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 3.97 Alpha 7 Testing Thread (Read 84964 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Lame 3.97 Alpha 7 Testing Thread

abr/cbr: enabled ath adjustement
vbr new: adjustement of scalefactors allocation
vbr old from 9 to 4: adjustements.


Regarding vbr, I'd be interested by preset medium results compared to previous versions. If results are positives, I'll perhaps apply the same settings to preset standard.


Results from 3.97a6:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=30631

edit: -q1 and -q0 should now work properly

Lame 3.97 Alpha 7 Testing Thread

Reply #1 –
The changes sound interesting...

Too bad I will we working the whole weekend and I am away from my computer and Sennheisers

Hope that Guruboolez has some time 
I'm the one in the picture, sitting on a giant cabbage in Mexico, circa 1978.
Reseñas de Rock en Español: www.estadogeneral.com

Lame 3.97 Alpha 7 Testing Thread

Reply #2 –
By the way, it is not at Rarewares...
I'm the one in the picture, sitting on a giant cabbage in Mexico, circa 1978.
Reseñas de Rock en Español: www.estadogeneral.com

Lame 3.97 Alpha 7 Testing Thread

Reply #3 –
Yes, is there a link to 3.97 a7? It is not at rarewares.

Lame 3.97 Alpha 7 Testing Thread

Reply #5 –
Quote
By the way, it is not at Rarewares...
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=271272"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It is now!!!!  Forgive me for having a life away from HA and Rarewares, I was away overnight!!!

Lame 3.97 Alpha 7 Testing Thread

Reply #6 –
@john33:

Thank you, john33, for all your innovations, hard work, and overall contributions to the audio community.  You are very much appreciated.

Regards,
Madrigal

Lame 3.97 Alpha 7 Testing Thread

Reply #7 –
Quote
Forgive me for having a life away from HA and Rarewares, I was away overnight!!!


You did not get the memo? You are not allowed a life. Only devotion to digital audio. 

Lame 3.97 Alpha 7 Testing Thread

Reply #8 –
Quote
You did not get the memo? You are not allowed a life. Only devotion to digital audio. 
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=271409"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Forgive me, Master. How am I to be punished????

Lame 3.97 Alpha 7 Testing Thread

Reply #9 –
Quote
Forgive me, Master. How am I to be punished????
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=271417"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


20 lashes with a wet noodle. :B

Lame 3.97 Alpha 7 Testing Thread

Reply #10 –
I'd better not comment. You guys amaze me...

Lame 3.97 Alpha 7 Testing Thread

Reply #11 –
Does 3.97 --decode recognize and process replaygain information if available ?

Lame 3.97 Alpha 7 Testing Thread

Reply #12 –
Since my brother has better ears than me, I let him do an ABX test of lame 3.96.1 versus lame 3.97a7 with:  --preset medium --vbr-new. Personally I've tried and tried and never ever could distinguish both files from original.

The sample I used is from the cd : Judas Priest - Turbo Lover, track 6: Out in the cold. I chose this sample because the recording is not too loud (replaygain -3db) and quite a lot instruments occur at the same time. Although he initially chose the wav file as the mp3, he was able to ABX the difference (p = 10/13 = 0.046). That is for lame 3.97a7. He wasn't able to abx the 3.96.1 one though. Still he gave the latest alpha a 4.5 out of 5. In fact he was quite impressed that mp3 could sound so well  .

Now the strange thing is that the 3.96.1 encode was at much less bitrate than the 3.97a7 one. The 3.97a6 file was 128kbit/s (vbr) and the 3.97a7 file was 154 kbps. I find this difference to be significant. Of course this is only based on one track, but I found the bitrate 'inflation' to be quite constant for several tracks I tried. I guess everybody was hoping for improvement, sorry for reporting the bad news..
A secure audio ripper for linux: code.google.com/p/rubyripper

Lame 3.97 Alpha 7 Testing Thread

Reply #13 –
Quote
Since my brother has better ears than me, I let him do an ABX test of lame 3.96.1 versus lame 3.97a7 with: --preset medium --vbr-new.

I would advise you to use either "--preset fast medium" or "-V4 --vbr-new" but not "--preset medium --vbr-new".
--preset are applying their internal parameters immediately, so "--preset medium" is applying the parameters for "normal" medium preset. After, you add --vbr-new. On initialisation, the correct parameters for -V4 --vbr-new will not be used as they have already been changed from their default status.

On the other hand, if you use "--preset fast medium", the preset will know that it will be used with vbr-new, and will apply proper parameters.
If you use "--vbr-new -V4" or "-V4 --vbr-new" you will also be fine.

Lame 3.97 Alpha 7 Testing Thread

Reply #14 –
This will probably explain the strange results, I'll see if I can get another test.
A secure audio ripper for linux: code.google.com/p/rubyripper

Lame 3.97 Alpha 7 Testing Thread

Reply #15 –
Scalefactor fix for vbr-new is nice. I've seen some files shrink by almost half between 397a7 and earlier versions.

Lame 3.97 Alpha 7 Testing Thread

Reply #16 –
Quote
Quote
Since my brother has better ears than me, I let him do an ABX test of lame 3.96.1 versus lame 3.97a7 with: --preset medium --vbr-new.

I would advise you to use either "--preset fast medium" or "-V4 --vbr-new" but not "--preset medium --vbr-new".
--preset are applying their internal parameters immediately, so "--preset medium" is applying the parameters for "normal" medium preset. After, you add --vbr-new. On initialisation, the correct parameters for -V4 --vbr-new will not be used as they have already been changed from their default status.

On the other hand, if you use "--preset fast medium", the preset will know that it will be used with vbr-new, and will apply proper parameters.
If you use "--vbr-new -V4" or "-V4 --vbr-new" you will also be fine.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=272308"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Gabriel,
proposed V4 gives rather too low bitrates, around 165. How about V3, which is very near to 192?

Regards,

Crzmn

Lame 3.97 Alpha 7 Testing Thread

Reply #17 –
The current V4 (in 3.97a7) is much more usable than the old one in terms of bitrate. Before there was a huge jump between V5 and V4; sometimes V4 used as many bits as the old 3.90.3 APS. Now the bitrate scale is more linear. Switching from -X 3,3 to -X 9,9 was a good move I think...of course, it's too early to comment on quality.

Lame 3.97 Alpha 7 Testing Thread

Reply #18 –
I would like to add one point to the list to test with current alpha:

I am interested in testsamples where "-V2 --vbr-new" is ABX'able to "-V2 --vbr-new -b32"

Lame 3.97 Alpha 7 Testing Thread

Reply #19 –
Wow the alpha7 is producing much smaller files sizes at the -V4 setting I usually encode at. For example I just encoded Nirvana (MTV Unplugged in NY) and the album average bit rate was only 148kbps compared with 170kbps with 3.96.1 using the same -V4 setting.

Lame 3.97 Alpha 7 Testing Thread

Reply #20 –
take a look at EncSpot for a file encoded with Lame 3.97 alpha 7 with --alt-preset standard:
 
The lowpass filter shows 18600, I thought usually was the filter on 19000

Is this a bug of EncSpot or a new experimental setting? 

Will you perhaps use the new lowpass filter frequency in the following stable versions? 

greetings memomai
FB2K,APE&LAME
 

Lame 3.97 Alpha 7 Testing Thread

Reply #21 –
Subj lame vs one_love.wav
foo_abx v1.2 report
foobar2000 v0.8.3
2005/02/13 18:06:33

File A: file://D:\Program Files\foobar2000\one_love.wav
File B: file://D:\Program Files\foobar2000\_ - _.MP3

18:06:33 : Test started.
18:06:53 : 01/01  50.0%
18:07:01 : 02/02  25.0%
18:07:09 : 03/03  12.5%
18:07:20 : 04/04  6.3%
18:07:31 : 05/05  3.1%
18:07:37 : 06/06  1.6%
18:07:44 : 07/07  0.8%
18:07:49 : 08/08  0.4%
18:07:58 : 09/09  0.2%
18:08:03 : 10/10  0.1%
18:08:20 : 11/11  0.0%
18:08:25 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 11/11 (0.0%)

EDIT: I've forgotten to specify lame settings: -V2 --vbr-new

Lame 3.97 Alpha 7 Testing Thread

Reply #22 –
please, make the sample available somewhere.

What exactly did you test here? Is it a -V2 --vbr-new against -V2 --vbr-new -b32 test??

Lame 3.97 Alpha 7 Testing Thread

Reply #23 –
Thanks, Seymour.

@ beto: I asked him here to abx. you find the sample in that thread too.

Lame 3.97 Alpha 7 Testing Thread

Reply #24 –
@ robert: i found this sample ABX'able very easily with the settings marked above by me (as at low frequency (some wobble bass at first 5 secs) so at high frequency (tone practically masked by first "clap" sound)).
But for example I couldn't find difference (sincerely without hard listening work ) at LAME --alt-preset insane v3.90.3. I tried it just for interest.