Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Using insane settings with mp3 (Read 79651 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Using insane settings with mp3

Reply #50 –
Just use FLAC.  What's the problem with transcoding from FLAC to MP3?  It's not too difficult to convert your CDs to FLAC.  Just do as much as you can per day, and eventually your collection would be converted to FLAC.  I mean, that's what I'm doing right now to my own music collection, and I have college courses to study for too, so I don't see what your problem is.

Also, I use dbpowerAMP to convert my FLAC files to MP3s (using LAME 3.97b2, of course  ), and it doesn't take me too long to do it (maybe a good hour or two).  After you rip all of your music to FLAC, just run dbpowerAMP or foobar2000 to convert FLAC to MP3.  Sure, it may take a long while, but that's what going out is for (unless your job involves WORKING on that actual computer), which means that you should break up the job over several days and over several album folders.

To sum it all up, I'm trying to point out that it IS realistically possible to transcode from FLAC to MP3 with little trouble. 

Using insane settings with mp3

Reply #51 –
Quote
LAME 3.97b2

Not out yet.

Using insane settings with mp3

Reply #52 –
Quote
Also keep in mind that your definition of archiving is a bit different from the general accepted one here. You seem to have a very unique use for a lossy encoder.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=334256"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You are right. I'm sorry I was talking about archive quality when thinking about the way I want to use my archive. This confused people (though I explained it).

I'm also sorry for having started kind of a 3.90.3 against 3.97 war as shown by the replies. This was not intended.

As for the just one sample problem however imo this is not just one sample among many others, but one with two outstanding properties:

a) it is easily audible even for the unexperienced like me and even with very high bitrates when using
- Lame 3.90.3's whatever --alt-preset strategy
- Lame 3.90.3's whatsever vbr mode
- Lame 3.96.1's whatever usage (let's not talk about freeformat please)
- Lame 3.97's whatever usage (let's not talk about freeformat please)
The essentials of this was shown in post #136, I figured out a lot more usage modes before which are not shown in #136, and everybody can easily confirm (or disagree with) this statement using the sample being provided in #136.

b) Bad encodings from a) are at least in the first place not because of the sample being problematic but because the encoders' machinery is going wild (Gabriel's words). As for the best knowledge up to now this is because of nspystune usage (and as far as at lest 3.90.3 is concerned bad vbr behavior).
If machinery is going wild (one case is sufficient to prove that) this is to me much of a concern. I must fear it will go wild in other cases too - and wild can mean 'very wild' according to experience.

So it's not primarily about usage of Lame 3.90.3 --abr 256 -h -Y or similar (this just matches my needs most at the moment). I'm perfectly happy with Lame 3.97b1's -V3 --vbr-new overall quality encluding common artefact behavior (I don't need a perfect archive quality as obtained going lossless), but I want it with no fear for wild machinery with real bad results. I'd like to have this quality with a safe machine. I'm willing to pay the price (high bitrates). The race here on HA is for optimum quality and optimum efficiency. In this my needs are really different as I don't care about efficiency at all. (I'm just running a test on my new iRiver H140 with a repeatedly played abr 256 track. Actually it has played for 22.5 hours - quite a miracle to me as the manual says battery life is approx. 16h mith mp3). Disk space is no problem anyway.

So let's stop the discussion. Shouldn't go on forever.

Thanks to all of the repliers who tried to help me on. (Going lossless for instance is sure and still an interesting option - as is vorbis or wavPack lossy. But as my demands are not that high and as I love mp3's universal usability I just would prefer a safe and good while not perfect mp3 archive).
lame3995o -Q1.7 --lowpass 17

Using insane settings with mp3

Reply #53 –
@ halb27

I think you're full of s**t. Rambling on about stuff you don't seen to have a clue about and guessing to the left and to the right about possible solutions to problems that really don't exist. AFAIK you never posted any ABX results, you were just talking about them.
//From the barren lands of the Northsmen

Using insane settings with mp3

Reply #54 –
Quote
@ halb27

I think you're full of s**t. Rambling on about stuff you don't seen to have a clue about and guessing to the left and to the right about possible solutions to problems that really don't exist. AFAIK you never posted any ABX results, you were just talking about them.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=334303"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

see post #136.
lame3995o -Q1.7 --lowpass 17

Using insane settings with mp3

Reply #55 –
Exactly my point, you never showed any ABX logs, you only mentioned your results. You never said anything about how you went about doing them.
//From the barren lands of the Northsmen

Using insane settings with mp3

Reply #56 –
Quote
Exactly my point, you never showed any ABX logs, you only mentioned your results. You never said anything about how you went about doing them.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=334308"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I used foobar's v0.9beta10's abx util.
If you mean by abx log the result of every single trial I really didn't record that.
If this is the usual procedure here on HA, sorry I didn't record that. Wasn't aware of that (and am pretty sure having seen abx results on HA with just the final result as I did).

I will not repeat the test just for arguing. Obviously you don't like my opinion. And certainly my opinion is just one possible attitude towards the facts.
If you're really out for the result you can try out on your own. You don't beleive me anyway. ABXing is easy in this case at least for the bad behaving encoder (setting)s.
lame3995o -Q1.7 --lowpass 17

Using insane settings with mp3

Reply #57 –
Gah, you got me there, Drenholm. 

Using insane settings with mp3

Reply #58 –
Quote
I will not repeat the test just for arguing. Obviously you don't like my opinion. And certainly my opinion is just one possible attitude towards the facts.[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=334310"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

What facts?
You haven't stated any facts, just assumptions you make based on some misconceptions about how LAME (and psychoaccoustic audiocoding in general) works.

If you support your claims with hard facts (ABX results prooving that you can tell apart your settings from the original and a VBR encode), this discussion might go on, until then you are violating TOS#8.
"To understand me, you'll have to swallow a world." Or maybe your words.

Using insane settings with mp3

Reply #59 –
Well, he has provided proper ABX results. Don't be that hard on him. ABX logs don't mean anything (can be falsified as easily), and are usually not required. The final result is OK.

I understand what he says. He wants a max. quality MP3 at max bitrate, and it seems he prefers old 3.90.3 for that. The thing is, does his results hold for other problematic samples?

Using insane settings with mp3

Reply #60 –
ABXing that sample with 3.97b1 -b 320 is doable...
Code: [Select]
foo_abx v1.2 report
foobar2000 v0.8.3
2005/10/14 16:37:18

File A: file://E:\Downloads\trumpet.flac
File B: file://D:\video\lamemp3\trumpet.mp3

16:37:18 : Test started.
16:38:29 : 01/01  50.0%
16:38:46 : 02/02  25.0%
16:38:52 : 03/03  12.5%
16:39:02 : 04/04  6.3%
16:39:12 : 05/05  3.1%
16:39:24 : 06/06  1.6%
16:39:37 : 07/07  0.8%
16:39:58 : 08/08  0.4%
16:40:01 : Test finished.

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

I couldn't abx it with 3.90.3 api, but the sample was highly annoying to me so I lost focus maybe.

I have to say though, I didn't find the difference i heard disturbing. But again, its not my kinda music...
"We cannot win against obsession. They care, we don't. They win."

Using insane settings with mp3

Reply #61 –
Quote
Well, he has provided proper ABX results. Don't be that hard on him. ABX logs don't mean anything (can be falsified as easily), and are usually not required. The final result is OK.

I understand what he says. He wants a max. quality MP3 at max bitrate, and it seems he prefers old 3.90.3 for that. The thing is, does his results hold for other problematic samples?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=334350"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thank you so much.

Nobody needs to share what I'm targeting at, and nobody needs to share my opionion.
But I didn't think it's so hard to understand what I'm out for.

And what you say is exactly what I'm interested in. Primarily I would like to have no problem with current Lame version, but if that's not what I can get I would like to share experience on the second best solution for my purpose: Lame 3.90.3 -b320 -h or abr usage with slightly released bitrate requirement.
lame3995o -Q1.7 --lowpass 17

Using insane settings with mp3

Reply #62 –
Quote
ABXing that sample with 3.97b1 -b 320 is doable...
Code: [Select]
foo_abx v1.2 report
foobar2000 v0.8.3
2005/10/14 16:37:18

File A: file://E:\Downloads\trumpet.flac
File B: file://D:\video\lamemp3\trumpet.mp3

16:37:18 : Test started.
16:38:29 : 01/01  50.0%
16:38:46 : 02/02  25.0%
16:38:52 : 03/03  12.5%
16:39:02 : 04/04  6.3%
16:39:12 : 05/05  3.1%
16:39:24 : 06/06  1.6%
16:39:37 : 07/07  0.8%
16:39:58 : 08/08  0.4%
16:40:01 : Test finished.

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

I couldn't abx it with 3.90.3 api, but the sample was highly annoying to me so I lost focus maybe.

I have to say though, I didn't find the difference i heard disturbing. But again, its not my kinda music...
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=334352"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks for your support. Highly appreciated. I found 3.90.3 api very hard to abx, much worse than 3.97b1 api, but it was possible. 3.90.3 -b320 -h however was absolutely transparent to me.

Please don't nobody kill me for not providing abx results right now. I did abx, and if someone is interested I can do a retest. Sceptical people however might better do the test on their own.
lame3995o -Q1.7 --lowpass 17

Using insane settings with mp3

Reply #63 –
I did similar experiments with the trumpets.wav test sample (the one at the PCABX page). I experienced similar things with 3.90.x:

- VBR modes were easily ABXable (--aps, --ape)
- I couldn't ABX --api.
- High bitrate ABR modes (--alt-preset 224, IIRC) sounded better than mentioned VBR modes in this sample, but worse in other samples, in regards to pre-echo.

So at last I kept using --aps.

I haven't tried 3.97.

Using insane settings with mp3

Reply #64 –
Quote
I did similar experiments with the trumpets.wav test sample (the one at the PCABX page). I experienced similar things with 3.90.x:

- VBR modes were easily ABXable (--aps, --ape)
- I couldn't ABX --api.
- High bitrate ABR modes (--alt-preset 224, IIRC) sounded better than mentioned VBR modes in this sample, but worse in other samples, in regards to pre-echo.

So at last I kept using --aps.

I haven't tried 3.97.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=334363"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Can you give me your pre-echo examples please?

abr 224 in post #136 was for evaluation purpose only (easy abxing), for production I plan to use a higher bitrate (at least --abr 256 -h, but maybe -b 320 -h).
BTW is --alt-preset 224 identical to --abr 224 with 3.90.3? After all I'm pretty sceptical about --alt-preset?
lame3995o -Q1.7 --lowpass 17

Using insane settings with mp3

Reply #65 –
Quote
Nobody needs to share what I'm targeting at, and nobody needs to share my opionion.
But I didn't think it's so hard to understand what I'm out for.

And what you say is exactly what I'm interested in. Primarily I would like to have no problem with current Lame version, but if that's not what I can get I would like to share experience on the second best solution for my purpose: Lame 3.90.3 -b320 -h or abr usage with slightly released bitrate requirement.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=334361"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


You are right, 3.90.3 does perform better on this sample than 3.97. But as others have said, with a lossy compression you can never be 100% safe, you'd have to use lossless. And using cbr 320 kbps with mp3 doesn't make much sense. When you use a lossy compression, you obviously do that to save space. And 320kbps CBR is for most of the time just an inefficient way of using mp3.

What I'm trying to say is that with lossy compression you have to make a compromise somewhere. And instead of using an obsolete version because of ONE sample, we should rather try to find out why that one sample performs so badly. And now that we have that sample, hopefully the developers can look at it and try to fix it.

Using insane settings with mp3

Reply #66 –
Quote
What I'm trying to say is that with lossy compression you have to make a compromise somewhere. And instead of using an obsolete version because of ONE sample, we should rather try to find out why that one sample performs so badly. And now that we have that sample, hopefully the developers can look at it and try to fix it.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=334368"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That's what I mostly hope for.
lame3995o -Q1.7 --lowpass 17

Using insane settings with mp3

Reply #67 –
halb27: Now that you have found nice setting for you, why don't you try to encode some more test samples with it.

Using insane settings with mp3

Reply #68 –
Quote
halb27: Now that you have found nice setting for you, why don't you try to encode some more test samples with it.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=334380"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I did and still do. But nothing I can talk about. Everything is fine so far, also with some of ff123' and other problematic samples I know.

Unfortunately this doesn't mean a lot. I'm afraid it says more about my listening abilities than about codecs' behavior. And I'm only interested in using high bitrates cause I don't care at all about coding efficiency. This doesn't make things easier.
That's why I ask for support.
I'm afraid (or shall I say glad?) I can only hear very problematic samples.
lame3995o -Q1.7 --lowpass 17

Using insane settings with mp3

Reply #69 –
Like posted before i tried an old sample "Birds" and today "Sophia" Both have noise added. In Sophia in the beginning and in Birds mostly during she sings become.
They weren´t perfect in 3.90.3 but better in 3.96. Out of curiosity i tried Spahm cause i tried it on the 3.90.3 <-> 3.96 comparison tests performed over here. This sample also degraded from 3.96.
I don´t have any time to test more, maybe sunday evening.
Is troll-adiposity coming from feederism?
With 24bit music you can listen to silence much louder!

Using insane settings with mp3

Reply #70 –
Quote
Like posted before i tried an old sample "Birds" and today "Sophia" Both have noise added. In Sophia in the beginning and in Birds mostly during she sings become.
They weren´t perfect in 3.90.3 but better in 3.96. Out of curiosity i tried Spahm cause i tried it on the 3.90.3 <-> 3.96 comparison tests performed over here. This sample also degraded from 3.96.
I don´t have any time to test more, maybe sunday evening.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=334393"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Which way did you use 3.90.3 and 3.96?
lame3995o -Q1.7 --lowpass 17

Using insane settings with mp3

Reply #71 –
Ups! aps versus V2! Have to go now...
Is troll-adiposity coming from feederism?
With 24bit music you can listen to silence much louder!

Using insane settings with mp3

Reply #72 –
Quote
Ups! aps versus V2! Have to go now...
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=334398"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks a lot.
But this is not what I'm targeting at. With aps I would not consider to use 3.90.3. I have no doubt Gabriel has done a very good job improving Lame behavior at this bitrate range and below.
Please no 3.90.3 vs. 3.97 comparison in it's own right (at least not for me). For me it's plain gpsycho vs. nspsytune and cbr (or abr) vs. vbr.
De facto this means 3.90.3 abr or cbr (no --alt-preset !) vs. 3.97 whatsoever.
And that's useful only with very high bitrate.
So for a precise statement: I'd welcome most 3.90.3 -b320 -h -Y against 3.97 api or whatever you like.
--abr 256 (or more) -h -Y against 3.97 -V0 --vbr-new or whatever you like is welcome too.
And for the most couragous: 3.90.3 -b320 -h -Y --athshort vs. 3.97 whatever you like is imo a very interesting question.

If you have the time your tests are very much welcome.
lame3995o -Q1.7 --lowpass 17

Using insane settings with mp3

Reply #73 –
This morning in bed I found a good description for what my target is about. Obviously I was not able to state it quite clearly before. It's about

    optimizing worst case behavior of encoders

And that's why the trumpet sample is an important sample.
Any other sample adequate for this purpose is highly welcome of course, as is any result concerning this issue.
(And that's why it might be interesting to use --athshort with 3.90.3 for evaluation purposes. Among the switches available to the user it is the most promising one that might improve worst case behavior. It is not meant for production purposes, but maybe it yields results that show promising ways to go).

As for the Lame devs:
I am afraid the problem in 3.97 is more one of a conceptual issue than one of technical details (glad if I'm wrong). In the quality-and-efficieny-race they have done such a good job in improvement nspsytune usage so they won't give it up just for this discussion (initiated by a new member moreover). If I were them I wouldn't consider that either. It would be unwise.
It can be only useful if considering worst case behavior leads to general improvement in nspsytune usage. I'm not very optimistic about that.
As long as they have more good ideas in the quality-and-efficiency race (I'm sure they have) they won't take efforts in this direction. This should be considered as good.

But what about this (maybe way too early right now):
Why not merry the best of the worlds which of course means going the 3.97 way for most of the usage modes?
This brings me back to my wish for quality options, call them Q0 to Q9 for the moment. Q2 to Q6 could be identical to 3.97's V2 to V6. I think this can be called 'best' according to settled experience. For Q0 it might be 3.90.3's -b320 -h -Y results (or something improved upon), for Q1 it might be 3.90.3's --abr 256 -h -Y results (or something considered better, maybe 3.97's -V0 --vbr-new). For quality Q7 and below AFAIK not much is settled yet. Of course it should be 3.97, but which way? May be Vx, but that's not for sure (just my opinion: I personally prefer --abr 104 over -V7 for instance).

This shows another advantage of Qx in it's own right (no matter the worst case considerations). It brings the freedom of adressing just quality and nothing else. The way to achieve this quality is an implementation issue to be solved under the hood. Vx doesn't do this alone for the fact that it implies vbr. Any a priori implication is not a good idea and affects the quality level idea. cbr320 as the best quality solution does not match the Vx scheme. And quality level achieved by V3 right now was achieved only with V2 not long ago (roughly speaking). Quality level should be quality level. Improvements in encoding implementation show up as lower bitrate usage (execept for the highest quality level Q0 [maybe Q1 too] where it solely means quality increase).

As for bringing in 3.90.3's -b320 -h -Y behavior I can imagine this does not require extremely high effort. I assume 3.90.3 source code is still available. Of course there are better ways to go but for the moment this seems to be a rather cheap solution which matches the issues adressed here.
lame3995o -Q1.7 --lowpass 17

Using insane settings with mp3

Reply #74 –
I'm sure 3.90.3 had problems which would occur more frequently than 3.97 beta or else Hydrogenaudio would not have made the decision to change the recommended version. Surely, whether degradation has occured in some cases, much work for the better has been done in the years since 3.90.3?