar 15 2004, 07:28
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Canar
post Mar 15 2004, 08:06
Post #107





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 3373
Joined: 26-July 02
From: To:
Member No.: 2796



I've been using the latest LAME versions for quite a while now (Since some of the later 3.94 alphas, IIRC) for my MPC-MP3 transcodes for my portable. It works great. Overall, I've had fewer problems in this transcode pathway with recent LAME versions than I have with LAME 3.90.2.

I think I voted for the "wait for LAME 4" option. Honestly, I think the HA recommendation could be upgraded to --preset standard with LAME 3.95.1 and noone would notice a difference. There would be some people who'd notice regressions, others that would notice progressions, but overall there wouldn't be much in the way of change.

Gabriel did well when he asked for testing of the 3.94 alphas. There was a lot of work put into the 3.95 tuning. Although it may not have been as extensive as Dibrom's 3.90 tuning, there are lots of other factors that have been improved, such as speed.

Remember this: When the 3.90 tunings were released, the other "high-fidelity" option was --r3mix. Is 3.95 better than --r3mix? I'd bet on it. Is 3.95 better than 3.90? Meh. I'll never hear the difference. There's enough work there anyhow that it shouldn't matter much. Let's just say that 3.96 is the "recommended LAME version in testing" or something ang make sure that it is.

Guruboolez is dead-on accurate with what he says, IMO.


--------------------
You cannot ABX the rustling of jimmies.
No mouse? No problem.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
LoFiYo
post Mar 29 2004, 14:56
Post #108





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



QUOTE (guruboolez @ Mar 8 2004, 05:34 AM)
we can't say to lame developers "we need to test thoroughly the new encoder before recommending it" and then never test anything.
HA.org testing model is not something optimal. It's even not something working at all. As far as I saw it in the past, the attempts to test alphas of lame 3.94 were completely anarchic, and never exceed a week. Lame 3.95 was released some times ago: no serious test.

Well, even though his prediction was not 100% accurate (I think this time the test is lasting longer than a week smile.gif ), he had a point, and his post had some truth to it, considering the number of people that actually tested the new version and submitted the results.

I think the reason that people don't participate in the test is one or more of the following reasons:

1) they "moved on" to another format (like MPC)
2) they don't have the time
3) they don't think they have good enough ears
4) they would rather surf the web than doing something for the community
5) they don't care
6) they don't want to

I think #1 is a biggie.

This post has been edited by LoFiYo: Mar 29 2004, 16:37
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
sony666
post Mar 29 2004, 17:22
Post #109





Group: Members
Posts: 573
Joined: 22-February 02
Member No.: 1375



QUOTE (LoFiYo @ Mar 29 2004, 02:56 PM)
1) they "moved on" to another format (like MPC)
2) they don't have the time
3) they don't think they have good enough ears
4) they would rather surf the web than doing something for the community
5) they don't care
6) they don't want to

I think #1 is a biggie.

#1 is not the biggie, but all others are sad.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
2Bdecided
post Mar 29 2004, 17:59
Post #110


ReplayGain developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 5360
Joined: 5-November 01
From: Yorkshire, UK
Member No.: 409



How about this simple reason...

At transparent bitrates, there are already more samples where 3.96 is known to be worse than 3.90.3, than there are samples where it is known to be better.

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....opic=19813&st=1

This shows that 3.96 can't possibly be recommended over 3.90.3, so surely there's no point in any more testing (of this specific quality region) until a new version comes out?

(Having said that, I'm tempted to ABX my previous listening to get the results added to that thread, but still...)

Cheers,
David.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
smz
post Mar 29 2004, 18:09
Post #111





Group: Members
Posts: 602
Joined: 15-February 04
From: Venezia, Italia
Member No.: 12025



#3 here...

Sergio


--------------------
Sergio
Revox B150 + (JBL 4301B | Sennheiser HD430)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
[proxima]
post Mar 29 2004, 18:11
Post #112





Group: Members
Posts: 197
Joined: 12-October 02
From: Italy
Member No.: 3537



QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Mar 29 2004, 05:59 PM)
At transparent bitrates, there are already more samples where 3.96 is known to be worse than 3.90.3, than there are samples where it is known to be better.

According to my results there is a worsening with abr/cbr modalities too. Unfortunately i've not provided 3.90.2 vs 3.96b1 abx and the results are greyed. I'm 100% secure of the results because artifacts between the two versions are quite easy to ear (and to see with spectral analisys) and abx is not really necessary so (personally speaking) there is no need for a new test. If you would try to confirm chirping/ringing problems i noticed with --ap 128 there are some easy samples: rebel, campestre, applaud.
I will stay with 3.90.x for now.

This post has been edited by [proxima]: Mar 29 2004, 18:12


--------------------
WavPack 4.3 -mfx5
LAME 3.97 -V5 --vbr-new --athaa-sensitivity 1
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Wombat
post Mar 29 2004, 18:54
Post #113





Group: Members
Posts: 1118
Joined: 7-October 01
Member No.: 235



Well, from the first tests promising enhancements the testing slowed down as it was clear it isnīt superior.
For me at least. Encoding speed is no plus at all for me.

I hope we will get as many or even more testers if the lame developers need feedback quality wise when they introduce enhancements.

Unfortunately it was like "We have a beta version soon to release, please test it"

So testing this time lead to nothing but knowing 3.96 is inferior.

Wombat
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
tigre
post Mar 29 2004, 19:01
Post #114


Moderator


Group: Members
Posts: 1434
Joined: 26-November 02
Member No.: 3890



2Bdecided, most likely you're right. Even if 50 more problem samples appear, it's highly unlikely that 3.96b1 outperforms 3.90.3 in a significant way for (alt)preset standard that would justify making 3.96b1 the recommended version. I doubt that the raised minimum bitrate in beta2 will solve enough problem samples to bring 3.96 back in the race. Anyway, this must be tested to be sure.

@[proxima]: I inclued your results greyed out to the results page to encourage some other people to veryfy them. You have done enough already, thanks again. Unfortunately this didn't work so far. But this might be the chance for "#3-people" (smz? wink.gif ) to contribute...

There's one thing left that would be still worth testing IMO:
For lame 3.90.3, the ABR presets were created/chosen as recommended lame settings because they were superior over VBR settings with comparable bitrate. Since Gabriel has tried to create high-quality medium bitrate VBR settings (-V 3 - 6) it's interesting how these perform compared to ABR presets. Based on the tests mentioned in this thread (see recent posts by evereux and me), there are 2 bitrate ranges that should be worth testing:
(~160kbps) 3.96 -V 4 vs. 3.96 --preset 160 vs. 3.90.3 --alt-preset 160
(~128kbps) 3.96 -V 5 vs. 3.96 --preset 128 vs. 3.90.3 --alt-preset 128
This range is especially interesting for portable use.


--------------------
Let's suppose that rain washes out a picnic. Who is feeling negative? The rain? Or YOU? What's causing the negative feeling? The rain or your reaction? - Anthony De Mello
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kuniklo
post Mar 29 2004, 20:02
Post #115





Group: Developer (Donating)
Posts: 193
Joined: 9-May 02
From: Emeryville, CA
Member No.: 2010



While I have the ear of the lame developers - I'd like to ask a question you've probably already been asked many times.

Do you think there's still a lot of room for improvement in the mp3 framework or is a shift to a new format (aac, ogg, etc) necessary?

I suppose what I'm asking is if you think it's possible for mp3 to achieve transparency on most samples at bitrates below 192kbps, given that it seems that most people agree that it currently does this above 224kbps or so for most samples.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dologan
post Mar 30 2004, 00:28
Post #116





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



MP3's transparency (or as close to it as it reasonably gets) is usually regarded to be achieved with Lame's 3.90.3 "alt-preset standard" setting that averages at around 200 kbps, which, as an average, is quite below 224 kbps. While it is still usually above the 192 kbps you say, I don't think it would be too farfetched to think that with proper development, testing and tuning, Lame could push this bitrate some 10 kbps down with the same quality and hence hit the "average 192 kbps mark" you want. This is pure speculation from my part, though, and it is clear that MP3 is an old and mature format that has probably got most of its juice squeezed out by now.

This post has been edited by Dologan: Mar 30 2004, 00:34
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
LoFiYo
post Mar 30 2004, 01:21
Post #117





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



QUOTE (tigre @ Mar 29 2004, 01:01 PM)
(~160kbps) 3.96 -V 4 vs. 3.96 --preset 160 vs. 3.90.3 --alt-preset 160
(~128kbps) 3.96 -V 5 vs. 3.96 --preset 128 vs. 3.90.3 --alt-preset 128

Those settings look really interesting. I will test those smile.gif
By the way, could this be something like what Dibrom was trying to do toward the very end of his contribution to LAME? He was also talking about more flexible ABR modes. Whatever happened to that idea?

edit: total revision

This post has been edited by LoFiYo: Mar 30 2004, 03:28
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Gabriel
post Mar 30 2004, 09:09
Post #118


LAME developer


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



QUOTE
At transparent bitrates, there are already more samples where 3.96 is known to be worse than 3.90.3, than there are samples where it is known to be better.

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....opic=19813&st=1

This shows that 3.96 can't possibly be recommended over 3.90.3, so surely there's no point in any more testing (of this specific quality region) until a new version comes out?


Several of those samples are pathological cases where the psychoacoustic model is failing, and 3.90.3 is only saved by its minimal bitrate of 128kbps.

3.96b2 was released with the same minimal bitrate (128kbps).
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
2Bdecided
post Mar 30 2004, 12:04
Post #119


ReplayGain developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 5360
Joined: 5-November 01
From: Yorkshire, UK
Member No.: 409



OK, I'll try some.

Cheers,
David.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
sony666
post Apr 1 2004, 12:45
Post #120





Group: Members
Posts: 573
Joined: 22-February 02
Member No.: 1375



the --noreplaygain switch is not supported by John's compile.. is it still debug-only?

edit: hmm just pulled CVS, works here. outdated version on RW smile.gif

This post has been edited by sony666: Apr 1 2004, 12:55
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
deeswift
post Apr 10 2004, 16:07
Post #121





Group: Members
Posts: 144
Joined: 18-July 03
Member No.: 7851



QUOTE (Jojo @ Mar 7 2004, 05:40 AM)
QUOTE


Also, I think it kinda sucks for Gabriel and all the other LAME developers who have put so much time into the new releases and tuning them...since LAME 3.90 is still recommended it looks like if all there work from then was useless crying.gif

I agree 100%. For me, I think it's time for an upgrade, 3.90.3m has been great, it still is, but it's just too slow. If I can use a faster encoder without sacrificing quality one bit, then definately I'm gonna go with the newer version.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
amitpatel5000
post Aug 30 2005, 09:26
Post #122





Group: Members
Posts: 36
Joined: 30-August 05
Member No.: 24205



lame 3.96 was cool for me, but right now i am using 3.97 alpha


--------------------
Lame 3.97: -V2 --vbr-new
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

5 Pages V  « < 3 4 5
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: 20th December 2014 - 11:10