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: Why isn't recommended switch -q 0 in LAME? (Read 10209 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Why isn't recommended switch -q 0 in LAME?

Hi all,

do you know somebody why in LAME codec's help is recommended value 2 for -q switch (Noise shaping & psycho acoustic algorithms) while value 0 provides the highest quality? I have just made 2 mp3s: one with -q 2 and second with -q 0 setting but both was made in the same time. So I don't understand the reason why -q 2 is still recommended. Even in hydrogenaudio's FAQ there is no mention about this switch.

Thanks.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry my English and if this question is already answered. I couldn't fint it.

Why isn't recommended switch -q 0 in LAME?

Reply #1
Here I'm quoting my post from another thread:

Alright, thanks!

By reading some more related topics I meanwhile learned that there was a bug regarding -q0 and -q1 in LAME versions 3.94-3.96.1. Besides the fact that they have been corrected in newer versions: what about -q 2, could there be any profits from using it in comparison to the default -q 3?

Sorry for probing questions, i'm just interested in these details

Irie

The artifact I mentioned exists at -q 0 up to -q 2 (it is described as "ringing") in ALL versions from 3.96, but it will appear just in extreme cases and I doubt you will hear any difference between -q 2 and -q 3. My recommendation is to use -q 3 (=default) quality setting.
(There can as well be cases where -q 2 (or -q 0) performs better than than default -q 3, but I have not noticed such case with my music)

Note: If you really want to know which is better for you, I suggest you to encode some of your favourite music and do an ABX test. This is the only way to find out.

J.M.

Why isn't recommended switch -q 0 in LAME?

Reply #2
Deleted to prevent any further confusion. Author was obviously blind and therefore unable to distinguish between -q0 and -V 0. *sigh*


Why isn't recommended switch -q 0 in LAME?

Reply #4
Junon,

I think you're confusing -q0 with -V 0.


Damn! Yep, I really do, thanks for the error note. People, forget everything I wrote above! Seems like I'm a bit too silly to write helpful content this lousy day.

Why isn't recommended switch -q 0 in LAME?

Reply #5
I recall hearing that -q0 has some sort of bug that causes artifacts, whereas -q2 doesn't. I don't know if said bug was ever fixed.

Why isn't recommended switch -q 0 in LAME?

Reply #6
Hi all,

do you know somebody why in LAME codec's help is recommended value 2 for -q switch (Noise shaping & psycho acoustic algorithms) while value 0 provides the highest quality? I have just made 2 mp3s: one with -q 2 and second with -q 0 setting but both was made in the same time. So I don't understand the reason why -q 2 is still recommended. Even in hydrogenaudio's FAQ there is no mention about this switch.

Thanks.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry my English and if this question is already answered. I couldn't fint it.


As I recall, q0 is only very marginally better then q2, but much slower.

Also, in older versions of lame, q0 didn't work right, but that was fixed a while ago.

Why isn't recommended switch -q 0 in LAME?

Reply #7
I am doing some ABX-ing and find that -q 0 and -m s work very good without and ringing

Why isn't recommended switch -q 0 in LAME?

Reply #8
Hi all,

do you know somebody why in LAME codec's help is recommended value 2 for -q switch (Noise shaping & psycho acoustic algorithms) while value 0 provides the highest quality? I have just made 2 mp3s: one with -q 2 and second with -q 0 setting but both was made in the same time. So I don't understand the reason why -q 2 is still recommended. Even in hydrogenaudio's FAQ there is no mention about this switch.

Thanks.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry my English and if this question is already answered. I couldn't fint it.


This has in fact been answered numerous times by the developers. There is no difference between -q 0 and -q 2 when using the new VBR and settings lower than 2 only affects the old VBR mode in the current version of lame. If you don't believe me do a byte by byte comparison on the two files. After 3.96 -q0 broke for a bit but was fixed around 3.97 alpha 6. The value of q is automatically changed by changing the value of V when using the new vbr so there's no need to worry about it.

Why isn't recommended switch -q 0 in LAME?

Reply #9
Thanks all for replies. Zster is right. At present LAME 3.97 there is no difference between -q 2 and -q 0 in new VBR mode. Thus -V x --vbr-new -h seems to be good option?

Why isn't recommended switch -q 0 in LAME?

Reply #10
Thanks all for replies. Zster is right. At present LAME 3.97 there is no difference between -q 2 and -q 0 in new VBR mode. Thus -V x --vbr-new -h seems to be good option?


According to the docs, -h is always enabled in VBR mode.

Why isn't recommended switch -q 0 in LAME?

Reply #11
I am doing some ABX-ing and find that -q 0 and -m s work very good without and ringing


Then you should find -m j to be even better.

Why isn't recommended switch -q 0 in LAME?

Reply #12
According to the docs, -h is always enabled in VBR mode.


According to comparing method which Zster has advised (-q 0) - (-q 4) give same output but only in new VBR mode. In default/old VBR mode mp3 made with -h is different to mp3 made without -h argument.

 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2021