Skip to main content
Topic: 3.97: standard or fast standard? (Read 19839 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

3.97: standard or fast standard?

It was generally the (unofficial) conclusion that fast standard is now better than standard as of 3.97, correct? I'm double-checking, because I need to rip a whole bunch of CDs and I'm impatient for the final 3.97 release.

At the very least, no critical failures were found with fast standard, correct?

3.97: standard or fast standard?

Reply #1
Quote
It was generally the (unofficial) conclusion that fast standard is now better than standard as of 3.97, correct? I'm double-checking, because I need to rip a whole bunch of CDs and I'm impatient for the final 3.97 release.

At the very least, no critical failures were found with fast standard, correct?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=300329"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

IIRC, "fast" performed slightly better on average in guruboolez tests, but they were very close, so it probably doesn't matter which one you use - there will probably be  samples where either one or the other is better. Personally, I'd go for the fast mode, although I am still a bit wary because it is officially in "alpha" status.
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)

3.97: standard or fast standard?

Reply #2
Yeah, but it seems like it is more or less consistently better than 3.96.1, and frankly it sounds like the LAME devs aren't working much at all on 3.97 right now (Don't bite me! I'm not saying they have to be working 24/7, just that Gabriel indicated most of the current work is by Takahiro on 4.0).

3.97: standard or fast standard?

Reply #3
BTW in 3.97a10: Theres no indicator for --vbr-new? I use: -V 2 --vbr-new and it says:

Code: [Select]
 'Coriolan & Koenig Stephan' - Ludwig van Beethoven- Symphonie No.6 'Pastorale',
Overtueren 'Coriolan & Koenig Stephan'\0tmp7!1!5.wav
     to M:\Desktop\Ludwig van Beethoven- Symphonie No.6 'Pastorale', Overtueren
'Coriolan & Koenig Stephan' - Ludwig van Beethoven- Symphonie No.6 'Pastorale',
Overtueren 'Coriolan & Koenig Stephan'\0tmp7!1!5.mp3
Encoding as 44.1 kHz VBR(q=2) j-stereo MPEG-1 Layer III (ca. 7.3x) qval=3
   Frame          |  CPU time/estim | REAL time/estim | play/CPU |    ETA
 3850/30944  (12%)|    0:49/    6:41|    0:49/    6:41|   2.0130x|    5:51
32 [   4] *
40 [   0]
48 [   0]
56 [   1] *
64 [   0]
80 [   0]
96 [   0]
112 [   1] *
128 [   2] *
160 [ 696] %%%%%%%%%%%%%***
192 [3012] %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%********
224 [ 134] %%%*
256 [   0]
320 [   0]
----------11:47----------------------------------------------------------------
  kbps        LR    MS  %     long  %
 187.1       85.8  14.2       100.0

3.97: standard or fast standard?

Reply #4
AFAIR --vbr-new is now operating without bitrate limits while the old mode still uses a min bitrate of 128kbps.
"To understand me, you'll have to swallow a world." Or maybe your words.

3.97: standard or fast standard?

Reply #5
I've been using the fast mode mostly with preset medium and never noticed any obvious quality compromise.
I never tried to ABX against --vbr-old because quality is good enough for me and the speed increase really does pay off.

3.97: standard or fast standard?

Reply #6
Quote
AFAIR --vbr-new is now operating without bitrate limits while the old mode still uses a min bitrate of 128kbps.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=300496"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I've encoded some files using LAME 3.97a10 & --preset standard and there wasn't any bitrate limit either...
--alt-presets are there for a reason! These other switches DO NOT work better than it, trust me on this.
LAME + Joint Stereo doesn't destroy 'Stereo'

3.97: standard or fast standard?

Reply #7
It's cool to see so much continued enthusiasm for LAME development!

Hopefully, the stable version will release soon

3.97: standard or fast standard?

Reply #8
Quote
I've been using the fast mode mostly with preset medium and never noticed any obvious quality compromise.
I never tried to ABX against --vbr-old because quality is good enough for me and the speed increase really does pay off.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=300498"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This post appears to be in violation of rule #8.

3.97: standard or fast standard?

Reply #9
Quote
Quote
I've been using the fast mode mostly with preset medium and never noticed any obvious quality compromise.
I never tried to ABX against --vbr-old because quality is good enough for me and the speed increase really does pay off.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=300498"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This post appears to be in violation of rule #8.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=300576"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Oh settle down, he didn't claim to hear a difference, he claimed to NOT hear one. You don't have to back up non-claims with evidence, otherwise no one would ever get anything done!

3.97: standard or fast standard?

Reply #10
Quote
Quote
I've been using the fast mode mostly with preset medium and never noticed any obvious quality compromise.
I never tried to ABX against --vbr-old because quality is good enough for me and the speed increase really does pay off.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=300498"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This post appears to be in violation of rule #8.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=300576"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


IMHO as there are no claims regarding audio quality but rather a statement that it is good enough for him, there is no violation of TOS 8.

 

3.97: standard or fast standard?

Reply #11
To clarify some things.
I've noticed during tests that lame --vbr-new alpha produces on average better sound than usual VBR mode. Alpha 5, 6 & 7 with -V5, -V4 & -V2 settings were affected. 3.96.1 also share the same issues than these alpha (see this additionnal listening test).

But Gabriel has updated the defaulted VBR mode with alpha 8 whereas --vbr-new was unchanged. I've evaluated these fresh tunings with -V3 & -V2 settings, and it reveals nice progress. Therefore, the gap between --vbr-new and default VBR was reduced, or could even be completely filled since alpha 8. Is someone interested to ABX directly both VBR modes with latests alphas? 



[span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%']DIRECT LINKS[/span]:


alpha 5 -V4 - 20 samples and alpha 5 -V5 - 6 samples
alpha 6 -V2 - 20 samples
alpha 7 -V4 - 54 samples
alpha 8 -V3 - 20 samples and alpha 8 -V2 - 20 samples


EDIT: --vbr-old & --vbr-new started to be updated with alpha 7, up to -V4. Tunings were followed with -V3 & -V2, but only since alpha 8 (as mentioned first). Improvements were serious, and my -V4 tests on 54 samples revealed that --vbr-new has still some advantages over defaulted mode (especially with some critical samples: microattacks issues).

3.97: standard or fast standard?

Reply #12
Would you conclude from this that from 3.97, --preset medium should be mapped to -V4 --vbr-new. I assume that --preset medium should yield the best quality possible using -V4 (and it's target bitrate), independent from speed achieved.

3.97: standard or fast standard?

Reply #13
Quote
Quote
Quote
I've been using the fast mode mostly with preset medium and never noticed any obvious quality compromise.
I never tried to ABX against --vbr-old because quality is good enough for me and the speed increase really does pay off.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=300498"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This post appears to be in violation of rule #8.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=300576"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Oh settle down, he didn't claim to hear a difference, he claimed to NOT hear one. You don't have to back up non-claims with evidence, otherwise no one would ever get anything done!
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=300579"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

One more thing. You shouldn't ABX encodes against each other; you should ABX them with the original. You can use ABC/HR for comparing encodes.

3.97: standard or fast standard?

Reply #14
Quote
Would you conclude from this that from 3.97, --preset medium should be mapped to -V4 --vbr-new.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=301400"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

From my own experience, yes. But it's only mine, and it would be really nice to see additional feedback, coming from different people, tastes, hardware, etc...

3.97: standard or fast standard?

Reply #15
Quote
One more thing. You shouldn't ABX encodes against each other; you should ABX them with the original. You can use ABC/HR for comparing encodes.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=301409"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Why not?

Let's take an example: Encode to 50kbps two times with a tiny change of some setting in the encoder. Now to decide how this changed parameter influences the encoding, it's not enough to just conclude that you can hear a difference between the original and to each of the 50kbps encoded files. You also need to determine that you can actually hear a difference between the two encoded files, and this is done by - tada - ABX. Of course abc/hr can help you do this, but you could use any other tool as well. Now, can you explain to me why one shouldn't ABX encodes against eachother?

3.97: standard or fast standard?

Reply #16
Oh well, I guess ABX is useful in that case, but that doesn't tell you which one is closer to the original.

You shouldn't ABX encodes against each other if you want to draw conclusions about encoding quality, IMHO.

3.97: standard or fast standard?

Reply #17
Quote
You shouldn't ABX encodes against each other if you want to draw conclusions about encoding quality, IMHO.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=301419"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


From my own experience, comparing directly two encodings is a very important step if I really want to know if both encodings really sounds different.
ABC/HR step is generally not enough. It's easy to give two different notes to two different encodings, but if you must know if the difference really exists, the direct ABXing is necessary.
ABXing reference vs encoding is generally easier than ABXing encoding vs encoding. It's especially true when you try to compare encodings that are really close (ex: lame --standard vs lame -fast-standard).

You should also keep in mind that reference is still accessible if needed during the ABX comparison between two different encodings. At least with java ABC/HR.

 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2018