GXLAME 5.3 GXLAME 4.5 Apple AAC3.00 2.50 4.501.50 1.50 3.003.70 3.00 3.502.50 1.70 4.501.70 1.60 3.301.90 2.00 5.002.00 2.20 4.001.60 1.50 4.601.30 1.40 4.502.40 2.20 4.60% Codec averages:% 2.16 1.96 4.15
This curiosity stems from the fact that GXLame "gets" the fact that it can't eliminate all artifacts, but tries to mask their severity as much as possible while preserving the full spectrum (up to 16KHz).
My own tests have shown GXLame produces tolerable quality down to V20 (85kbps) on most mainstream music samples.
GXLAME_53 LAME_3971.80 3.002.00 3.003.00 5.002.00 2.502.50 4.001.00 2.702.00 3.002.00 3.804.00 3.001.00 2.00% Codec averages:% 2.13 3.20
bootstrap.py --blocked --compare-all -p 100000 -s 100000 TOTAL_RESULTS.txtbootstrap.py v1.0 2011-02-03Copyright (C) 2011 Gian-Carlo Pascutto <email@example.com>License Affero GPL version 3 or later <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl.html>Reading from: TOTAL_RESULTS.txtRead 2 treatments, 10 samples => 1 comparisonsMeans:GXLAME_53 LAME_397 2.130 3.200Unadjusted p-values: LAME_397GXLAME_53 0.012*LAME_397 is better than GXLAME_53 (p=0.012)p-values adjusted for multiple comparison: LAME_397GXLAME_53 0.011*LAME_397 is better than GXLAME_53 (p=0.011)
You're right.ABR is recommended for LAME at low bitrates (wiki article)I was just listening some samples encoded at V 5/6/7 and eventually perfomed the test with V7. Even this way I think the results are clear (GXLAME and LAME).
This means I certainly (highly) prefer subtle high frequency distortions over over aggressive lowpass and ringing. GXLame, to me, wins against LAME in almost every sample.
Do you happen to find tremendous lowpass preferable to slight high frequency distortion?
GXLame V20 and similar-bitrate LAME 3.98 V9.9
Quote from: The Sheep of DEATH on 03 September, 2011, 11:40:19 PMGXLame V20 and similar-bitrate LAME 3.98 V9.9That's strange. According to my tests, the average bitrate for GXLame -V20 is 85 kbps, and for LAME 3.98.4 -V9.9 it is close to 36 kbps (with lowpass=4.4 kHz).I can get ~85 kbps from LAME using the following settings:-V 8.4: resamples to 32 kHz, lowpass=11.3 kHz-V 8.5: resamples to 24 kHz, lowpass=11.0 kHz--abr 85: resamples to 32 kHz, lowpass=13.5 kHz
I suppose I can re-do the LAME tests at V8.5 at 32KHz
Are you restricted to 16Kbps? MP3 will blow up at this bitrate.Opus and HE-AAC might work okish at 16Kbps.Edit: HE-AAC at 24Kbps is very much possible. Some online radio stations stream at that rate.
It has to be .mp3 format I'm afraid, otherwise I might play with .ogg
Just wondering how to improve my encodings. Looks like adding a lowpass switch might help for instance.
Firstly respect to you for coming out with such a thing, obviously it's the kind of thing some people might be a bit hostile to but I think it's great to have diversity and different approaches to things.It makes me a bit more comfortable to say the following. I'm trying to encode at extremely low bit rates. Presently I'm doing 16kbps at 22khz in mono! I'd like to achieve something like FM radio quality only in mono. Sometimes I get very close. Obviously at such low rates anything that can give me the edge is very welcome!I've just been trying ABR in lame, as that is supposed to be recommended for lower bitrates but I'm questioning if I wasn't getting better results with VBR and max_bitrate?I'm wondering if GXLame might help? I notice that you are more looking at bitrates around 96kbps and 85kbps but I am working with mono and at only 22khz which might make things closer?I'd love to hear if you have tried anything like this in GXLame and what the results were.Also is GXLame only a windows thing? I'm doing Linux with gstreamer here...Thanks for your help!loveFreya