IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

23 Pages V  « < 8 9 10 11 12 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
List of recommended LAME settings, Discussion
Pio2001
post Jun 11 2003, 11:59
Post #226


Moderator


Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 3936
Joined: 29-September 01
Member No.: 73



I see it already recommended in both the recommended settings and recommended compiles threads.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
amano
post Jun 11 2003, 12:49
Post #227





Group: Members
Posts: 483
Joined: 1-December 02
Member No.: 3949



no, I mean john33s special variant of 3.90.3 that accepts the new switches (--preset, even --preset medium).
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
magic75
post Jun 11 2003, 13:38
Post #228





Group: Members
Posts: 511
Joined: 2-December 02
Member No.: 3959



There is a slight mismatch currently between the "recommended compile" thread and the "recommended settings" thread:

QUOTE
ABR Setting tuned from 320 kbps down to 8 kbps

--alt-preset <bitrate>


but this is only valid for John33:s modified compile. The non-modifed compile only works down to 80 kbps I think.

So either you could do as amano suggests and change the recommended compile, or add a note to the abr settings in this thread. Either way is OK for me.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
AutumnRain
post Jun 17 2003, 03:39
Post #229





Group: Members
Posts: 59
Joined: 8-December 02
Member No.: 4019



Hi.

Isn't the documentation included in the reccomended compile anymore...?...

3.90.3

Also...just a question...
In the thread(1st Post) 'List of recommended LAME settings' , I read...
QUOTE
BTW:
MPC is the most advanced format for Hifi and Audiophile needs. For more information click here.

Is it 'so' official in all respects...that ;...that info was included in the Post ?
- kind of, makes you feel odd when d/loading the compile.. :-)
I think when I last read the post , that bit of info was not there...

--------------------
Autumnrain.

This post has been edited by AutumnRain: Jun 17 2003, 04:57
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
CiTay
post Jun 17 2003, 16:41
Post #230


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 2378
Joined: 22-September 01
Member No.: 3



QUOTE (AutumnRain @ Jun 17 2003 - 04:39 AM)
Isn't the documentation included in the reccomended compile anymore...?...

Obviously not. I said something along these lines in the recommended compiles thread. Maybe someone finally add the necessary files to this package... smile.gif


QUOTE
I think when I last read the post , that bit of info was not there...


It's there as long as i can remember. User added it someday, i guess.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
john33
post Jun 17 2003, 18:34
Post #231


xcLame and OggDropXPd Developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 3760
Joined: 30-September 01
From: Bracknell, UK
Member No.: 111



I just added all the html docs to all the 3.90.3 downloads. wink.gif


--------------------
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
My compiles and utilities are at http://www.rarewares.org/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
AutumnRain
post Jun 18 2003, 02:45
Post #232





Group: Members
Posts: 59
Joined: 8-December 02
Member No.: 4019



smile.gif

H e y ......... Thanks! :-)

~~~~~~~~~~
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dihappy
post Jul 12 2003, 09:44
Post #233





Group: Members
Posts: 3
Joined: 12-July 03
Member No.: 7725



OK, Im a bit confused.

Ive been searching looking for the best settings and i read that 3.90.3 has a
"--alt-preset fast standard" but that it has "potentially" less quality than just
"--alt-preset standard"

Is this true? maybe i should just go with "insane"??

Thanks!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kjoonlee
post Jul 12 2003, 09:53
Post #234





Group: Members
Posts: 2526
Joined: 25-July 02
From: South Korea
Member No.: 2782



While it is true that --alt-preset fast standard sacrifices a little quality for some increase in encoding speed, the difference might be small enough for you to not notice.

Try listening to --alt-preset fast standard and --alt-preset standard yourself, and find what's best for you.

There's some chance that --alt-preset insane would be overkill for you. I would urge you to try standard or fast standard before checking insane out.


--------------------
http://blacksun.ivyro.net/vorbis/vorbisfaq.htm
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Echizen
post Jul 12 2003, 10:16
Post #235





Group: Members
Posts: 70
Joined: 22-April 03
Member No.: 6122



don't forget --alt-preset extreme
it's like insane - just vbr, which saves a few bits wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dihappy
post Jul 12 2003, 10:53
Post #236





Group: Members
Posts: 3
Joined: 12-July 03
Member No.: 7725



Thanks guys!!

Ill try a combination of them.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
user
post Jul 12 2003, 11:49
Post #237





Group: Members
Posts: 873
Joined: 12-October 01
From: the great wide open
Member No.: 277



no, a combination is not possible (inside 1 track / during encoding...)


of course you could use aps for not so important albums, ape or api for more important music.

or aps, for portable eg.


btw, ape is not like api with more bits:


Only api uses --nssafejoint. A safer stereo image.


--------------------
www.High-Quality.ch.vu -- High Quality Audio Archiving Tutorials
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kjoonlee
post Jul 12 2003, 12:13
Post #238





Group: Members
Posts: 2526
Joined: 25-July 02
From: South Korea
Member No.: 2782



That sounds funny. I think I've seen Dibrom mention that all the --alt-preset VBR presets never sacrifice the stereo image. IIRC he even mentioned that the stereo image when using all --alt-preset files should be "more intact" than when merely using --nssafejoint.

This post has been edited by kjoonlee: Jul 12 2003, 14:31


--------------------
http://blacksun.ivyro.net/vorbis/vorbisfaq.htm
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
CiTay
post Jul 12 2003, 13:04
Post #239


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 2378
Joined: 22-September 01
Member No.: 3



--aps/ape/api all use --nssafejoint.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Pio2001
post Jul 17 2003, 14:54
Post #240


Moderator


Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 3936
Joined: 29-September 01
Member No.: 73



Other topic split to http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=11408
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
music_man_mpc
post Jul 26 2003, 03:04
Post #241





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 707
Joined: 20-July 03
From: Canada
Member No.: 7895



I have always used -V 0 -b 128. How does this compare to the presets? Is it pretty much the same as --alt-preset extreme??


--------------------
gentoo ~amd64 + layman | ncmpcpp/mpd | wavpack + vorbis + lame
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
tigre
post Jul 26 2003, 07:19
Post #242


Moderator


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



QUOTE (music_man_mpc @ Jul 25 2003, 06:04 PM)
I have always used -V 0 -b 128.  How does this compare to the presets?  Is it pretty much the same as --alt-preset extreme??

No. Add the --verbose switch to both commandlines and (many of) the settings used will be shown in DOS window.


--------------------
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
CiTay
post Jul 26 2003, 11:34
Post #243


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 2378
Joined: 22-September 01
Member No.: 3



QUOTE (tigre @ Jul 26 2003, 08:19 AM)
QUOTE (music_man_mpc @ Jul 25 2003, 06:04 PM)
I have always used -V 0 -b 128.  How does this compare to the presets?  Is it pretty much the same as --alt-preset extreme??

No. Add the --verbose switch to both commandlines and (many of) the settings used will be shown in DOS window.

More importantly, -V0 -b128 doesn't have the --alt-preset code-level tunings.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
NoXFeR
post Aug 5 2003, 00:46
Post #244





Group: Members
Posts: 84
Joined: 3-August 03
From: Trondheim, NO
Member No.: 8142



Just posting this here, as well, as it is related.

QUOTE
I have noticed when using the alt-preset standard with lame 3.90.3, that the quality setting is rated at 2, which is equivalent to the -h-switch. Would it improve quality to override this with the -q 0-switch?

I wonder because it has been said on numerous occasions that one "should not mess with the alt-presets" and that only the one that has created them fully understands them.


QUOTE
Tried the following:

File:

R.E.M. - New Adventures in Hi-Fi - 06 - That's What Keeps Me Down.wav (77 147 996 bytes)

Using --alt-preset standard it gave this file

R.E.M. - New Adventures in Hi-Fi - 06 - That's What Keeps Me Down.mp3 (12 274 191 bytes)

Using --alt-preset standard -q 0 gave this file

R.E.M. - New Adventures in Hi-Fi - 06 - That's What Keeps Me Down.mp3 (12 254 269 bytes)


So as you can see, the no -q 0 was larger (but not much).


I'm trusting the --alt-presets, I'm just wondering why --alt-preset standard would be better than --alt-preset standard -q 0?

According to the description in the .htmls enclosed in Dibrom's own compilation (and every other lame-compilation to my knowledge) it says:

-q 0..9 algorithm quality selection
Bitrate is of course the main influence on quality. The higher the bitrate, the higher the quality. But for a given bitrate, we have a choice of algorithms to determine the best scalefactors and huffman encoding (noise shaping).

-q 0: use slowest & best possible version of all algorithms. -q 0 and -q 1 are slow and may not produce significantly higher quality.

-q 2: recommended. Same as -h.

-q 5: default value. Good speed, reasonable quality.

-q 7: same as -f. Very fast, ok quality. (psycho acoustics are used for pre-echo & M/S, but no noise shaping is done.

-q 9: disables almost all algorithms including psy-model. poor quality.


NOTE: I didn't hear differences between the two, and the -q 0 was much slower, but if quality is what one wants, which does one choose?


Erlend
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
TJA
post Aug 7 2003, 18:17
Post #245





Group: Members
Posts: 84
Joined: 27-February 03
From: OLD Europe
Member No.: 5225



QUOTE
I'm trusting the --alt-presets, I'm just wondering why --alt-preset standard would be better than --alt-preset standard -q 0?


Why should that be???

"-q 0" ist just smaller, so better compressed, that´s all ...
Size does not *always* mean quality!

*grin*

BTW, "-q 0" is not supposed to add quality when used together with the presets - those presets are optimized around "-q 2" and changing this can even *reduce* quality!

(Quoting from memory, cannot provide you with a link - but is´s from Dibrom or JohnV, when i recall correctly)

Have Fun

This post has been edited by TJA: Aug 7 2003, 18:19


--------------------
3.90.3 --alt-preset extreme -V0 --lowpass 20.5 -> yeah!
"extremist of extreme", johnV @ Sep 13 2002 - 02:01 PM ;-)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Oge_user
post Aug 25 2003, 18:08
Post #246


A/V Moderator


Group: Members
Posts: 317
Joined: 20-August 02
Member No.: 3123



QUOTE (user @ Oct 28 2001, 06:36 PM)

I hope I'm not OT, but the page linked is ,http://www.monkeysaudio.com; is this right? wink.gif

This post has been edited by Oge_user: Aug 25 2003, 18:08


--------------------
[ Commodore 64 Forever...! ]
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
AtaqueEG
post Aug 25 2003, 18:41
Post #247





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 1336
Joined: 18-November 01
From: Celaya, Guanajuato
Member No.: 478



QUOTE (NoXFeR @ Aug 4 2003, 06:46 PM)
NOTE: I didn't hear differences between the two, and the -q 0 was much slower, but if quality is what one wants, which does one choose?


Erlend

That one was just ONE example.
I seriously doubt that Dibrom encoded one song only once and then figured out "2" was better than "0"
Again, my friend, the alt presets have gone through more testing than you could imagine, and with quality as the main concern. Not speed or size. Trust them the way they are.

This post has been edited by AtaqueEG: Aug 25 2003, 18:42


--------------------
I'm the one in the picture, sitting on a giant cabbage in Mexico, circa 1978.
Reseas de Rock en Espaol: www.estadogeneral.com
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
user
post Aug 26 2003, 16:23
Post #248





Group: Members
Posts: 873
Joined: 12-October 01
From: the great wide open
Member No.: 277



QUOTE (Oge_user @ Aug 25 2003, 06:08 PM)
QUOTE (user @ Oct 28 2001, 06:36 PM)

I hope I'm not OT, but the page linked is ,http://www.monkeysaudio.com; is this right? wink.gif

of course it is right.

Monkeys audio did the trick for me.

(reencoding HQ mp3 to 130 kbit/s mp3 with keeping tags.)

just configure it.


--------------------
www.High-Quality.ch.vu -- High Quality Audio Archiving Tutorials
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Oge_user
post Aug 26 2003, 18:15
Post #249


A/V Moderator


Group: Members
Posts: 317
Joined: 20-August 02
Member No.: 3123



Ok, thanks for the info


--------------------
[ Commodore 64 Forever...! ]
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Pio2001
post Aug 31 2003, 15:25
Post #250


Moderator


Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 3936
Joined: 29-September 01
Member No.: 73



Zeb Smith's Command line discussion splitted there :

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....howtopic=12790&

This thread should only be used to notify changes in the list of recommended settings.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

23 Pages V  « < 8 9 10 11 12 > » 
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: 18th September 2014 - 16:01