Skip to main content

Topic: LAME version identification? (Read 3907 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • bennetng
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
LAME version identification?
Does LAME store version information in MP3 files? If yes, how to read this information and how to enable/disable this function? Thanks.

LAME version identification?
Reply #1

  • bennetng
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
LAME version identification?
Reply #2
The tools are useful, thanks.

  • krazy
  • [*][*][*][*]
LAME version identification?
Reply #3
Also, as always, http://www.foobar2000.org .
  • Last Edit: 14 October, 2006, 10:53:31 AM by krazy

LAME version identification?
Reply #4
AudioShell is also good for this.
Music washes away from the soul the dust of everyday life.

  • bennetng
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
LAME version identification?
Reply #5
My purpose is to prevent other people to know the encoder version and other encoder settings in my MP3s, however it seems that the tools mentioned above cannot (correct me if I wrong) completely remove those extremely detailed LAME tags, how to remove those information? Thank you very much.

  • robert
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
LAME version identification?
Reply #6
My purpose is to prevent other people to know the encoder version and other encoder settings in my MP3s...

why?

  • bennetng
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
LAME version identification?
Reply #7
Someone claimed that 3.90.3 still sounds best. I doubt if he is really able to hear the differences between different version and I want to set up a listening test for him. I afraid that he will cheat so I want to remove all information in MP3 files.

TOS#8 is great but it cannot prevent other people from posting fake ABX results. Sigh.

  • odyssey
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
LAME version identification?
Reply #8
Why not give him two decoded wav-files then?
Can't wait for a HD-AAC encoder :P

  • bennetng
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
LAME version identification?
Reply #9
Too large to upload...
Moreover, two files are not enough because the possibility of guessing is 50%. To make the result more reliable, a lot of test samples are necessary, so filesize will even larger.

=================
Some people also claimed that 320k is not transparent. I encoded a test sample in LAME preset medium, standard, extreme, insane, plus the original lossless file then convert to APE and ask those people to list sound quality in descending order. I included the answer in an encrypted RAR file and did not reveal the password until they answered the question. I succeeded. Some people even have no courage to answer the question, and those who answered the question were wrong. However this test method is also not secure because the spectrum graph of those audio files may provide some hints (such as lowpass).

One set of these files roughly cost 10-20MB...

LAME version identification?
Reply #10
If you use ABC/HR, you won't have to be afraid of anything.

  • Empyrean
  • [*][*]
LAME version identification?
Reply #11
It is going to be extremely difficult to prevent someone from cheating.  People will go to great lengths to keep their reality from being shattered, no matter how absurd it may be.  Too bad the first mp3s to ever appear were of low quality and setup this stigma.

I mean if this person really desires, even regardless of the Wave file size, he could examine the binary contents and perhaps make guesses based on that data.  Anyway, this is like trying to write a virus-proof system, there is always going to be a way around it.  And you can't expect immediate turnaround time on an answer since he will have to listen and contemplate the results.

Ideally, you'd have to have an experiment run by a disinterested 3rd party, complete with double-blind testing and probably a sound studio dedicated to the experiment.  Seeing as that's never going to realistically happen, you may be best off letting this person live in their delusional audio world.  I mean, if you can't hear the difference, that is what really matters.  I wouldn't doubt yourself.  If this person has exceptional hearing, they can prove that by going and getting a hearing test done by a doctor.

Anyway, interesting and not surprising results on that other experiment you ran.  It's always funny how people can't produce ABX results.  For being able to 'understand' every nuance of audio, you'd think they could manage to run a simple ABX test and post the results.