IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
LAME 3.97 beta recommendation, At last.
yulyo!
post Oct 5 2005, 11:00
Post #51





Group: Members
Posts: 165
Joined: 19-September 05
Member No.: 24567



I wanna ask you a dumb question.
I have downloaded the latest recommanded Lame version.
I am encoding to mp3 usind CDex or Razorlame. usually i use --alt-preset insane.
but now i read that the "--alt-preset" thing is dead.
Updating to the latest recommanded Lame version should change me any settings in CDex for example? I have 3.97 in CDex right now but there are still --alt-preset. Mr. Questionman is reconizing the rezulted file as encoded with --alt-preset insane (?).
So, in conclusion. The ultimate Lame must change something in the programs we use or is just an internal thing.
Sorry for this stupid question
huh.gif

This post has been edited by yulyo!: Oct 5 2005, 11:01
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
stephanV
post Oct 5 2005, 11:12
Post #52





Group: Members
Posts: 394
Joined: 6-May 04
Member No.: 13932



Vietwoojagig:

What exactly do you want?

Because HA is recommending a Lame version labeled as beta, you want the Lame devs to remove the beta tag? Or do you want the HA recommendation be reverted to another (marked as stable) version. What, what?

QUOTE
Give me the reason, why you call it beta AND recommend it.

As Lyx already pointed out, the "you" you use here doesn't exist. HA and the LAME devs are not the same thing. If you only trust developers on what is the recommended version then why would you care about the HA one? But if we all must trust devs on their recommendations (or nomenclature) then there wouldn't need to be a HA recommendation at all, because it would only be redundant. The opinions of stability of this LAME version just differs between HA and Lame. If you have found any major flaws in this version, I'm sure people would be happy to hear about it.

Basically what you are saying is that HA shouldn't make any recommendations at all (or at least that those would be superfluous) and that many of the audio encoders and even software people are using for back-up shouldn't be used at all. But IMO it doesn't make sense to attach such high consequences on what is just a word with a very ambiguous meaning.


--------------------
"We cannot win against obsession. They care, we don't. They win."
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
cabbagerat
post Oct 5 2005, 12:21
Post #53





Group: Members
Posts: 1018
Joined: 27-September 03
From: Cape Town
Member No.: 9042



QUOTE (yulyo! @ Oct 5 2005, 02:00 AM)
I am encoding to mp3 usind CDex or Razorlame. usually i use --alt-preset insane.
but now i read that the "--alt-preset" thing is dead.
Updating to the latest recommanded Lame version should change me any settings in CDex for example? I have 3.97 in CDex right now but there are still --alt-preset. Mr. Questionman is reconizing the rezulted file as encoded with --alt-preset insane (?).
So, in conclusion. The ultimate Lame must change something in the programs we use or is just an internal thing.
*
alt-presets aren't dead - they just aren't recommended any more because there is a more clear and more compact way of specifying the intended encode quality. The -V flags replace the functionality of the --alt-presets.

alt-presets still work (AFAIK), but map to -V numbers.


--------------------
Simulate your radar: http://www.brooker.co.za/fers/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Vietwoojagig
post Oct 5 2005, 12:30
Post #54





Group: Members
Posts: 247
Joined: 28-November 02
From: Germany, Trier
Member No.: 3916



QUOTE (stephanV @ Oct 5 2005, 11:12 AM)
Vietwoojagig:

What exactly do you want?

Because HA is recommending a Lame version labeled as beta, you want the Lame devs to remove the beta tag? Or do you want the HA recommendation be reverted to another (marked as stable) version. What, what?
*
As I already said in my very first post: Wait until the beta-flag is removed and then recommend it. Why getting hectic so close to the final version?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ezra2323
post Oct 5 2005, 12:33
Post #55





Group: Members
Posts: 586
Joined: 17-July 02
Member No.: 2631



I was surprised to see -V 3 -vbr new recommended as a transparent setting. This is the 1st time I have ever seen an MP3 bit rate average that low (175 avg) recommended as transparent. Previously, APS which is now -V 2 was always the standard for minimum transparency.

Is there a testing thread that supports the -V 3 recommendation? If it is indeed transparent, and sinc eit is officially recommended as such I assume it is, this is great news! It's about a 10% reduction in file size from -V 2 (APS) !

What is the difference between -V 2 and -V3? Is it primarily in limiting the high frequencies? (similar to the old APS with the Y switch)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
sTisTi
post Oct 5 2005, 12:40
Post #56





Group: Members
Posts: 385
Joined: 25-June 04
Member No.: 14895



QUOTE (ezra2323 @ Oct 5 2005, 03:33 AM)
What is the difference between -V 2 and -V3? Is it primarily in limiting the high frequencies? (similar to the old APS with the Y switch)
*

The main bitrate savings come from the Y switch, but V3 also uses slightly more aggressive compression for lower frequencies, as can be seen from comparing -V2 -Y to -V3.


--------------------
Proverb for Paranoids: "If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers."
-T. Pynchon (Gravity's Rainbow)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rjamorim
post Oct 5 2005, 12:59
Post #57


Rarewares admin


Group: Members
Posts: 7515
Joined: 30-September 01
From: Brazil
Member No.: 81



QUOTE (stephanV @ Oct 5 2005, 07:12 AM)
Vietwoojagig:

What exactly do you want?
*


To stir controversy and create polemic.

There's no other reason to focus so much in four letters. Specially considering everything else here that is also beta AND recommended. Some people have too much free time on their hands, and need to find the most meaningless things to worry about.

Sigh...


--------------------
Get up-to-date binaries of Lame, AAC, Vorbis and much more at RareWares:
http://www.rarewares.org
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
flipik
post Oct 5 2005, 13:33
Post #58





Group: Members
Posts: 54
Joined: 21-November 03
From: Slovakia
Member No.: 9953



QUOTE (Vietwoojagig @ Oct 5 2005, 01:30 PM)
Wait until the beta-flag is removed and then recommend it.


Stephan explained that very clearly. HA recommended it. HA is free to recommend anything. You are free to don't follow it. It's win-win situation, no need to worry or discuss anything.
If I recommend you to stick carrots up your ssa, I'm free to do it and you are free to don't follow my recommendation.
But never, never try to pursue me that I should not recommand it 'cause you think you've got smarter way how to use carrots..
Geeez rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Vietwoojagig
post Oct 5 2005, 14:03
Post #59





Group: Members
Posts: 247
Joined: 28-November 02
From: Germany, Trier
Member No.: 3916



QUOTE (flipik @ Oct 5 2005, 01:33 PM)
Stephan explained that very clearly. HA recommended it. HA is free to recommend anything. You are free to don't follow it. It's win-win situation, no need to worry or discuss anything.
If I recommend you to stick carrots up your ssa, I'm free to do it and you are free to don't follow my recommendation.
But never, never try to pursue me that I should not recommand it 'cause you think you've got smarter way how to use carrots..
Geeez  rolleyes.gif
*
The carrots-thing sound interesting.
I will try it!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jkauff
post Oct 5 2005, 14:14
Post #60





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 161
Joined: 1-October 01
From: Doylestown, PA
Member No.: 145



QUOTE (Kenno @ Oct 4 2005, 09:41 PM)
OFF-TOPIC
Now, now, let's not get carried away.  "LAME Mars Edition pre-alpha-very-dangerous-dontuseme-toxic", all fine for me, but "Microsoft"? The words "microsoft" and "alpha" in the same sentence should be enough to send any sensible being running away, screaming.  laugh.gif
*

Microsoft doesn't use the term "alpha". They use "Version 1.0" instead. smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
askoff
post Oct 5 2005, 15:07
Post #61





Group: Members
Posts: 445
Joined: 23-December 02
Member No.: 4214



Let's change the beta to gamma and we can get over this 'huge' problem.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
shafff
post Oct 5 2005, 17:38
Post #62





Group: Members
Posts: 36
Joined: 27-May 03
From: Kiev, Ukraine
Member No.: 6844



Encspot says that 3.97 -V0 encoded file has 58% ss (joint stereo) blocks, when the same file, but 3.96 ape encoded has 73%
3.97 -V2 and -V1 gives only 7%-10% ss blocks on that file (Madonna - Secret).

Is it OK?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
robert
post Oct 5 2005, 19:22
Post #63


LAME developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 788
Joined: 22-September 01
Member No.: 5



QUOTE (Wombat @ Oct 5 2005, 02:47 AM)
Just tried one sample, the good old "birds" and it degraded to 3.96 builds. Didnīt encode anything in awhile. Is there a thread for bringing in testing for 3.97b? Excuse me but i havenīt been around here for a while until i heard about this build. Cheers to all the ones still very active around here!
*

What settings do you use for the "birds" sample?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
[JAZ]
post Oct 5 2005, 19:55
Post #64





Group: Members
Posts: 1765
Joined: 24-June 02
From: Catalunya(Spain)
Member No.: 2383



I believe that the developers of LAME are the only ones that can say why they call it beta, and so far have opted to not add fuel to the fire.

That said, It has to be understood that they don't see this as a bad practice. Apha versions were advised to not be used for real encodings, and have received much testing. This testing is the one that has allowed the versioning to become beta instead of alpha.

I have no clue if there are new features expected to be added before the stable version, nor if any of them is incomplete or misbehaving. In any case, it wouldn't be the first time that a LAME version has been labeled beta, and no final version of that branch has come.

So, in the end, if the developers don't tell us (the readers of this post) not to use the version and/or recommend it, it can be understood as in being "complete enough".
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
beto
post Oct 5 2005, 20:02
Post #65





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 713
Joined: 8-July 04
From: Sao Paulo
Member No.: 15173



God, since Lame devs already have a 3.98alpha branch please make 3.97 stable and we can end this discussion!! What harm could it bring??
I personally believe that enough testing was made in 3.97, but I also believe that some best practices in software versioning should be observed as well.
Lame can always be patched afterwards if some strange-hidden-unknown problem(s) show up.
And differently from what most people here might think coherent software versioning does make a difference for the wider audience.

Bottom line: make 3.97 final and end the discussion.


just my 2c tongue.gif


--------------------
http://volutabro.blogspot.com
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rjamorim
post Oct 5 2005, 21:29
Post #66


Rarewares admin


Group: Members
Posts: 7515
Joined: 30-September 01
From: Brazil
Member No.: 81



I just added LAME 3.97b compiles for several esoteric platforms to RareWares.

Hohoho tongue.gif


--------------------
Get up-to-date binaries of Lame, AAC, Vorbis and much more at RareWares:
http://www.rarewares.org
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Echizen
post Oct 5 2005, 21:43
Post #67





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



There shouldn't be a problem to recommend a beta as long as it's the current best version. It was about time to replace the old version because there was a lot of effort from the developers. I'm glad the new vbr model seems stable and good.

I would like to see new listening tests from Roberto with different codecs and then compare it with old tests. Maybe with 3.90.3 and 3.97b1 both in, to see the difference one more time.

The only thing I don't like about the new recommend version/settings is the very unpredictable file size. I'm not satisfied to get an 80kbps MP3 with -V 5 while aiming for 128kbps. It's a strange feeling... Quality should matter, but size too. Let's say i would like to get the best quality around 192kbps. How good is the new ABR model in comparison to the old preset 192 of 3.90.3? If ABR is recommend for use up to 100kbps (see remark), is it included in the -V switches 8 and 9?

This post has been edited by Echizen: Oct 5 2005, 21:52
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
richard123
post Oct 5 2005, 21:52
Post #68





Group: Members
Posts: 348
Joined: 9-January 03
Member No.: 4498



QUOTE (Echizen @ Oct 5 2005, 03:43 PM)
The only thing I don't like about the new recommend version/settings is the very unpredictable file size. I'm not satisfied to get an 80kbps MP3 with -V 5 while aiming for 128kbps. It's a strange feeling... Quality should matter, but size too. Let's say i would like to get the best quality around 192kbps. How good is the new ABR model in comparison to the old preset 128 of 3.90.3?
*


Whenever I got files sizes much smaller than expected, I re-encode at a higher V level. This is probably a silly thing to do.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Wombat
post Oct 5 2005, 22:07
Post #69





Group: Members
Posts: 986
Joined: 7-October 01
Member No.: 235



QUOTE (robert @ Oct 5 2005, 07:22 PM)
QUOTE (Wombat @ Oct 5 2005, 02:47 AM)
Just tried one sample, the good old "birds" and it degraded to 3.96 builds. Didnīt encode anything in awhile. Is there a thread for bringing in testing for 3.97b? Excuse me but i havenīt been around here for a while until i heard about this build. Cheers to all the ones still very active around here!
*

What settings do you use for the "birds" sample?
*



I used -V2
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
shrinkmail
post Oct 5 2005, 22:36
Post #70





Group: Members
Posts: 72
Joined: 17-February 05
Member No.: 19915



I am also intrigues by the big variations in file sizes and bit rates with the new -V settings. It's a paradigm shift from the old -alt preset regime.
Could an expert please comment on that, because this is throwing up unexpected issues for people who had gotten used to the results with the older versions. Quality is not an issue, as it's superiority has become an established fact.
P.S. I missed all the fun in the beta wrangles, so my 2c. All the google products except the plain vanilla search are beta. So, there... wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jamesbaud
post Oct 6 2005, 05:57
Post #71





Group: Members
Posts: 107
Joined: 15-December 03
Member No.: 10468



QUOTE (rjamorim @ Oct 5 2005, 12:29 PM)
I just added LAME 3.97b compiles for several esoteric platforms to RareWares.

Hohoho tongue.gif
*


Any chance of putting up new 3.97b versions of the special packages, i.e.
"lame_enc.dll modified to use INI File Setup"

thx.

jb
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
johnsonlam
post Oct 6 2005, 07:56
Post #72





Group: Members
Posts: 226
Joined: 12-January 03
From: Kowloon, Hong Kong
Member No.: 4533



QUOTE (jamesbaud @ Oct 6 2005, 12:57 PM)
Any chance of putting up new 3.97b versions of the special packages, i.e.
"lame_enc.dll modified to use INI File Setup"


IMO, set the default configuration into 'INI' is benefit even for command line version, it means no need to create an extra ".BAT" file.

The advantage is everyone can change the 'INI' according to their needs, if they want other parameters occasionally, just override it by giving command line parameters.

This post has been edited by johnsonlam: Oct 6 2005, 08:21


--------------------
Hong Kong - International Joke Center (after 1997-06-30)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Gabriel
post Oct 6 2005, 08:51
Post #73


LAME developer


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



QUOTE
I am also intrigues by the big variations in file sizes and bit rates with the new -V settings. It's a paradigm shift from the old -alt preset regime.

Are you complaining that -V is a vbr setting, and thus produces variable bitrate?
Old vbr alt-presets were also variable in bitrate, there is no shift there (even less "paradigm shift"). If you do not want the result to be variable in bitrate, then why are you using vbr?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
danbee
post Oct 6 2005, 09:56
Post #74





Group: Members
Posts: 225
Joined: 19-February 02
From: plymouth, uk
Member No.: 1355



QUOTE (Echizen @ Oct 5 2005, 03:43 PM)
The only thing I don't like about the new recommend version/settings is the very unpredictable file size. I'm not satisfied to get an 80kbps MP3 with -V 5 while aiming for 128kbps. It's a strange feeling... Quality should matter, but size too. Let's say i would like to get the best quality around 192kbps. How good is the new ABR model in comparison to the old preset 128 of 3.90.3?
*


Well, if the encoder only needed an average of 80kbps to attain the 'quality' that you specified, why should it use any more? It would be a waste, right?

In the end, the ultimate test should be with your ears.


--------------------
:: danbee :: pixelhum.com ::
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
guruboolez
post Oct 6 2005, 13:17
Post #75





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



QUOTE (dev0 @ Oct 4 2005, 04:39 PM)
QUOTE (guruboolez @ Oct 4 2005, 04:06 PM)
May I suggest you to lower the minimal bitrate for -V0, which looks exagerated?
For classical music 230 kbps is a pretty high value (on average I obtained 221 kbps, with a minimal value corresponding to less than 180 kbps). 215...220 is more reasonable in my opinion.
*


It's hard to guess averages for LAME's VBR modes. I just encoded one of my favourite albums using -V2 --vbr-new and it ended up at 257kbps average.
*


It's not exactly what I'm asking for. There's a problem with -V0 minimal bitrate, not the average one. For all other -V setting, the min. value on the current tables seems OK. But 230 kbps as minimal bitrate for -V0 seems to be wrong. The bitrate doesn't jump that high with musical stuff having few informations (or noise) in the highest SFB. Tested on my 150 reference full tracks (classical only): 80% of them have a bitrate inferior to 230 kbps. 31 tracks only get a higher bitrate.
That's why I'd change the bitrate range for -V0:
230...260 -> 210/220 [I let you choose]...260.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

5 Pages V  < 1 2 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: 30th July 2014 - 15:05