IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Lame VBR Preset doesn't work properly in EAC ?, EAC Bitrate opt. influences VBR preset ?
Gen912
post May 6 2005, 01:02
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 19-April 05
Member No.: 21560



Although I am fairly new to encoding music, I read all the advice on Hydrogenaudio and Übernet and have a pretty good idea on how I want to encode my CD's. After reading the advice and some experimenting I decided to go with:

- EAC 0.9 beta 4
- LAME 3.97 alpha 10 (not the recommended version on Hydrogen, but it works swift and clean each time. Sorry JohnV...)
- VBR preset standard, which levels out at a bitrate of around 192.
(for this I used the command line parameter %s %d --preset standard, can anybody tell me if this is correct? Because I found some different examples around. I ended up going with the examples from the Lame project site http://lame.sourceforge.net/doc/html/presets.html )

Now, what I would expect from the EAC software is that additional fields would be grayed out when using the command line option, but this is not the case. And there are some options that require a value that confuses me. The one that specifically confuses me is the option Bitrate, right under the command line box. When I don't use a Lame preset I obviously have to set the desired bitrate for the codec here, but when I use a command line preset I still wants me to choose a value here, and it also does seem to have an effect.

I read the following thread which explains how it should work
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php? act=ST&f=1&t=6671&st=25#entry67461
but it it doesn't make sense to me that a VBR preset should have a minimum bitrate.

When I choose VBR 192 from the dropdown list, the preset doesn't drop below a 192 bitrate. Not really what I expect with the preset standard, only the preset extreme is said to not drop below 192. To have the preset standard drop below 192 I have to set it to for instance VBR 96, which is the lowest value I can choose for.
I use the option external screen for codec, and I can clearly see the difference between the two bitrate options. With 192 it uses 192 and all the bitrate steps above, and with 96 it also uses all the steps below 192 up until 96. So no 64, no 32 and no 0 bitrates sequences for silences, which TMHO doesn't make sense for a VBR preset.
I tried the same command line with audiograbber (which when using command line grays out most other options, and has an option user defined in the dropdown list), and it reacts different from EAC, giving a smaller file size of some Mb's.
I also tried with the recommended Lame 3.90, but the result is the same.

Can anybody tell me what this option does? It does looks like it works as a minimum bitrate option, just like the thread mentioned above says, but I can't find it documented anywhere. The radio button directly under there on the right allowing for HIGH or LOW Quality also doesn't make any sense to me. Does this have any influence on the results?

Secondly, the tab LAME DLL under compression options confuses me. Again, a preset is said to have its own specific tweaks inside the codec thus giving the best results and not needing any other settings; for example Joint Stereo is a standard option in the presets, but other options can be selected here.
Further options are (again) Quality, Maximum VBR Bitrate and the option to choose between VBR Quality and VBR Average Bitrate with an additional value setting.

Seeing that the Bitrate field I mentioned above does seem to have an effect, makes me wonder if these settings have an effect on the end results. And if they do.... WHY?? It doesn't make any sense to me that a command line preset needs additional settings from the encoding software. I read several threads on Hydrogenaudio where it is assured that a preset with additional (command line) settings is unnecessary and can even negatively influence the tweaks from a preset.

Could any body shed some light on this for me? I guess to sum my questions up, they are:
1 - The setting in the Bitrate field on the tab External Compression seems to have an effect on the end result. What does it do? And more importantly; why influence a Command Line Preset?
2 - Do the settings on the tab LAME DLL under compression options have an additional effect on the end result? And again, if so; why?
3 - Does anybody know if these effects have been documented anywhere? I read the EAC Bible from the Coaster Factory, and several other pages on EAC, but couldn't find anything about the above results.

Thanks a mil in advance.

Gen


--------------------
I have no particular talent, I am merely inquisitive. Albert Einstein
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
Gen912
post May 6 2005, 04:23
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 19-April 05
Member No.: 21560



QUOTE (shadowking @ May 6 2005, 02:34 AM)
Command options = -V2
*


The thing is, I prefer to go with the raw presets instead of using the Quality Level parameters.


QUOTE (shadowking @ May 6 2005, 02:34 AM)
Bitrate option is purely cosmetic here.
*


With Parameter passing scheme = 'Lame Mp3 Encoder', the setting doesn't seem to be cosmetic, but rather working as a minimum bitrate parameter.


QUOTE (HisInfernalMajesty @ May 6 2005, 03:42 AM)
What I do is use the "User defined encoder" and for the additional command line options is use "--preset standard %s %d"
*


QUOTE (Martin H @ May 6 2005, 04:03 AM)
And thats why it is generally recommended to use "User defined encoder" as "Parameter passing scheme". -Martin.
*


I Indeed had the "Parameter passing scheme" set to "LAME MP3 Encoder". Don't know why, guess 'cause with this scheme I found some Variable Bitrate values under the Bitrate dropdown list.
I'm going with your advices and run some tests with the scheme set to User Defined. Thanks a lot, I'll let you know what the verdict will be.... biggrin.gif


QUOTE (HisInfernalMajesty @ May 6 2005, 03:42 AM)
and set it to 224... as far as I can tell.. it hasn't changed the encode any like it would be if set to "LAME MP3 Encoder"
*


And set it to 224? Does this value still influence the end result? And why go with 224? Is there a reason for that?

All in all I must say that even though EAC is widely said to be the best encoder, it isn't always as easy to use and/or understand. When using Command Line Parameters, like presets or a complete custom line, I want to be straight out sure that no other options intervene.

Thanks everyone for the swift answers!

Gen


--------------------
I have no particular talent, I am merely inquisitive. Albert Einstein
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Gambit
post May 6 2005, 10:43
Post #3


Burrrn developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 917
Joined: 25-November 01
From: Bratislava, Slovakia
Member No.: 534



QUOTE (Gen912 @ May 6 2005, 04:23 AM)
QUOTE (shadowking @ May 6 2005, 02:34 AM)
Command options = -V2
*
The thing is, I prefer to go with the raw presets instead of using the Quality Level parameters.
*


There is no reason, they are equivalent.

QUOTE (Martin H @ May 6 2005, 05:50 AM)
If you select "User defined encoder" then it dosent matter what the bitrate dropdown box is set to. When using that passing scheme, then the bitrate dropdownbox and the high/low quality buttons arent used at all, so just leave them at whatever, since its just the entered commandline thats passed to the lame encoder and nothing else. -Martin.
*

Just to be precise, it does not affect the encoding, but it's used to compute the displayed compressed track size. So you should prolly set it to 192 when using preset standard to get somewhat accurate results.


--------------------
Burrrn - http://www.burrrn.net/
MPEG Audio Collection - http://mac.sourceforge.net/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Gen912
post May 7 2005, 04:25
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 19-April 05
Member No.: 21560



QUOTE (Gambit @ May 6 2005, 11:43 AM)
QUOTE (Gen912 @ May 6 2005, 04:23 AM)
QUOTE (shadowking @ May 6 2005, 02:34 AM)
Command options = -V2
*
The thing is, I prefer to go with the raw presets instead of using the Quality Level parameters.
*


There is no reason, they are equivalent.
*



You're right, VBR presets standard and xtreme both use -V2 in their arguments.
See http://mp3.radified.com/mp3_2.htm , under LAME switches/arguments.

However, by using just -V2 I would miss out on the other tweaks from the preset. These tweaks are settings that I trust the professionals who created them on to produce the best results.

Edit:
I messed up the quote.

This post has been edited by Gen912: May 7 2005, 04:28


--------------------
I have no particular talent, I am merely inquisitive. Albert Einstein
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
guruboolez
post May 7 2005, 08:05
Post #5





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 3474
Joined: 7-November 01
From: Strasbourg (France)
Member No.: 420



QUOTE (Gen912 @ May 7 2005, 04:25 AM)
You're right, VBR presets standard and xtreme both use -V2 in their arguments.
*

Do you mean -q2?
With modern release of LAME, the -V argument correspond (i.e. are absolutely identical) to the --alt-preset settings:
-V 0 = --preset extreme
-V 2 = --preset standard
-V 4 = --preset medium

Therefore, -V2 <-> --preset standard and can't be used to call the --preset extreme command.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Gen912
post May 8 2005, 00:21
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 19-April 05
Member No.: 21560



QUOTE (guruboolez @ May 7 2005, 09:05 AM)
QUOTE (Gen912 @ May 7 2005, 04:25 AM)
You're right, VBR presets standard and xtreme both use -V2 in their arguments.
*

Do you mean -q2?
With modern release of LAME, the -V argument correspond (i.e. are absolutely identical) to the --alt-preset settings:
-V 0 = --preset extreme
-V 2 = --preset standard
-V 4 = --preset medium

Therefore, -V2 <-> --preset standard and can't be used to call the --preset extreme command.
*



Hi Guruboolez,

In reaction to your post a quote from my previous post.

Start quote
Still remains the question: Does using -V2 give you the same advantages in tweaks as the --preset standard used to give? Because that's actually why I prefer(-red) to go with the presets.

The thing is; I want to encode my music in the best though reasonably simple way. I don't have the ambition to become an expert in encoding music, and the presets seemed to be the simplest way, giving the best results.
But maybe presets are not the way to go anyway after reading this post http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....ST&f=16&t=3594# by Dibrom. Although I don't know whether this info has become outdated and whether this only goes for the presets or for VBR in general.
End quote

Do you know if the quality settings have similar tweaks as to what the presets were said to have?


--------------------
I have no particular talent, I am merely inquisitive. Albert Einstein
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
guruboolez
post May 8 2005, 00:40
Post #7





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 3474
Joined: 7-November 01
From: Strasbourg (France)
Member No.: 420



QUOTE (Gen912 @ May 8 2005, 12:21 AM)
Does using -V2 give you the same advantages in tweaks as the --preset standard used to give? Because that's actually why I prefer(-red) to go with the presets.


There are no more "tweaks" in lame. Dibrom internal changes (introduced with 3.90) are now coded, and they are called with usual switchs. With recent builds of lame, --alt-preset/--presets are not necessary anymore (not only for VBR, but also for ABR and CBR). In other words, --alt-preset/--preset is an outdated syntax, probably maintained for compatibility reasons.

QUOTE
The thing is; I want to encode my music in the best though reasonably simple way. I don't have the ambition to become an expert in encoding music, and the presets seemed to be the simplest way, giving the best results.

What you have to do is to use the basic command lines (-b 192, -V 2, etc...), without additionnal switchs (like -ms, -q0 or -p -l -a -c3 -b0) wink.gif
*


This post has been edited by guruboolez: May 8 2005, 00:41
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic
- Gen912   Lame VBR Preset doesn't work properly in EAC ?   May 6 2005, 01:02
- - shadowking   Use these options with lame 3.96 / 97 Parameter p...   May 6 2005, 01:34
- - HisInfernalMajesty   I've actually had this problem before as well....   May 6 2005, 02:42
- - Martin H   When being in "Lame mp3 encoder" passing...   May 6 2005, 03:03
|- - HisInfernalMajesty   QUOTE (HisInfernalMajesty @ May 5 2005, 03:42...   May 6 2005, 14:07
- - Gen912   QUOTE (shadowking @ May 6 2005, 02:34 AM)Comm...   May 6 2005, 04:23
|- - Gambit   QUOTE (Gen912 @ May 6 2005, 04:23 AM)QUOTE (s...   May 6 2005, 10:43
||- - Gen912   QUOTE (Gambit @ May 6 2005, 11:43 AM)QUOTE (G...   May 7 2005, 04:25
||- - guruboolez   QUOTE (Gen912 @ May 7 2005, 04:25 AM)You...   May 7 2005, 08:05
||- - Gen912   QUOTE (guruboolez @ May 7 2005, 09:05 AM)QUOT...   May 8 2005, 00:21
||- - guruboolez   QUOTE (Gen912 @ May 8 2005, 12:21 AM)Does usi...   May 8 2005, 00:40
|||- - Gen912   QUOTE (guruboolez @ May 8 2005, 01:40 AM)What...   May 8 2005, 00:54
||- - Jojo   QUOTE (Gen912 @ May 7 2005, 03:21 PM)Still re...   May 8 2005, 01:37
||- - Gen912   QUOTE (Jojo @ May 8 2005, 02:37 AM)QUOTE (Gen...   May 8 2005, 02:53
||- - Jojo   QUOTE (Gen912 @ May 7 2005, 05:53 PM)Jojo, wh...   May 8 2005, 17:49
||- - Gen912   QUOTE (Jojo @ May 8 2005, 06:49 PM)QUOTE (Gen...   May 9 2005, 02:16
|- - Never_Again   QUOTE (Gen912 @ May 5 2005, 11:23 PM)QUOTE (s...   May 6 2005, 21:49
|- - Gambit   QUOTE (Never_Again @ May 6 2005, 09:49 PM)QUO...   May 6 2005, 23:18
- - Martin H   If you select "User defined encoder" the...   May 6 2005, 05:50
- - sld   For the version of LAME you are using, there's...   May 6 2005, 12:48
|- - Gen912   QUOTE (sld @ May 6 2005, 01:48 PM)For the ver...   May 7 2005, 04:37
|- - Gambit   QUOTE (Gen912 @ May 7 2005, 04:37 AM)QUOTE (s...   May 7 2005, 14:41
|- - Gen912   QUOTE (Gambit @ May 7 2005, 03:41 PM)QUOTE (G...   May 8 2005, 00:13
|- - Gambit   QUOTE (Gen912 @ May 8 2005, 12:13 AM)Thank yo...   May 8 2005, 03:04
|- - Gen912   QUOTE (Gambit @ May 8 2005, 04:04 AM)QUOTE (G...   May 8 2005, 04:17
- - A_Man_Eating_Duck   Maybe this could help Eac and Lame Wiki entry   May 6 2005, 12:58
- - schonenberg   I will never again set the encoder to "Lame M...   May 6 2005, 13:32


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 July 2014 - 09:35