IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

23 Pages V  « < 2 3 4 5 6 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
List of recommended LAME settings, Discussion
SNYder
post Dec 16 2001, 19:50
Post #76





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



Could someone add, in the links section under (Rename/ID3 Tagging), the programs MPTagger (http://surf.to/mptagger), my favorite, and Helium2 (http://www.helium2.com/) as they are two of the most well liked and used tagging programs out there.

And add a link under those two to Sawg's great ID3 Tagger lists.
.............
http://forums.winamp.com/showthread.php?threadid=64962
.............
p.s. good job Dibrom on re-organizing the list and your (CBR < ABR < VBR in terms of quality) note. Makes things just that much more understandable.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
user
post Dec 16 2001, 20:09
Post #77





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



Hi,

done.

Added only the link to the list, not to helium and mptagger, because then the list becomes to big.
And the newbie would get too much infos at first moment.

If he needs other programs than renatager, he can look at list, where he can find mptagger and helium2, too.


--------------------
www.High-Quality.ch.vu -- High Quality Audio Archiving Tutorials
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
user
post Dec 16 2001, 20:19
Post #78





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



Hi,

the increasement from 248 to 267 is not much.

I tested with my usual files and found out, that in fact the bitrate from dm xtreme to alt extreme has not changed much.

With a specific file it decreased eg. from 280 to 278.


But some other things have changed. More use of short blocks eg.

That you can read in other post I think.


I would say that dm xtrme and alt exrteme have very good resulting bitrates.

Of course they vary a lot , eg. from 220 to 280.
That depends much from your material.
Of course loud hiphop with a lot of dynamic needs more bittrate for same qulaity compared to a other songs which are slower, more quiet.

@Dibrom:
I don't think you need to try to decrease bitrate of extreme .
If you use it over a lot of music it will result in perhaps 250 kbit/s.

You have said by yourself, that quality is the goal of extreme.
Who wants to save bitrate, should try alt standard, or an abr, or cbr setting.


--------------------
www.High-Quality.ch.vu -- High Quality Audio Archiving Tutorials
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dibrom
post Dec 16 2001, 20:26
Post #79


Founder


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



user,

Well perhaps I won't change too much. I'm not even sure if I will really change anything yet. Quality certainly isn't an issue, but maybe the bitrate could be slightly more tuned. I'm going to encode a few more albums with this mode today and test what kind of averages I get. I'd like to shoot for a 256kbps average if possible (which as you say, it may already be reaching.. at least some of my data seems to indicate this as well).

So I won't really change anything unless I'm sure there is a need to, so far there probably isn't.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jraneses
post Dec 16 2001, 21:10
Post #80





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



Thanks for checking into this again...because I really don't know the dynamics that go into your efforts, I was just asking about the differences, not really requesting that you make any changes. I love the quality and I've noticed some good improvements in some of the tracks. I was planning on encoding 30 albums today with it that I had already ripped from last week using EAC, so I wanted to make sure everything was kosher before I hit "go". smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
JohnV
post Dec 16 2001, 22:42
Post #81





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



Edited the link list a bit. The link to "Dibrom's Mp3/MP3pro" forum wasn't working, same problem with that link at r3mix's forum list. Also changed it from "MP3/MP3plus" to proper "MP3/Mp3pro"...


--------------------
Juha Laaksonheimo
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SNYder
post Dec 16 2001, 23:03
Post #82





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



QUOTE
Originally posted by user
Hi,

done. 

Added only the  link to the list, not to helium and mptagger, because then the list becomes to big.
And the newbie would get too much infos at first moment.

If he needs other programs than renatager, he can look at list, where he can find mptagger and helium2, too.
The list is already big. two more lines isn't much. Just add em.

I'd say it's better to suggest the 3 best ID3Taggers up front so that if renatagger, or whatever they try first, doesnt suit their needs then they don't have to spend hours trying out and downloading every one of those taggers on the list just to find out what the best are... cause we have already told them. Chances are atleast one of them will tickle their fancy.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
CiTay
post Dec 16 2001, 23:42
Post #83


Administrator


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



Improved spelling & layout.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jraneses
post Dec 17 2001, 02:44
Post #84





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



Where is this list you're speaking of? I haven't been able to find links to any recommended ID3 editors on this site...I tried under downloads and web links but no dice.

Thanks,

Jason
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Amadeus93
post Dec 17 2001, 03:55
Post #85





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



One more formatting bit:

Under "VBR (variable bitrate) settings", the first line should be changed from "Even Higher Quality" to "Very High Quality +" (as they have it on the r3mix forum).
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dibrom
post Dec 17 2001, 05:32
Post #86


Founder


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



I prefer "even higher quality" personally. The + part was since --r3mix was originally there. For that matter though the r3mix.net list isn't completely synched up with here anyway so it's probably not a big deal.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dibrom
post Dec 18 2001, 17:46
Post #87


Founder


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



Updated the bitrate information for "extreme".
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SNYder
post Dec 19 2001, 05:33
Post #88





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



can someone please just add the 2 ID3Taggers i suggested
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dibrom
post Dec 19 2001, 05:56
Post #89


Founder


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



done
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SNYder
post Dec 19 2001, 06:15
Post #90





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



thanks buddy smile.gif

[edit]p.s.

at the top of the list you still have the recomended compiler linking to rev8b. might wanna update that.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
JohnV
post Dec 19 2001, 14:01
Post #91





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



QUOTE
Originally posted by SNYder
p.s.

at the top of the list you still have the recomended compiler linking to rev8b.  might wanna update that.
Updated.


--------------------
Juha Laaksonheimo
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
c15zyx
post Dec 23 2001, 22:57
Post #92





Group: Members
Posts: 125
Joined: 20-December 01
Member No.: 697



2 short questions:

1. Why is -q 2 (-h) used instead of -q 0? I know that -q2 is recommended as it is faster and that -q0 doesn't yield significantly better results, but doesn't -q0 results in better quality (which is what we're after here)? Does -q0 cause certain problems by trying to find the 'best' type of noise shaping etc.?

2. Is there an audible difference (for most people) between a lowpass of 19200 Hz (defaulted in preset standard) and 19900 Hz (defaulted in extreme i think)? Would setting the lowpass as 19.5 using preset standard affect the quality much? Just nice to know that the full 20-20k is kept intact.

Thnx.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dibrom
post Dec 23 2001, 23:29
Post #93


Founder


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



QUOTE
Originally posted by c15zyx
2 short questions:

1. Why is -q 2 (-h) used instead of -q 0? I know that -q2 is recommended as it is faster and that -q0 doesn't yield significantly better results, but doesn't -q0 results in better quality (which is what we're after here)? Does -q0 cause certain problems by trying to find the 'best' type of noise shaping etc.?


No, -q0 does not result in better quality, only slower encoding. All of the areas for increases in quality which would be "obvious" such as using command line switches, I've already examined and made use of where appropriate. -q0 also defaults Takehiro's new noise shaping which may allow for more room for error in added noise and the speed hit is around 40% with a bit savings of around 2kbps. There is no audible difference or increase in quality, and the hit in speed and more room for error are, IMO, unacceptable at this time.

QUOTE
2. Is there an audible difference (for most people) between a lowpass of 19200 Hz (defaulted in preset standard) and 19900 Hz (defaulted in extreme i think)?


No. Especially not in actual music.

QUOTE
Would setting the lowpass as 19.5 using preset standard affect the quality much? Just nice to know that the full 20-20k is kept intact.


It wouldn't really bring you an increase in quality, just larger sizes. As I've said before, if you can actually hear up to 20khz clearly on actual music, with a high degree of regularity (this is very rare), then you shouldn't be using MP3 anyway because the quality starts to significantly degrade once you pass 16khz. In addition, more advanced formats like AAC, MPC, and Vorbis, do not encode up to these frequencies all the time either.. masking plays a role here, and often times even if you *can* hear up to those frequencies in real music (again very rare) sometimes, there are many times that the masking effect is so strong you won't hear them in that particular case anyway.

Ideally, an adaptive lowpass filter would be the best thing to use here, but it'd take some work, and masking of high frequencies would need to be better calculated in LAME than it is currently to really make effective use of this.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
user
post Dec 26 2001, 18:21
Post #94





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



Added link to HOW TO Reencode mp3 to mp3 keeping id3tags


--------------------
www.High-Quality.ch.vu -- High Quality Audio Archiving Tutorials
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
user
post Dec 30 2001, 18:19
Post #95





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



added lowpass 16 to ABR 134/128 setting. It was missing there.

I wonder why in alt preset 128 scale 0.93 is implemented.
Clipping can be avoided by mp3gain or mp3trim.

Snelg wants to add an automatic funtion into his mp3gain, so that there will be an one click success deal to get maximized files without clipping.


--------------------
www.High-Quality.ch.vu -- High Quality Audio Archiving Tutorials
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ff123
post Dec 30 2001, 21:11
Post #96


ABC/HR developer, ff123.net admin


Group: Developer (Donating)
Posts: 1396
Joined: 24-September 01
Member No.: 12



QUOTE
added lowpass 16 to ABR 134/128 setting. It was missing there.


Probably 134 should revert back to 128 if the bitrate problem has been fixed, which it should be according to the history for the 3.90 release. But to be honest, I haven't checked. Lowpass 16 is needed if 128 is used, but not needed if 134 is used.

QUOTE
I wonder why in alt preset 128 scale 0.93 is implemented. 
Clipping can be avoided by mp3gain or mp3trim.

Snelg wants to add an automatic funtion into his mp3gain, so that there will be an one click success deal to get maximized files without clipping.


scale 0.93 is used because probably the majority of lame users who use lower bitrates like 128 won't be as anal about quality as to use a separate utility like mp3gain to adjust the gain after encoding.

ff123
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
sphoid
post Dec 30 2001, 22:20
Post #97





Group: Members
Posts: 125
Joined: 22-September 01
Member No.: 9



QUOTE
Originally posted by ff123
Probably 134 should revert back to 128 if the bitrate problem has been fixed, which it should be according to the history for the 3.90 release.  But to be honest, I haven't checked.  Lowpass 16 is needed if 128 is used, but not needed if 134 is used.


Since Mark and Gabriel made the tweak to the ABR code, I've removed the code in --alt-preset that attempts to compensate for the bitrate usually falling short of the specified rate. It seems to be fine now in the short tests that I ran, so at least I'd probably say it's fine to recommend 128 again.

QUOTE
scale 0.93 is used because probably the majority of lame users who use lower bitrates like 128 won't be as anal about quality as to use a separate utility like mp3gain to adjust the gain after encoding.


Yeah, the majority of LAME users probably don't even know about mp3gain, so until replaygain support is added to --scale (I'm not even sure if there are plans for this though), I think it's better to just implement scale in the presets, especially since it can easily be overriden with a --scale 1

EDIT: Oops.. this is Dibrom on Sphoid's PC, didn't realize till I made the post.. lol.

.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Snelg
post Dec 31 2001, 00:06
Post #98


MP3Gain Developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 207
Joined: 30-December 01
Member No.: 846



QUOTE
Originally posted by user
Snelg wants to add an automatic funtion into his mp3gain, so that there will be an one click success deal to get maximized files without clipping.


"wants to" isn't exactly correct. It would be more accurate to say, "has, by popular demand, been compelled to" wink.gif

-Glen
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
user
post Dec 31 2001, 10:25
Post #99





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



"or (ff123's and Hans' suggestion -- http://www.ff123.net/cbr128.html):

-b128 -h --nspsytune --athtype 2 --lowpass 16 --ns-bass -8 "

Is the lowpass switch, I added yesterday to 128 CBR commandline, really needed ?
Or not, if lowpass 16 is a preset of Lame at 128 CBR ?

Then it would be better it is removed again, so that this line becomes as short as possible.

Sorry for my limited knowledge.


What is with ABR 128 / 134 ? Is there lowpass 16 preswitched by lame, too, or not ?


So my last question this year !

Where at those two command lines should be removed lowpass 16 to result in as short command lines as possible ?



@Snelg:

many Thanks for doing great work with mp3gain, I think, I am not the only one who likes your program.

@all:

"Einen guten Rutsch ins Neue Jahr !"

"Have a nice skating into New Year !"

"Skating Away on the thin ice of the new day"


--------------------
www.High-Quality.ch.vu -- High Quality Audio Archiving Tutorials
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ff123
post Dec 31 2001, 16:43
Post #100


ABC/HR developer, ff123.net admin


Group: Developer (Donating)
Posts: 1396
Joined: 24-September 01
Member No.: 12



QUOTE
"or (ff123's and Hans' suggestion -- http://www.ff123.net/cbr128.html): 

-b128 -h --nspsytune --athtype 2 --lowpass 16 --ns-bass -8 " 

Is the lowpass switch, I added yesterday to 128 CBR commandline, really needed ? 
Or not, if lowpass 16 is a preset of Lame at 128 CBR ? 

Then it would be better it is removed again, so that this line becomes as short as possible.


At 128, the lowpass 16 is needed, otherwise it defaults to something lower than 16 kHz. BTW, you forgot the scale in the command line above.

QUOTE
What is with ABR 128 / 134 ? Is there lowpass 16 preswitched by lame, too, or not ?


At 134, lame defaulted to lowpass 16 -- the bitrate was just high enough for it to do that, I guess.

ff123
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

23 Pages V  « < 2 3 4 5 6 > » 
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: 22nd August 2014 - 15:17