IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

> Upload forum rules

- No over 30 sec clips of copyrighted music. Cite properly and never more than necessary for the discussion.


- No copyrighted software without permission.


- Click here for complete Hydrogenaudio Terms of Service

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
V5 sample becomes worse in 3.99, compared to 3.98
Boiled Beans
post Aug 25 2012, 17:52
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 173
Joined: 8-March 08
Member No.: 51870



I usually play -V5 MP3 files through my computer speakers.

I updated some tags on the original FLAC rip and decided to re-convert the modified FLAC files to MP3 using the latest LAME 3.99.5, instead of just duplicating the tags to the old MP3, which was 3.98.2.

So I could very clearly hear that the new 3.99.5 was worse than 3.98.2 on this sample through my computer speakers. There's more 'wooshy' sound on the cymbals.

Could this be because 3.99 generally uses lower bitrates for V5 compared to 3.98?

Here are three samples
1) the original FLAC
2) the newly converted 3.99.5 sample from the FLAC
3) the old 3.98.2 sample cut using MP3splt. (Didn't re-encode from original FLAC since I don't have old versions of LAME installed)

The song is a live version of Gardening at Night by R.E.M., track 15 on the 1992 I.R.S. Vintage Years reissue of Murmur.

This post has been edited by Boiled Beans: Aug 25 2012, 17:53
Attached File(s)
Attached File  15_Gardening_at_Night_Live_EDIT_FLAC.flac ( 3.86MB ) Number of downloads: 109
Attached File  15_Gardening_at_Night_Live_EDIT_3.995.mp3 ( 517.3K ) Number of downloads: 131
Attached File  15_Gardening_at_Night_Live_EDIT_3.982.mp3 ( 522.23K ) Number of downloads: 119
 
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kohlrabi
post Aug 25 2012, 22:15
Post #2





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 1024
Joined: 12-March 05
From: Kiel, Germany
Member No.: 20561



I bet you have ABX results to back up that claim? I couldn't really hear any obvious flaws, but it'd be easier to compare the files if the samples were aligned, too.

QUOTE (Boiled Beans @ Aug 25 2012, 18:52) *
Could this be because 3.99 generally uses lower bitrates for V5 compared to 3.98?
Bitrate is no quality metric when assessing different encoders.

This post has been edited by Kohlrabi: Aug 25 2012, 22:24


--------------------
Ceterum censeo Masterdiskem esse delendam.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lvqcl
post Aug 25 2012, 22:38
Post #3





Group: Developer
Posts: 3362
Joined: 2-December 07
Member No.: 49183



LAME 3.98.4 encode is attached to the post.

ABXing 3.98.4 from 3.99.5 was easy:
CODE
foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.1.14a
2012/08/26 01:34:43

File A: D:\test\15_Gardening_at_Night_Live_EDIT_3.984.mp3
File B: D:\test\15_Gardening_at_Night_Live_EDIT_3.995.mp3

01:34:43 : Test started.
01:35:19 : 01/01  50.0%
01:35:38 : 02/02  25.0%
01:35:42 : 03/03  12.5%
01:35:49 : 04/04  6.3%
01:35:57 : 05/05  3.1%
01:36:01 : 06/06  1.6%
01:36:05 : 07/07  0.8%
01:36:13 : 08/08  0.4%
01:36:17 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 8/8 (0.4%)

Attached File(s)
Attached File  15_Gardening_at_Night_Live_EDIT_3.984.mp3 ( 554.74K ) Number of downloads: 112
 
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kohlrabi
post Aug 25 2012, 23:12
Post #4





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 1024
Joined: 12-March 05
From: Kiel, Germany
Member No.: 20561



Oh, well I could have created my own encodes, that was embarrassing, mea culpa.


--------------------
Ceterum censeo Masterdiskem esse delendam.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Boiled Beans
post Aug 26 2012, 08:50
Post #5





Group: Members
Posts: 173
Joined: 8-March 08
Member No.: 51870



Thanks lvqcl for providing a LAME 3.984 encode from the original FLAC.

I didn't do an ABX at first since the cymbal 'whooshiness' was so obvious.

Here are my ABX results using the 3.995 from my post and the 3.984 from lvqcl. I focused on the first few seconds of the song.

CODE
foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.1.13
2012/08/26 16:02:26

File A: C:\Downloads\15_Gardening_at_Night_Live_EDIT_3.984.mp3
File B: C:\Downloads\15_Gardening_at_Night_Live_EDIT_3.995.mp3

16:02:26 : Test started.
16:02:44 : 01/01  50.0%
16:02:58 : 02/02  25.0%
16:03:08 : 03/03  12.5%
16:03:17 : 04/04  6.3%
16:03:26 : 05/05  3.1%
16:03:38 : 06/06  1.6%
16:03:49 : 07/07  0.8%
16:04:08 : 08/08  0.4%
16:04:22 : 09/09  0.2%
16:04:26 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 9/9 (0.2%)


This post has been edited by Boiled Beans: Aug 26 2012, 09:08
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lvqcl
post Aug 27 2012, 15:09
Post #6





Group: Developer
Posts: 3362
Joined: 2-December 07
Member No.: 49183



The sample encoded with LAME 3.99.5 -V 4.999 is attached to the post.

Lame 3.98.4 -V 5 => 144 kbps
Lame 3.99.5 -V 5 => 135 kbps
Lame 3.99.5 -V 4.999 => 142 kbps

The bitrate is closer to 3.98.4 -V5, but the quality isn't (ABX result = 8/8).
Attached File(s)
Attached File  15_Gardening_at_Night_Live_EDIT_3995_4999.mp3 ( 547.35K ) Number of downloads: 96
 
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
IgorC
post Aug 27 2012, 15:35
Post #7





Group: Members
Posts: 1556
Joined: 3-January 05
From: ARG/RUS
Member No.: 18803



3.98 and 3.99 have gone into different direction of development. Tuning of quality at high bitrates.

It will be great if somebody will post the results of 3.97 V5 vbr new, 3.98 V 5.7 and 3.99 V4.99 for, lets say, at least 10 samples. And see whether there was any substantial improvements, if any. wink.gif

This post has been edited by IgorC: Aug 27 2012, 15:36
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Martel
post Aug 27 2012, 16:55
Post #8





Group: Members
Posts: 553
Joined: 31-May 04
From: Czech Rep.
Member No.: 14430



This explanation seems strange. If they wanted to improve the higher bitrates, they wouldn't need to screw up anything else.

E.g.

if -V0 then do the "improved" algorithm, else do the original algorithm


--------------------
IE4 Rockbox Clip+ AAC@192; HD 668B/HD 518 Xonar DX FB2k FLAC;
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
IgorC
post Aug 27 2012, 17:05
Post #9





Group: Members
Posts: 1556
Joined: 3-January 05
From: ARG/RUS
Member No.: 18803



Unless V0 had rate up to 320 to go for difficult samples while V5 had to hit 130 kbps on average.
Shortly, nobody complains that 3.99.5 V0 causes the higher bitrate than 3.98.4/3.97 as it's the highest V setting while V5 should necesary hit 130-135 kbps on average.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Aug 27 2012, 17:16
Post #10





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



I think you mean to say surely instead of shortly.


--------------------
I should publish a list of forum idiots.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Boiled Beans
post Sep 8 2012, 14:41
Post #11





Group: Members
Posts: 173
Joined: 8-March 08
Member No.: 51870



Since the R.E.M. sample in the first post, I've been paying attention to my LAME 3.99 V5 encodes recently.
If something sounds bad, I go back to the original rip to compare whether it was bad from the start, and whether encoding with LAME 3.98 would improve over 3.99.

Here's another example, where 3.98.4 is better than 3.99.5.
It's 'Cherish', from Madonna's 'Immaculate Collection'.

I have provided the original FLAC and 3.98.4 and 3.99.5 encodes.

There's more flanging sound (from a tambourine?) in the 3.99.5 version.

CODE
foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.1.13
2012/09/08 18:56:45

File A: C:\Downloads\Sound Test\Test\3.995\EDIT 14 Madonna - Cherish 3995.mp3
File B: C:\Downloads\Sound Test\Test\3.984\EDIT 14 Madonna - Cherish 3984.mp3

18:56:45 : Test started.
19:00:24 : 01/01  50.0%
19:01:01 : 02/02  25.0%
19:01:22 : 03/03  12.5%
19:01:44 : 04/04  6.3%
19:02:07 : 05/05  3.1%
19:02:55 : 06/06  1.6%
19:03:27 : 07/07  0.8%
19:03:55 : 08/08  0.4%
19:03:59 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 8/8 (0.4%)


This post has been edited by Boiled Beans: Sep 8 2012, 14:43
Attached File(s)
Attached File  EDIT_14_Madonna___Cherish.flac ( 3.52MB ) Number of downloads: 58
Attached File  EDIT_14_Madonna___Cherish_3984.mp3 ( 521.83K ) Number of downloads: 100
Attached File  EDIT_14_Madonna___Cherish_3995.mp3 ( 500.44K ) Number of downloads: 101
 
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Boiled Beans
post Oct 30 2012, 17:43
Post #12





Group: Members
Posts: 173
Joined: 8-March 08
Member No.: 51870



Two very obvious samples are attached in this post.

These tracks are from the Pixies - Complete B Sides, from 2001.

The cymbals are more 'swooshy' on the 3.99.5 samples, as compared to the 3.98.4 samples.

CODE
foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.1.13
2012/10/30 22:49:56

File A: C:\EAC Temp\02 Pixies - Vamos (Live) EDIT 3984.mp3
File B: C:\EAC Temp\02 Pixies - Vamos (Live) EDIT 3995.mp3

22:49:56 : Test started.
22:50:14 : 01/01  50.0%
22:50:36 : 02/02  25.0%
22:50:44 : 03/03  12.5%
22:50:51 : 04/04  6.3%
22:51:02 : 05/05  3.1%
22:51:11 : 06/06  1.6%
22:51:19 : 07/07  0.8%
22:51:29 : 08/08  0.4%
22:51:31 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 8/8 (0.4%)


CODE
foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.1.13
2012/10/30 22:51:47

File A: C:\EAC Temp\03 Pixies - In Heaven (Live) EDIT 3984.mp3
File B: C:\EAC Temp\03 Pixies - In Heaven (Live) EDIT 3995.mp3

22:51:47 : Test started.
22:53:49 : 01/01  50.0%
22:54:11 : 02/02  25.0%
22:54:22 : 03/03  12.5%
22:54:31 : 04/04  6.3%
22:54:50 : 05/05  3.1%
22:55:01 : 06/06  1.6%
22:55:12 : 07/07  0.8%
22:55:22 : 08/08  0.4%
22:55:23 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 8/8 (0.4%)


This post has been edited by Boiled Beans: Oct 30 2012, 17:44
Attached File(s)
Attached File  02_Pixies___Vamos__Live__EDIT.flac ( 3.84MB ) Number of downloads: 49
Attached File  02_Pixies___Vamos__Live__EDIT_3984.mp3 ( 509.02K ) Number of downloads: 63
Attached File  02_Pixies___Vamos__Live__EDIT_3995.mp3 ( 471.46K ) Number of downloads: 62
Attached File  03_Pixies___In_Heaven__Live__EDIT.flac ( 3.24MB ) Number of downloads: 39
Attached File  03_Pixies___In_Heaven__Live__EDIT_3984.mp3 ( 510.46K ) Number of downloads: 65
Attached File  03_Pixies___In_Heaven__Live__EDIT_3995.mp3 ( 471.41K ) Number of downloads: 230
 
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
IgorC
post Oct 31 2012, 03:40
Post #13





Group: Members
Posts: 1556
Joined: 3-January 05
From: ARG/RUS
Member No.: 18803



QUOTE (Boiled Beans @ Oct 30 2012, 14:43) *
The cymbals are more 'swooshy' on the 3.99.5 samples, as compared to the 3.98.4 samples.

My findings are quite the same.
3.99.5 preserves better tonal samples while does worse on transients (cymbals in this case).
Roughly speaking 3.98.4 - V5.7 (~135 kbps) should be better for rock music while 3.99.5 -V5 or -V4.99 (~135 kbps) is better for classic music.

P.S. 3.99.5's V5 doesn't yield the same bitrate comparing to 3.98.4's -V5

This post has been edited by IgorC: Oct 31 2012, 03:45
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
themanintheshado...
post Nov 1 2012, 00:10
Post #14





Group: Members
Posts: 28
Joined: 31-October 12
Member No.: 104212



Music files encoded in LAME V5 don't sound great on anything except portable listening situations[/url] (i.e. earbuds connected to a DAP):

CODE
Portable: listening in noisy conditions, lower bitrate, smaller file size

-V4 (~165 kbps), -V5 (~130 kbps) or -V6 (~115 kbps) are recommended.

-V6 produces an "acceptable" quality, while -V4 should be close to perceptual transparency.


Better results would be achieved by increasing the bitrate:

CODE
Very high quality: HiFi, home, or quiet listening, with best file size

-V0 (~245 kbps), -V1 (~225 kbps), -V2 (~190 kbps) or -V3 (~175 kbps) are recommended.

These VBR settings will normally produce transparent results. Audible differences between these presets may exist, but are rare.
[edit] Very high quality: HiFi, home, or quiet listening, with maximum file size

-b 320 is an alternative to the VBR settings above.

This CBR mode will maximize the MP3's bitrate and overall file size. The extra space may allow for some parts of the audio to be compressed with fewer sacrifices, but to date, no one has produced ABX test results demonstrating that perceived quality is ever better than the highest VBR profiles described above.



RE: Problems using V5 with LAME 3.99.5

And people wonder why some still use LAME 3.97? dry.gif New isn't always better.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

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 - 03:20