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: Verify waste sample (Lame cbr 128) (Read 6735 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Verify waste sample (Lame cbr 128)

Could anybody verify my listening test? I can hear horrible artifacts with Lame 3.98b3 and Lame 3.97 --preset cbr 128. At 192kbps its ok. What is this around the guitar-echo? Lame 3.96 sounds better with --preset cbr 128.

Verify waste sample (Lame cbr 128)

Reply #1
Confirmed nasty warbling on 128~160 cbr/abr. At 128~160, it is not uncommon for different LAME versions to do different things. High quality settings (V2 +) are more secure with all the versions. Differences are only on killer samples. At lower bitrates there is a phenom of artifacts appearing on one version but not the other / on new vbr and not old vbr and vice versa. I also believe you can get reasonable security with cbr/abr no matter what the encoder version is - but only at high bitrates (192 +).
wavpack hybrid 256k -hx4

Verify waste sample (Lame cbr 128)

Reply #2
I personally prefer -V 2 --vbr-new. I just don't know what make this sample so hard to encode proberly. Only Lame 3.98b3 and 3.97 sound crummy on this with --preset cbr 128, far worse than 3.88 with -b 128 -h !?

Verify waste sample (Lame cbr 128)

Reply #3
3.88 used a different psymodel. Its possible that an inferior encoder does better on the odd sample. Generally cbr 128 is a bad idea for quality -v5 is more interesting.
wavpack hybrid 256k -hx4

 

Verify waste sample (Lame cbr 128)

Reply #4
Do you think waste_original is a killer sample? I can hear the difference  --> original --> preset insane (ABX15/15) . Preset standard work fine on this sample with all versions, but not perfect.

Another one: mama_original.flac (just guitar strumming)

Lame 3.98b3 & 3.97:
preset cbr 128 --> worst, described as "warbling"
-V 5                --> less warbling, audibly there, no alternative !

Lame 3.96:
preset cbr 128 --> better, slight warbling
-V 5                --> same

Lame 3.88:
-128 -q 2        --> best in my opinion

If I had to choose a version, it would probably be 3.96 with -V 5 or 3.88 with -b 128 -q 2 for mp3 at low bitrates ~ 128kbps.

Addendum: Second test I used Sony CD-MDR 370 headphones, at night. 3.96 with V 5 --> slightly more worse than --preset cbr 128.

Verify waste sample (Lame cbr 128)

Reply #5
I personally prefer -V 2 --vbr-new. I just don't know what make this sample so hard to encode proberly. Only Lame 3.98b3 and 3.97 sound crummy on this with --preset cbr 128, far worse than 3.88 with -b 128 -h !?



can anybody please explain me what -b## (and maybe also -mj) switches are \ howdo they work work :°° ?

Verify waste sample (Lame cbr 128)

Reply #6

I personally prefer -V 2 --vbr-new. I just don't know what make this sample so hard to encode proberly. Only Lame 3.98b3 and 3.97 sound crummy on this with --preset cbr 128, far worse than 3.88 with -b 128 -h !?



can anybody please explain me what -b## (and maybe also -mj) switches are \ howdo they work work :°° ?




Solved, btw

Verify waste sample (Lame cbr 128)

Reply #7
Second test: 3.88 (-b 128 q2), 3.90, 3.91, 3.92  (--alt-preset 128, --alt-preset cbr 128, -V 6), 3.93.1, 3.96, 3.97, 3.98b3 (--preset cbr 128, --preset 128, -V 5).

Only 3.97 and 3.98b3 seems to have the problem with this heavy warbling at bitrates around 128kbps on both samples.

Add
ABC/HR CBR 128 Results: mama_cbr128_test
ABC/HR V 6/V 5 Results: mama_V_test
ABC/HR ABR 128 Results: mama_abr128_test

 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2021