Skip to main content

Topic: Verify waste sample (Lame cbr 128) (Read 5834 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • Schlotter
  • [*]
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.

  • shadowking
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
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 -b350hhj0cc --use-dns

  • Schlotter
  • [*]
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 !?
  • Last Edit: 09 June, 2007, 10:51:32 AM by Schlotter

  • shadowking
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
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 -b350hhj0cc --use-dns

  • Schlotter
  • [*]
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.
  • Last Edit: 20 June, 2007, 10:29:21 AM by Schlotter

  • Kjn_Wds
  • [*]
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 :°° ?

  • Kjn_Wds
  • [*]
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

  • Schlotter
  • [*]
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
  • Last Edit: 23 June, 2007, 11:05:11 AM by Schlotter