IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

LAME 3.98.2 VBR bitrate test, all -V settings in 0.5 step increments
Alex B
post Nov 24 2008, 18:31
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 1303
Joined: 14-September 05
From: Helsinki, Finland
Member No.: 24472



Over three years ago I tested the LAME 3.97b1 VBR bitrates (link). For that test I gathered a set of 25 various "reference" tracks. The tracks were specifically selected so that they could more or less represent an average large media library of pop/rock/jazz etc genres. Since then the same set has served well in many occasions. During the preparations of the new public 128 kbps VBR MP3 listening test I gathered another set of classical tracks.

Now I have tested all LAME 3.98.2 VBR settings (in 0.5 step increments) using these two reference sets. For this test I encoded 1050 MP3 files (21x50). I analyzed the files with EncSpot Pro v.2.1 and prosessed the exported data with Excel.

Here are the results:

Some general details: (the frequency values are kHz)


Bitrates "Various":


Bitrates "Classical":


Average Bitrates:




The test tracks:


EDIT:
The classical track #4 has a slightly incorrect name in the table. It should be "Berlin Radio Symphony Orchestra - Mahler, Symphony No 8, 2. Ewiger Wonnebrand".


The source data is available here: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....st&p=601002 (Excel sheet)

This post has been edited by Alex B: Dec 3 2008, 11:03


--------------------
http://listening-tests.freetzi.com
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
guruboolez
post Nov 24 2008, 19:06
Post #2





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



Excellent and useful work. This table should appear on the wiki.

On my own classical music test set (bigger: 150 tracks from different discs / 16 hours of music), results on the few settings I tested before are very similar:
-V5: 133.55 kbps (+2.7 kbps)
-V4.5: 145.36kbps (+2.8 kbps)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Alex B
post Nov 24 2008, 20:17
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 1303
Joined: 14-September 05
From: Helsinki, Finland
Member No.: 24472



QUOTE (guruboolez @ Nov 24 2008, 20:06) *
On my own classical music test set (bigger: 150 tracks from different discs / 16 hours of music), results on the few settings I tested before are very similar:
-V5: 133.55 kbps (+2.7 kbps)
-V4.5: 145.36kbps (+2.8 kbps)

Interestingly the average values that EncSpot reported directly are even closer to your values:
Classical -V5 133.1 kbps
Classical -V4.5 144.7kbps

I noticed that the average values calculated by Excel always differed slightly from the EncSpot averages. Probably that is caused by rounding. EncSpot may internally use greater precision than it shows for individual tracks. I could have used the EncSpot averages, but it would have looked odd if the average values could not have been verified by calculating them from the given track values.

In any case this kind of a test can only give a rough estimation, so the exact precision does not matter that much.

This post has been edited by Alex B: Nov 24 2008, 20:20


--------------------
http://listening-tests.freetzi.com
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
tosse
post Nov 25 2008, 08:45
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 6
Joined: 9-May 06
From: Sweden
Member No.: 30612



QUOTE (Alex B @ Nov 24 2008, 21:17) *
I noticed that the average values calculated by Excel always differed slightly from the EncSpot averages. Probably that is caused by rounding. EncSpot may internally use greater precision than it shows for individual tracks. I could have used the EncSpot averages, but it would have looked odd if the average values could not have been verified by calculating them from the given track values.

Perhaps encspot uses a weighted average, weighted on the track durations that is?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic
- Alex B   LAME 3.98.2 VBR bitrate test   Nov 24 2008, 18:31
- - guruboolez   Excellent and useful work. This table should appea...   Nov 24 2008, 19:06
|- - Alex B   QUOTE (guruboolez @ Nov 24 2008, 20:06) O...   Nov 24 2008, 20:17
|- - tosse   QUOTE (Alex B @ Nov 24 2008, 21:17) I not...   Nov 25 2008, 08:45
- - Alexxander   Thanks for sharing your helpfull information. The ...   Nov 24 2008, 19:15
- - DigitalDictator   I wonder what the plot (or chart) would look like ...   Nov 24 2008, 19:42
|- - Alex B   QUOTE (DigitalDictator @ Nov 24 2008, 20...   Nov 24 2008, 20:51
|- - /mnt   QUOTE (Alex B @ Nov 24 2008, 20:51) QUOTE...   Nov 24 2008, 22:14
- - melomaniac   Thank you for this interesting bitrate table. Very...   Nov 24 2008, 19:49
- - senab   QUOTE (Alex B @ Nov 24 2008, 20:17) I not...   Nov 24 2008, 22:21
- - kornchild2002   I saw that the Evanescence track suffered from the...   Nov 24 2008, 23:25
- - /mnt   And for some reason Powerslave by Iron Maiden real...   Nov 24 2008, 23:37
- - Alex B   Actually I really would not like to start testing ...   Nov 25 2008, 00:12
- - CiTay   I updated the bitrate estimates on the LAME page a...   Nov 25 2008, 00:20
- - /mnt   I have made a table of 29 sfb21 bloated tracks at ...   Nov 25 2008, 01:27
- - skelly831   Great info guys! the ~60kbps savings with -Y a...   Nov 25 2008, 07:01
- - Alex B   Thanks tosse. I did some tests and I think you are...   Nov 25 2008, 12:59
- - Pio2001   Hello, A bit surprised by the low target bitrate o...   May 31 2009, 19:31
- - MClemo   On my collection of 12579 files I got an average b...   Jun 1 2009, 10:42


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: 29th August 2014 - 22:03