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: lame 3.97 -V 2 --vbr-new VS lame 3.97 -V 2 --vbr-new --lowpass 16000 (Read 11807 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

lame 3.97 -V 2 --vbr-new VS lame 3.97 -V 2 --vbr-new --lowpass 16000

Hi!

I have tested some tracks with Lame 3.97 with "-V2 --vbr-new" and "lame.exe -V2 --vbr-new --lowpass 16000" options. I thought i will have smaller bitrate and at least the same quality with lowpass filter at 16Khz (-V2 dosn't have -Y key inside right?), but that sample with lowpass filter sounds worse. It sounds like in case of lowpass there are bigger pre-echo and attacks more "washed". I tested that sample with ABX test and have following results:

Original track VS "lame.exe -V 2 --vbr-new"
Code: [Select]
foo_abx v1.2 report
foobar2000 v0.8.3
2006/10/03 04:05:11

File A: file://C:\15\Madonna\Music\Madonna - Music.cue
File B: file://C:\15\test\3.97b3\v2-new\Madonna\Music\09. Madonna - Paradise (not for me).mp3

04:05:41 : Test started.
04:05:48 : 01/01  50.0%
04:05:54 : 02/02  25.0%
04:05:57 : 03/03  12.5%
04:06:08 : 04/04  6.3%
04:06:40 : 05/05  3.1%
04:06:46 : 06/06  1.6%
04:07:06 : 07/07  0.8%
04:07:13 : 08/08  0.4%
04:07:19 : 09/09  0.2%
04:07:29 : 10/10  0.1%
04:07:40 : 11/11  0.0%
04:07:41 : Test finished.

 ---------- 
Total: 11/11 (0.0%)

Original track VS "lame.exe -V 2 --vbr-new --lowpass 16000"
Code: [Select]
foo_abx v1.2 report
foobar2000 v0.8.3
2006/10/03 01:49:10

File A: file://C:\15\Madonna\Music\Madonna - Music.cue
File B: file://C:\15\test\3.97b3\v2-new-16khz\Madonna\Music\09. Madonna - Paradise (not for me).mp3

01:49:37 : Test started.
01:49:54 : 01/01  50.0%
01:50:01 : 02/02  25.0%
01:50:12 : 03/03  12.5%
01:53:40 : 04/04  6.3%
01:53:46 : 05/05  3.1%
01:53:52 : 06/06  1.6%
01:53:59 : 07/07  0.8%
01:54:04 : 08/08  0.4%
01:54:09 : 09/09  0.2%
01:54:18 : 10/10  0.1%
01:54:23 : 11/11  0.0%
01:54:24 : Test finished.

 ---------- 
Total: 11/11 (0.0%)

"lame.exe -V 2 --vbr-new" VS "lame.exe -V 2 --vbr-new --lowpass 16000"
Code: [Select]
foo_abx v1.2 report
foobar2000 v0.8.3
2006/10/03 03:32:59

File A: file://C:\15\test\3.97b3\v2-new\Madonna\Music\09. Madonna - Paradise (not for me).mp3
File B: file://C:\15\test\3.97b3\v2-new-16khz\Madonna\Music\09. Madonna - Paradise (not for me).mp3

03:33:55 : Test started.
03:34:18 : 01/01  50.0%
03:34:30 : 02/02  25.0%
03:34:36 : 03/03  12.5%
03:34:41 : 04/04  6.3%
03:35:15 : 05/05  3.1%
03:35:30 : 06/06  1.6%
03:35:36 : 07/07  0.8%
03:37:19 : 08/08  0.4%
03:38:12 : 09/09  0.2%
03:38:19 : 09/10  1.1%
03:38:32 : 10/11  0.6%
03:40:07 : 11/12  0.3%
03:40:15 : 12/13  0.2%
03:41:29 : 12/14  0.6%
03:49:10 : 13/15  0.4%
03:49:41 : 14/16  0.2%
03:50:19 : 15/17  0.1%
03:50:45 : 16/18  0.1%
03:51:05 : 17/19  0.0%
03:51:16 : Test finished.

 ---------- 
Total: 17/19 (0.0%)

Original track at .flac format with mp3s encoded. There are album replaygain applied at flac and mp3gain at mp3s: Madonna - Music - Paradise (not for me) (about 59 Mb) Moderation: Link removed - please keep clips under 30s (see TOS #9).

Original track cut at .flac format with mp3s encoded (first 13 seconds): Madonna - Music - Paradise (not for me) cut (about 1.4 Mb)

You can hear that rigth at first five seconds of the track.

I think it is not normal that sample sounds worse with "--lowpass 16000" command prompt key, isn't it?

Thank You.

edit: code to codebox, some typo and gramatics

lame 3.97 -V 2 --vbr-new VS lame 3.97 -V 2 --vbr-new --lowpass 16000

Reply #1 –
You say that you applied mp3gain to the mp3s. Are you sure that they are of equal loudness? And are you sure they are both equally loud as the original?

lame 3.97 -V 2 --vbr-new VS lame 3.97 -V 2 --vbr-new --lowpass 16000

Reply #2 –
Quote from: pdq on
You say that you applied mp3gain to the mp3s. Are you sure that they are of equal loudness? And are you sure they are both equally loud as the original?


There is 0.02 dB difference - it is inaudible.

lame 3.97 -V 2 --vbr-new VS lame 3.97 -V 2 --vbr-new --lowpass 16000

Reply #3 –
Quote from: Single on
There is 0.02 dB difference - it is inaudible.


Of course i have "Use ReplayGain" option at foobar - preferences - ABX comparator is ON.

lame 3.97 -V 2 --vbr-new VS lame 3.97 -V 2 --vbr-new --lowpass 16000

Reply #4 –
When performing ABX tests, you shouldn't use any sort of gain, since the process of encoding can affect the percieved loudness of the track to the replaygain algorithm.
Simply try ABXing the tracks with no replaygain applied.

That said, it is not surprising that the lowpassed encoding sounded worse, since the -Vx presets are tuned for optimal quality without having to resort to other command line switches.

lame 3.97 -V 2 --vbr-new VS lame 3.97 -V 2 --vbr-new --lowpass 16000

Reply #5 –
Quote
`I think it is not normal that sample sounds worse with "--lowpass 16000" command prompt key, isn't it?

It is normal, otherwise the setting would have been part of the preset.
"We cannot win against obsession. They care, we don't. They win."

lame 3.97 -V 2 --vbr-new VS lame 3.97 -V 2 --vbr-new --lowpass 16000

Reply #6 –
Instead of using --lowpass, try using -Y instead, and see if you have the same result.
twitter.com/pika2000

lame 3.97 -V 2 --vbr-new VS lame 3.97 -V 2 --vbr-new --lowpass 16000

Reply #7 –
Quote from: krazy on
When performing ABX tests, you shouldn't use any sort of gain, since the process of encoding can affect the percieved loudness of the track to the replaygain algorithm.
Simply try ABXing the tracks with no replaygain applied.

Ok. I'll try that way. But tag says that there is only 0.02 dB difference between that tracks. And the reason why i started the comparison is at i guess there is more noise or preecho not louder.

Quote from: krazy on
That said, it is not surprising that the lowpassed encoding sounded worse, since the -Vx presets are tuned for optimal quality without having to resort to other command line switches.

Quote from: stephanV on
Quote
`I think it is not normal that sample sounds worse with "--lowpass 16000" command prompt key, isn't it?

It is normal, otherwise the setting would have been part of the preset.

It is JUST a lowpass filter it is not a tweak to lame internal processes behaviour.

Quote from: pika2000 on
Instead of using --lowpass, try using -Y instead, and see if you have the same result.

-Y switch change algorithms behaviour but --lowpass is just LPF and i think it should be better to use LPF at 16 Khz than -Y switch. Lowpass shouldn't change lame psymodel behaviour.
But the track starting to sounds worse and it is discouraged for me, why?

lame 3.97 -V 2 --vbr-new VS lame 3.97 -V 2 --vbr-new --lowpass 16000

Reply #8 –
A localised energy surge in time domain implies a broad frequency distribution in the frequency domain. Thus it is possible that a lowpass might decrease "localisation" of the surge in the time domain.

You should not forget that time domain and frequency domain are just one transform away from each other. They are two representations of the same data, so if you act on one, you are also acting on the other.

lame 3.97 -V 2 --vbr-new VS lame 3.97 -V 2 --vbr-new --lowpass 16000

Reply #9 –
Quote from: Gabriel on
A localised energy surge in time domain implies a broad frequency distribution in the frequency domain.

Wow, I like that dirty talk!!! 

lame 3.97 -V 2 --vbr-new VS lame 3.97 -V 2 --vbr-new --lowpass 16000

Reply #10 –
Quote from: Single on
Lame 3.97 with "-V2 --vbr-new" and "lame.exe -V2 --vbr-new --lowpass 16000"
-V 2 --vbr-new: lowpass = ~18khz
-V 2 --vbr-new --lowpass 16000: lowpass = ~ 16000khz, that effectively shuts OFF the lowpass filter. (unless it's smart enough to know it's wrong..)
Using "--lowpass 16" will give you a 16khz lowpass. (I hope this is what you really used)

As long as you can hear above 16khz, you SHOULD be able to hear the difference.


Quote from: Single on
-Y switch change algorithms behaviour but --lowpass is just LPF and i think it should be better to use LPF at 16 Khz than -Y switch. Lowpass shouldn't change lame psymodel behaviour.
But the track starting to sounds worse and it is discouraged for me, why?
Using -Y or --lowpass 16 with -V 2 should result is about the same average bitrate, but they probably won't sound the same (depends on the track).  Neither of them 'change the psymodel behavior' as far as I can tell, but they DO effect the frame size selection, and thus, the average bitrate.
Vorbis-q0-lowpass99
lame3.93.1-q5-V9-k-nspsytune

lame 3.97 -V 2 --vbr-new VS lame 3.97 -V 2 --vbr-new --lowpass 16000

Reply #11 –
Quote from: gameplaya15143 on
-V 2 --vbr-new --lowpass 16000: lowpass = ~ 16000khz, that effectively shuts OFF the lowpass filter. (unless it's smart enough to know it's wrong..)

Lame.exe should be smart enough to understand 16kHz in this case, if I remember well.

lame 3.97 -V 2 --vbr-new VS lame 3.97 -V 2 --vbr-new --lowpass 16000

Reply #12 –
Quote from: gameplaya15143 on
As long as you can hear above 16khz, you SHOULD be able to hear the difference.


Being able to hear a tone above 16kHz is no guarantee that you can hear the difference between a 16 kHz lowpass vs. no lowpass when listening to actual music. I recall a test here some time back that showed that most of us cannot hear a 16 kHz lowpass even in music with significant energy above this frequency.

lame 3.97 -V 2 --vbr-new VS lame 3.97 -V 2 --vbr-new --lowpass 16000

Reply #13 –
I agree, I can hear a tone up to 22 khz but I failed to abx files with 16khz lowpass and up in the second test :

Test cutoff
Test lowpass
Opus 96 kb/s (Android) / Vorbis -q5 (PC) / WavPack -hhx6m (Archive)

lame 3.97 -V 2 --vbr-new VS lame 3.97 -V 2 --vbr-new --lowpass 16000

Reply #14 –
Quote from: gameplaya15143 on
-V 2 --vbr-new --lowpass 16000: lowpass = ~ 16000khz, that effectively shuts OFF the lowpass filter. [!--sizeo:1--][span style=\"font-size:8pt;line-height:100%\"][!--/sizeo--](unless it's smart enough to know it's wrong..)[/size]
Using "--lowpass 16" will give you a 16khz lowpass. (I hope this is what you really used)

As long as you can hear above 16khz, you SHOULD be able to hear the difference.

Code: [Select]
C:\19>lame -V 2 --lowpass 16000 "09._Madonna_-_Paradise_(not_for_me)_cut.wa
LAME 3.97 32bits (http://www.mp3dev.org/)
CPU features: MMX (ASM used), SSE (ASM used), SSE2
Using polyphase lowpass filter, transition band: 15826 Hz - 16360 Hz
Encoding 09._Madonna_-_Paradise_(not_for_me)_cut.wav to 1.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
   503/503   (100%)|    0:20/    0:20|    0:20/    0:20|   0.6395x|    0:00

It's smart enough.

I guess i don't like the -Y hi frequency fluctuations, i thing that simple cut off all above 16Khz is a better way.
Is there any conclusion which method is better?

My hearing frequency limit is about 17500 Hz.
 

lame 3.97 -V 2 --vbr-new VS lame 3.97 -V 2 --vbr-new --lowpass 16000

Reply #15 –
Quote from: Gabriel on
Lame.exe should be smart enough to understand 16kHz in this case, if I remember well.
Cool.


Quote from: pdq on
Being able to hear a tone above 16kHz is no guarantee that you can hear the difference between a 16 kHz lowpass vs. no lowpass when listening to actual music. I recall a test here some time back that showed that most of us cannot hear a 16 kHz lowpass even in music with significant energy above this frequency.
True (for me as well), but it also depends on the music itself.


Quote from: Single on
I guess i don't like the -Y hi frequency fluctuations, i thing that simple cut off all above 16Khz is a better way.
Is there any conclusion which method is better?
I would tend to agree.  I find -V 3 & -V 4 to be occasionally 'chirpy' with stuff above 16khz, but I don't think it is due to -Y only (ATH maybe?).
Vorbis-q0-lowpass99
lame3.93.1-q5-V9-k-nspsytune