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 issues with VBR (@un4seen) (Read 37401 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

LAME issues with VBR (@un4seen)

Reply #25 –
I took clavicula_sample.flac made clavicula_sample.mp3 128 amd clavicula_sample.mp4 ~64 SBR.
Then, converted all to 3 WAV. I can hear some wery small differences but realy don`t know which one is better if random mixed. May be i need to change my headphones or ears  Or very hot and noisy toay for audio tests

Xmpay is good for MP3pro, no needed to switch between mp3 & mp3pro plugins as winamp if you don`t like mp3pro decoder always "ON" for all mp3

For Pike84 only: I mad skin modification for Xmplay by myself if you XMP fun. What you think about? http://rapidshare.com/files/132295755/WMP1..._Black_.7z.html Black skins always has better sound vs colored    eyes can beats ears if bad skin

LAME issues with VBR (@un4seen)

Reply #26 –
Have you tried performing an ABX test with various LAME VBR -V settings yet? It would be interesting to know just how far you can go down the scale before hearing any difference with various test samples of your own choosing.

Cheers, Slipstreem. 

LAME issues with VBR (@un4seen)

Reply #27 –
Well, as far as i remember, the purpose of MP3pro wasn't transparency (as with most other lossy codecs at that bitrate) but instead making differences as minor and "non-annoying" as possible. So, if you can hear slight differences, but cannot decide, which one you "like better", then MP3pro fulfilled its purpose.
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.

LAME issues with VBR (@un4seen)

Reply #28 –
Quote from: gigalot on
My English isn`t native and poor, excuse me if something is not correct!

Thankyou for taking the time to ABX and reporting your findings so far. Your english isn't so bad and it's making the effort that counts!
daefeatures.co.uk

LAME issues with VBR (@un4seen)

Reply #29 –
@gigalot:
If you want to learn something about mp3 artifacts (encoding errors), I can still highly recommend
ff123's Artifact Training Page
It shows you some common mp3 artifacts in difficult to encode samples.
Although it's a few years old and the encoder used is not the newest, the page was very useful to me.

edit:
I just checked the above and found that some links to the audio files are not functional anymore.

LAME issues with VBR (@un4seen)

Reply #30 –
If you want to learn something about mp3 artifacts (encoding errors), I can still highly recommend
ff123's Artifact Training Page
It shows you some common mp3 artifacts in difficult to encode samples.
Although it's a few years old and the encoder used is not the newest, the page was very useful to me.

Thank you! I`ll try all tests. It was easy to determine which one is "castanets insane" vs 128k/bit new Fraunhofer mp3sencoder:

foo_abx 1.3.3 report
foobar2000 v0.9.5.4
2008/07/28 21:26:00

File A: F:\Documents and Settings\Alex\Desktop\castanets_insane.mp3
File B: F:\Documents and Settings\Alex\Desktop\castanets.mp3

21:26:00 : Test started.
21:41:05 : 01/01  50.0%
21:41:24 : 02/02  25.0%
21:41:50 : 03/03  12.5%
21:42:14 : 04/04  6.3%
21:42:42 : 05/05  3.1%
21:42:54 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 5/5 (3.1%)

and if you try "bibilolo" sample from Nero developers (thk Menno!) you can hear "Birds" trills on 128k/bit but somethins like "insects" sound on mp3pro 64k/bit. It realy "eats" middle-high frequences, or converts to noise.

LAME issues with VBR (@un4seen)

Reply #31 –
foobar2000 v0.9.5.4
2008/08/01 00:29:57

File A: I:\sample3\sample3\castanets_m4.mp3
File B: I:\sample3\sample3\castanets_V5.mp3

00:29:57 : Test started.
00:31:54 : 01/01  50.0%
00:32:15 : 02/02  25.0%
00:33:05 : 03/03  12.5%
00:33:26 : 04/04  6.3%
00:34:10 : 05/05  3.1%
00:34:35 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 5/5 (3.1%)

Fraunhofer is realy perfect on this sample! Lame has problems in silent fragments. I can hear "lowpass switches artifacs?" in silent fragments of sample. Like old Philips dynamic noise limitter DNL in low class tape recorders.
I suspect, Lame has such problem on high bitrates too.
samples is here: url=http://rapidshare.com/files/133890692/Castsnets.7z.html

Fraunhofer m4 is ~151 kbit/sec VBR, Lame V5 is ~155 kbit/sec VBR and has easy detected audible artifacts.
But it was another artifacts in compare with 128 kbit CBR which has a problem with castanets sound. Lame V5 has something i can hear as "modulation". Fraunhofer seems clear at ~151

LAME issues with VBR (@un4seen)

Reply #32 –
Quote from: Neasden on
These days it's pretty hard to ABX the latest lossy encoders (aac, mp3-lame, fhr-mp3, itunes, ogg). Hasn't someone said in here that they were thinking to drop the 128kbps tests and move on to 96kbps, for the simple fact that it was unbearable to conduct the tests at 128kbps  because of the improvement level the lossy encoders reached?
I don't know that I would agree with that.  I took a few CD's (AC/DC - Back In Black for example) and ABXd LAME V3, Nero AAC Q.45, and Itunes AAC 128kbps. I wanted to get a feel for my level of transparency without doing 10 or 15 different test, I chose those 3.

The Itunes AAC was easily identifiable against the original WAV in every case with numerous artifacts.  The LAME MP3 and Nero AAC were nearly impossible to ABX (granted at higher bitrates).  I don't have an expert ear by any stretch, but 128kbps hasn't reached the level of transparency just yet in my opinion.  I didn't try LAME at 128 CBR so I can't comment on that.

LAME issues with VBR (@un4seen)

Reply #33 –
Castanets WAV vs WMA V2 ~130 VBR 2 pass encoding:

foo_abx 1.3.3 report
foobar2000 v0.9.5.4
2008/08/06 03:32:35

File A: F:\Documents and Settings\Alex\Desktop\castanets.wav
File B: F:\Documents and Settings\Alex\Desktop\castanets.wma

03:32:35 : Test started.
03:33:45 : 01/01  50.0%
03:35:21 : 02/02  25.0%
03:36:08 : 02/03  50.0%
03:36:56 : 03/04  31.3%
03:38:04 : 04/05  18.8%
03:38:29 : 05/06  10.9%
03:39:29 : 05/07  22.7%
03:40:02 : 06/08  14.5%
03:41:30 : 07/09  9.0%
03:43:14 : 08/10  5.5%
03:43:25 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 8/10 (5.5%)

It is difficult to hear differences between them but possible 

LAME issues with VBR (@un4seen)

Reply #34 –
Castanets though, is THE pre-echo killersample.... it represents pretty much one of the worst pre-echo scenarios possible. So that should be taken into account, when relating such results to "everyday listening" - its a worst case scenario, not something "usual".
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.

LAME issues with VBR (@un4seen)

Reply #35 –
Yes, it`s true!
All ~130 WMA, ~130 OGG and ~151 MP3 VBR is pretty good for most people at most "real" audio sound tracks and is better than 128 cbr MP3.  Many people likes 320kbit/sec only because they are sure about it`s stable quality.
Newest codecs is so good that ~150 VBR hasn`t audible artifacts for 99.9% guys!

LAME issues with VBR (@un4seen)

Reply #36 –
Fraunhofer mp3sencoder CBR 256kbit/sec very easy beats Lame 3.98 ABR 160kbit/sec (Lame VBR at such bitrate is realy bad for me!) at "real" music track. It is women voice with soft music.

foo_abx 1.3.3 report
foobar2000 v0.9.5.5
2008/08/13 22:13:18

File A: F:\Documents and Settings\Alex\Desktop\Track10fr.mp3
File B: F:\Documents and Settings\Alex\Desktop\Track10.mp3

22:13:18 : Test started.
22:14:54 : 01/01  50.0%
22:16:17 : 02/02  25.0%
22:17:13 : 03/03  12.5%
22:18:38 : 04/04  6.3%
22:20:50 : 05/05  3.1%
22:20:58 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 5/5 (3.1%)

Lame is best encoder? I don`t think so....

LAME issues with VBR (@un4seen)

Reply #37 –
Quote from: gigalot on
Fraunhofer mp3sencoder CBR 256kbit/sec very easy beats Lame 3.98 ABR 160kbit/sec ....

Why don't you use Lame 3.98 ABR 256 for a fair comparison? As for VBR I'd also give -V0 a try.
lame3995o -Q1.7 --lowpass 17

LAME issues with VBR (@un4seen)

Reply #38 –
If you test LAME 3.98 CBR 256 vs. LAME 3.98 ABR 160
You may well find that LAME 3.98 beats LAME 3.98.
What does that tell you?

C.

Ah! Halb27 - too quick!
PC = TAK + LossyWAV  ::  Portable = Opus (130)

LAME issues with VBR (@un4seen)

Reply #39 –
Quote from: gigalot on
Fraunhofer mp3sencoder CBR 256kbit/sec very easy beats Lame 3.98 ABR 160kbit/sec (Lame VBR at such bitrate is realy bad for me!) at "real" music track. It is women voice with soft music.


Sorry but.... how is that even a fair comparison? CBR 256 vs ABR 160??
And what were you busy with, to take 7 minutes for 5 trials, to ABX between both, if the quality is " is realy bad for me!" (as you say)

LAME issues with VBR (@un4seen)

Reply #40 –
I sense the smell of a troll ... A quite devious, ABX'ing troll ...

LAME issues with VBR (@un4seen)

Reply #41 –
Calm down, everyone. Maybe gigalot will post a sample.

LAME issues with VBR (@un4seen)

Reply #42 –
A sample of the p!$$ he's taking?

Surely it should be obvious to anybody that the same bitrates should be used when comparing two encoders of the same format. For goodness sake! 

Cheers, Slipstreem. 

LAME issues with VBR (@un4seen)

Reply #43 –
Why i tryed this test guys?
Because i was sure that fraunhofer 256 kbit/sec and Lame 3.98 160 abr (which results real average bitrate ~ 145kbit/sec) has the same quality.  Both files seems good but ABX show not the same. It was surprise for me!

What was the difference? Realy don`t know, but something... can ABX it! Not enought transparent? Vibration? Modulation? ??? Realy impossible to say what it was.
Try it for yourself if you suspect i do something wrong.
Lame 256 vs fraunhofer 256? I can`t ABX any differences (castanets). Lame 320 vs Lame V0? I can`t hear differences.

I can post the sample, of cource. It is big, but i can upload it to rapidshare.

LAME issues with VBR (@un4seen)

Reply #44 –
Only upload 30 seconds or less, preferably in a lossless file.

LAME issues with VBR (@un4seen)

Reply #45 –
It doesn't matter what bitrate you choose to use, just use the same bitrate with both encoders. I fail to understand your logic of deliberately strangling LAME and then whinging that it can't compete with another MP3 encoder running at a much higher bitrate. 

Cheers, Slipstreem. 

LAME issues with VBR (@un4seen)

Reply #46 –
I suspect Slipstreem has a 6-th sense whem speaks about my logic!   
I am from Tbilisi, a few days war was around us and it stoped at 13 aug. I was ful of adrenalin and it was a good opportunity to test that adrenaline exacerbates hearing.
But anyway, i was sure abr 160 and cbr 256 is the same. Wrong? But I hope that this test was useful. 

LAME issues with VBR (@un4seen)

Reply #47 –
Quote from: gigalot on
But I hope that this test was useful. 

I'm afraid the test wasn't useful, for the reasons that Slipstream, and others (me included) have pointed out.
I'm glad you don't have a say in the Olympics; to determine the best runner all partipants would be running different distances.

C.
PC = TAK + LossyWAV  ::  Portable = Opus (130)

LAME issues with VBR (@un4seen)

Reply #48 –
Pure track from CD:

Moderation: Link removed.

frh sample was 256kbit cbr joint stereo and Lame sample was 160kbit abr (96kbit min / 320kbit max).
Upload these samples too?

LAME issues with VBR (@un4seen)

Reply #49 –
AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH! 

Cheers, Slipstreem.