IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

23 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
List of recommended LAME settings, Discussion
JohnV
post Nov 30 2001, 04:53
Post #51





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



QUOTE
Originally posted by SNYder So then how come --alt is already able to be used in LAME?
--alt-preset normal and other --alt-preset settings are not in the official source base, therefore no official alpha build has it yet.

QUOTE
And do you ALMIGHT SOMEB0DY think it's fine for me to use --alt-normal over --dm-standard figuring he's done a hand full of stuff that I know are in --alt-normal but I'm not sure about being in --dm-standard? As in, are they the same exactly, and if not and --alt-normal is the latest work by him, is it ok to use that?
At the moment you gotta use Dibrom's rev6 if you want to use --alt-preset normal or other --alt-preset settings. Those are not the same as --dm-preset settings.

Just to make sure: --alt-normal and --dm-standard do start to encode but do nothing but 128kbps files. You gotta use --alt-preset normal or --dm-preset standard etc..


--------------------
Juha Laaksonheimo
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dibrom
post Dec 15 2001, 23:35
Post #52


Founder


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



Updated the recommended settings to reflect the latest developments within L.A.M.E.

I also removed some unoptimized settings, including --r3mix. The reasoning for this is that --r3mix is now outdated and offers no advantages over the new alt presets. --alt-preset fast standard matches it in speed and bitrate and the quality is still much higher. This may upset some people, but as we are recommending the highest quality settings here, --r3mix does not belong on that list anymore IMO. Continuing to recommend an inferior preset that is bested in basically every way by another much higher quality preset would be irresponsible and confusing.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
layer3maniac
post Dec 15 2001, 23:54
Post #53





Group: Banned
Posts: 529
Joined: 29-September 01
Member No.: 37



QUOTE
I also removed some unoptimized settings, including --r3mix. 
Roel's blood pressure probably just shot through the roof... :insane:
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dibrom
post Dec 16 2001, 00:01
Post #54


Founder


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



QUOTE
Originally posted by layer3maniac
Roel's blood pressure probably just shot through the roof...  :insane:


Maybe, but remember folks, this isn't personal.. it shouldn't be. The MP3 scene is already too political as it is.. too many egos and people too willing to ignore objective data in relation to quality. Look at the recent discussions where some sorely misguided people still think Blade is the best MP3 encoder for example. My decisions to be honest and truthful (no matter how unimportant some may view it as) , backed up by verifiable and objective data, will not be swayed by this aspect, if people can't handle that.. then too bad.

I've done nearly everything possible to meet the demands of the community on this, working extensively to provide an elaborate unified preset system that should meet the needs of nearly everyone. Quality related matters have been discussed and continuously tested for months now. This is something that is very much needed in the somewhat fragmented MP3 "quality" scene. One single person's wish (despite all available data) to continue to imply their collection of switches as the "best" is irrelevant as harsh as that may sound.

As a future note to possible flames that may erupt over this -- don't make it personal people.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SNYder
post Dec 16 2001, 00:16
Post #55





Group: Members
Posts: 317
Joined: 30-September 01
Member No.: 118



I think under the 96kbps CBR preset there should be a link to a thread or a page with information on why LAME should not be used for bitrates under 96kbps and where to get a good fhg encoder/program that would provide better quality. Mabey even have a little explanation on how to get the best quality outa fhg using whatever program you suggest smile.gif

[edit]spelling/wording
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dibrom
post Dec 16 2001, 00:19
Post #56


Founder


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



QUOTE
Originally posted by SNYder
I think a link under the 96kbps CBR or whatever should be a link to a thread or a page with information on why LAME should not be used and where to get a good fhg encoder/program that would provide better quality at these bitrates.  Mabey even have a little explanation on how to get the best quality outa fhg using whatever program smile.gif


This is probably a good idea actually. I'll have to look into this some.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SNYder
post Dec 16 2001, 00:24
Post #57





Group: Members
Posts: 317
Joined: 30-September 01
Member No.: 118



fyi: u have --alt-preset insane under vbr.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dibrom
post Dec 16 2001, 00:34
Post #58


Founder


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



QUOTE
Originally posted by SNYder
fyi:  u have --alt-preset insane under vbr.


I did that on purpose actually, but since it is a little bit confusing I added a small note underneath explaining why it is there.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Northpack
post Dec 16 2001, 00:41
Post #59





Group: Members
Posts: 455
Joined: 16-December 01
Member No.: 664



Mmh, I don't think that LAME performs bad on ~96kbps. I recently tested different codecs and settings in order to find out the optimal way to go for 1CD-DivX rips. I ended up with the LAME setting:
CODE
--abr 95 -mj -h --athtype 2 --nspsytune --ns-bass -8 --resample 32 --lowpass 15.5 --scale 0.95
which sounds better than WMA / MP3PRO on comparable bitrates and is definitive competitive with OGG IMHO.

Northpack
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dibrom
post Dec 16 2001, 00:47
Post #60


Founder


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



Out of curiosity, you should give --alt-preset 95 a try with the compile linked to in the first post. It actually give slightly larger bitrates than your preset probably because the --alt-preset abr mode tries to compensate for the fact that LAME usually slightly undershoots the target bitrate with abr.

Areas where the --alt-preset likely improves upon your setting, --scale .95 is too conservative to eliminate the majority of audible clipping (testing by myself and ff123 on bloodline.wav) and I also think an --ns-bass value of -8 is probably too high for that bitrate, allocating too many bits to that region. Too high of an --ns-bass value with low bitrates impacts the quality of higher frequencies, and I think that --ns-bass -8 at 128kbps may be a tad too aggressive in that regard already. I have noted slight differences in cymbal sounds with that high of a value even at 128kbps cbr as opposed to using a lower --ns-bass value. This situation should be worse at a lower bitrate.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SNYder
post Dec 16 2001, 01:29
Post #61





Group: Members
Posts: 317
Joined: 30-September 01
Member No.: 118



QUOTE
Originally posted by Dibrom
[b]

I did that on purpose actually, but since it is a little bit confusing I added a small note underneath explaining why it is there.
that's what I thought. just let you know incase.

Why don't you just put it above the VBR title bar like this...

QUOTE
Highest Quality
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dibrom
post Dec 16 2001, 01:36
Post #62


Founder


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



Good idea, I went ahead and just did that.

I also added small note about the quality relationship between VBR, ABR, and CBR.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Amadeus93
post Dec 16 2001, 02:04
Post #63





Group: Members
Posts: 84
Joined: 1-November 01
Member No.: 389



One thing about the format: the first three categories are Highest Quality, Even Higher Quality, and Very High Quality.

It looks a little strange to have them in that order - makes it sound like extreme gives "higher than highest" quality.

Just my $.02
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dibrom
post Dec 16 2001, 02:11
Post #64


Founder


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



Fixed.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dibrom
post Dec 16 2001, 04:01
Post #65


Founder


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



Modified the layout some more and added more to the "credits" section.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jraneses
post Dec 16 2001, 07:40
Post #66





Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 16-December 01
Member No.: 667



Dibrom, can you comment on the differences between using the --dm-preset xtreme from the 12/01 build and the new --alt-preset extreme on the latest build. I've encoded an album tonight using both encoders and noticed with --alt-preset extreme that my file sizes are jumping up around 3/4 mb each. I'm not really concerned, but what quality differences can I expect between these two different presets? If the new alt presets are going to give me better quality (even if it's inaudible to me), I want to make sure I go with the new ones. I haven't been able to find a good FAQ on exactly what the new presets are supposed to offer overall over the old dm presets.

Thanks,

Jason
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dibrom
post Dec 16 2001, 09:31
Post #67


Founder


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



QUOTE
Originally posted by jraneses
Dibrom, can you comment on the differences between using the --dm-preset xtreme from the 12/01 build and the new --alt-preset extreme on the latest build.


Hrmm.. well the differences in extreme basically are the same things that were applied to the standard mode. Basically better short block handling, adaptive noise measuring/shaping, tweaks to joint stereo, etc.

QUOTE
I've encoded an album tonight using both encoders and noticed with --alt-preset extreme that my file sizes are jumping up around 3/4 mb each.


Hrmm.. that's a pretty big jump in bitrate. What kind of music was this? I actually have an idea what might be causing this bitrate increase in this mode now that you mention it. I'll have to double check. Maybe you could encode again adding the switch --no-preset-tune and see what that does to the bitrates...

QUOTE
I'm not really concerned, but what quality differences can I expect between these two different presets?  If the new alt presets are going to give me better quality (even if it's inaudible to me), I want to make sure I go with the new ones.  I haven't been able to find a good FAQ on exactly what the new presets are supposed to offer overall over the old dm presets.


The quality of the extreme mode should be increased, but it's possible the modifications I applied in one area (maybe the joint stereo stuff) was too aggressive in this mode because a difference between a few things it does vs the standard mode. I'll run some experiments and see. I did notice larger files in a few cases myself but thought they were circumstancial (I haven't tested bitrates with extreme nearly as much as standard).

As for a list of the general differences, you can see most of them here:

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/showth...s=&threadid=411

While most of the discussion is centered around the "standard" mode, many of the improvements still apply... mostly:

- Improved joint stereo usage
- Improved short block usage
- Improved noise shaping/measuring usage

The last one is centered around lowering bitrates and still providing high quality.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Northpack
post Dec 16 2001, 13:09
Post #68





Group: Members
Posts: 455
Joined: 16-December 01
Member No.: 664



QUOTE
Originally posted by Dibrom
Areas where the --alt-preset likely improves upon your setting, --scale .95 is too conservative to eliminate the majority of audible clipping (testing by myself and ff123 on bloodline.wav) and I also think an --ns-bass value of -8 is probably too high for that bitrate, allocating too many bits to that region.  Too high of an --ns-bass value with low bitrates impacts the quality of higher frequencies, and I think that --ns-bass -8 at 128kbps may be a tad too aggressive in that regard already. I have noted slight differences in cymbal sounds with that high of a value even at 128kbps cbr as opposed to using a lower --ns-bass value.  This situation should be worse at a lower bitrate.


You are fairly right, that in the case of encoding music this setting would be too high, but as I read on various DivX boards, the value of -8 is recommended for movie soundtracks because of the heavy bass-effects in most soundtracks. compared to that high-frequencies claimed to be rather disregardable!? Then again, that was claimed in conjunction with an --abr134 line, so perhaps it makes sense to put in down to, say -6 in this case?

Whether using --alt-preset < 100, is the waveform going to be downsampled to 32 khz? I think I am able to point out an audible difference in quality between a sampling-rate of 44 and 32, whereas 32 sounds clearly better in my ears at such low bitrates...

Another question, Dibrom: as you have replaced now the initial --dm-preset with the new --alt-preset switch, is --dm-metal gone or has it it made into the the new switch?

Northpack
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
john33
post Dec 16 2001, 14:39
Post #69


xcLame and OggDropXPd Developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 3761
Joined: 30-September 01
From: Bracknell, UK
Member No.: 111



Dibrom,
I notice the rlo presets file for RazorLame is somewhat out-of-date.

I would have a go myself, but I suspect I would probably get it wrong!

john33
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
user
post Dec 16 2001, 15:48
Post #70





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



Hi,

the presets are designed for the aim that every normal user should be able to use them easily.

The rlo's are not from Dibrom, somebody else should update them, in fact, they are not really important.

Because:

You can click in Razorlame at "Lame options", there you choose "EXPERT" .
There you write your desired preset as written here into "custom options" and activate "use only custom options".

That should do it.
Of course you can name and save that preset by yourself there. Then you don't need that rlo from here anymore.


--------------------
www.High-Quality.ch.vu -- High Quality Audio Archiving Tutorials
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
user
post Dec 16 2001, 15:59
Post #71





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



Hi,

with alt prset extreme the compiles reslut to the same.

Very well !!

So now the community can use the normal compiles.

And they are even forced to read here and use the new alt presets from now on if they want to use latest and best lame compiles.
Because with lame-20011215 the dm presets dont work anymore.

PS:

I changed preset "alt xtreme" to "alt extreme".


--------------------
www.High-Quality.ch.vu -- High Quality Audio Archiving Tutorials
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dibrom
post Dec 16 2001, 18:34
Post #72


Founder


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



QUOTE
Originally posted by Northpack


You are fairly right, that in the case of encoding music this setting would be too high, but as I read on various DivX boards, the value of -8 is recommended for movie soundtracks because of the heavy bass-effects in most soundtracks. compared to that high-frequencies claimed to be rather disregardable!? Then again, that was claimed in conjunction with an --abr134 line, so perhaps it makes sense to put in down to, say -6 in this case?


Yeah, I think at that bitrate, lowering the value some is just a good idea.. otherwise there really may not be enough bits for the rest of the sound. Even if the high frequencies as not as present, it could still have an effect on just ambient sounds and other things I'd imagine.

QUOTE
Whether using --alt-preset < 100, is the waveform going to be downsampled to 32 khz? I think I am able to point out an audible difference in quality between a sampling-rate of 44 and 32, whereas 32 sounds clearly better in my ears at such low bitrates...


The --alt-presets don't resample to 32khz until 80kbps. It is possible that 32khz might sound better though.. do you have a clip you can provide where you believe this difference is the most audible? I'd be interested in trying to test this some to provide a better abr line if there is a possibility for improvement.

QUOTE
Another question, Dibrom: as you have replaced now the initial --dm-preset with the new --alt-preset switch, is --dm-metal gone or has it it made into the the new switch?


Yes, --dm-metal is gone and is replaced with the generic ABR preset. It just made much more sense for me to do it that way I thought because then people could set whatever bitrate they choose.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dibrom
post Dec 16 2001, 18:34
Post #73


Founder


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



QUOTE
Originally posted by john33
Dibrom,
I notice the rlo presets file for RazorLame is somewhat out-of-date.

I would have a go myself, but I suspect I would probably get it wrong!

john33


I'm going to try and get this taken care of if I can, thanks for reminding me smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jraneses
post Dec 16 2001, 19:04
Post #74





Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 16-December 01
Member No.: 667



QUOTE
Originally posted by Dibrom


Hrmm.. that's a pretty big jump in bitrate.  What kind of music was this?  I actually have an idea what might be causing this bitrate increase in this mode now that you mention it.  I'll have to double check.  Maybe you could encode again adding the switch --no-preset-tune and see what that does to the bitrates...


It's hip hop on this particular album. With the no-preset-tune switch, the bitrate dropped down to 248 from it's original 267. The encode using dm-preset xtreme is averaging 248 also. Like I said, if that jump in bitrate is doing some good to the quality, I'll definately be happy with it.

Any thoughts are appreciated...thanks for awesome work on the encoder. smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dibrom
post Dec 16 2001, 19:42
Post #75


Founder


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



QUOTE
Originally posted by jraneses
It's hip hop on this particular album.  With the no-preset-tune switch, the bitrate dropped down to 248 from it's original 267.  The encode using dm-preset xtreme is averaging 248 also.  Like I said, if that jump in bitrate is doing some good to the quality, I'll definately be happy with it.


I see. OK, that's not quite as bad as I thought actually. Last night I did some experimentation though and I may rework the extreme mode to have a lower "higher end bitrate" and a higher "lower end bitrate".. localizing it more basically. There are a few situations where it goes a little higher in bitrate than I'd like and these modifications (if I make them) should help make the transition from standard to extreme to insane a little bit more linear in bitrate. We'll see what happens..

QUOTE
Any thoughts are appreciated...thanks for awesome work on the encoder. smile.gif


You're welcome smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

23 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 30th October 2014 - 17:11