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: any front-end allows custom lame switches ? (Read 4474 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

any front-end allows custom lame switches ?

The reason I'm interested in this is because I would like to use my preferred version of lame
with my own switches.  I did a comparison on the song Foreigner - I want to know what love is.
The WAV is fairly quite, has a nice tight sound.
Using Lame 3.98.4 with -q 1 - V 2 sounds better (to my ears) than
3.99.5 -h -V 2.

The files come out almost the same size,  but only the 3.98.4 encode maintains
the control and tightness of the wav.  The other version sounds "loose" and less well defined.

I know it's not scientific - I thought I noticed it on other songs, but this one shows it clearly.
I would be willing to provide a sample if anybody is interested.

Now, if only I could find a front end that will allow me to drop my files onto the program,
used the Lame I prefer with the switches as above...


any front-end allows custom lame switches ?

Reply #1 –
Quote from: davexnet on
Using Lame 3.98.4 with -q 1 - V 2


I believe the -q 1 is actually default with - V 2 in 3.98.4, so this is actually just the default -V 2 option.

I would double check that the -q 1 setting changes the output at all, and if not, just drop it.

Edit:  yes, as of 3.98, all  q switches below 5 do nothing when used with -V.

any front-end allows custom lame switches ?

Reply #2 –
You didn't say what platform. I assume Windows? If so, foobar2000 makes a great front-end.

any front-end allows custom lame switches ?

Reply #3 –
Quote from: saratoga on
Quote from: davexnet on
Using Lame 3.98.4 with -q 1 - V 2


I believe the -q 1 is actually default with - V 2 in 3.98.4, so this is actually just the default -V 2 option.

I would double check that the -q 1 setting changes the output at all, and if not, just drop it.

Edit:  yes, as of 3.98, all  q switches below 5 do nothing when used with -V.


According to the html help supplied with Lame 3.98.4, the default (if neither -h or -f is specified) is -q 5.
-h is the same as -q 2, while -f equals -q 7

The doc warns that -q 1 and -q 0 might be "slow" to process.

I have compared -q 1 -V2 (3.98.4)  to -h -V 2 (3.98.4) and the encode using -q 1 sounds better,
which agrees with the help file info.

any front-end allows custom lame switches ?

Reply #4 –
Quote from: davexnet on
Quote from: saratoga on
Quote from: davexnet on
Using Lame 3.98.4 with -q 1 - V 2


I believe the -q 1 is actually default with - V 2 in 3.98.4, so this is actually just the default -V 2 option.

I would double check that the -q 1 setting changes the output at all, and if not, just drop it.

Edit:  yes, as of 3.98, all  q switches below 5 do nothing when used with -V.


According to the html help supplied with Lame 3.98.4, the default (if neither -h or -f is specified) is -q 5.
-h is the same as -q 2, while -f equals -q 7

The doc warns that -q 1 and -q 0 might be "slow" to process.


Thats for CBR only, and possibly out of date since the documentation is rarely updated. 

See this thread:  http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=101132

That said, if you want to mix switches and presets, you often have to lookat the source code to figure out what, if anything, will happen.

Quote from: davexnet on
I have compared -q 1 -V2 (3.98.4)  to -h -V 2 (3.98.4) and the encode using -q 1 sounds better,
which agrees with the help file info.


I'm not sure what the -h does in this context.  Is the decoded PCM between the two files actually different with -V2 vs. -V2 -h?

any front-end allows custom lame switches ?

Reply #5 –
Quote from: saratoga on
Quote from: davexnet on
Quote from: saratoga on
Quote from: davexnet on
Using Lame 3.98.4 with -q 1 - V 2


I believe the -q 1 is actually default with - V 2 in 3.98.4, so this is actually just the default -V 2 option.

I would double check that the -q 1 setting changes the output at all, and if not, just drop it.

Edit:  yes, as of 3.98, all  q switches below 5 do nothing when used with -V.


According to the html help supplied with Lame 3.98.4, the default (if neither -h or -f is specified) is -q 5.
-h is the same as -q 2, while -f equals -q 7

The doc warns that -q 1 and -q 0 might be "slow" to process.


Thats for CBR only, and possibly out of date since the documentation is rarely updated. 

See this thread:  http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=101132

That said, if you want to mix switches and presets, you often have to lookat the source code to figure out what, if anything, will happen.

Quote from: davexnet on
I have compared -q 1 -V2 (3.98.4)  to -h -V 2 (3.98.4) and the encode using -q 1 sounds better,
which agrees with the help file info.


I'm not sure what the -h does in this context.  Is the decoded PCM between the two files actually different with -V2 vs. -V2 -h?

OK - I'll investigate further.  How can I compare the two decoded WAV files?  Binary hex compare from the command line?

any front-end allows custom lame switches ?

Reply #7 –
You are right about the -h and -q settings.
I compared the mp3 files directly using the FC  command in Windows.

I created four files
-V 2
-V 2 -h
-V 2 -q 1
-V2  -q 3

They were identical.  Just for good measure I create another, -V 2 -q 6, then I saw a difference.
However, I can hear a difference between -V 2 between 3.98.4 and 3.99.5.
The 3.98.4 sounds better as I described in my first post.  Apparently my hearing is OK,
but I did make some erroneous conclusions! Thanks for pointing it out.

any front-end allows custom lame switches ?

Reply #8 –
Are you sure you can hear  a difference? Did you try to ABX those two files?

any front-end allows custom lame switches ?

Reply #9 –
Quote
I have compared -q 1 -V2 (3.98.4) to -h -V 2 (3.98.4) and the encode using -q 1 sounds better

Quote
I created four files
-V 2
-V 2 -h
-V 2 -q 1
-V2 -q 3

They were identical.


Since you were imagining differences when the files were the same, how can you be sure you're not imagining differences when the files differ? Use foobar2000's ABX Comparator and see how well you can outperform a coin toss.
 

any front-end allows custom lame switches ?

Reply #10 –
Quote from: mjb2006 on
Quote
I have compared -q 1 -V2 (3.98.4) to -h -V 2 (3.98.4) and the encode using -q 1 sounds better

Quote
I created four files
-V 2
-V 2 -h
-V 2 -q 1
-V2 -q 3

They were identical.


Since you were imagining differences when the files were the same, how can you be sure you're not imagining differences when the files differ? Use foobar2000's ABX Comparator and see how well you can outperform a coin toss.


Ok, I lost some credibility.  In my defense, I looked back at what I said and what I did, and at the risk of digging a deeper hole for myself,
I'm now not sure if I actually *did* listen to -q 1 -V 2 versus -h -V 2, even though I said I did.

I will download the comparator.  But my unscientific method I have to note that on certain songs, the 3.98.4 *seems* to retain
more of the character of the uncompressed file, and has a more involving sound .  I even noticed this with straight -b 320 samples.
Here's a sample. http://www.mediafire.com/download/if9x96tn6wom273/music.7z
password protected archive, password - "unlock"  11MB