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 -V2 not transparent to me (Read 31429 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Lame -V2 not transparent to me

Hello!

I have a kind of awkward problem regarding MP3s that I ripped myself. I used Lame 3.97 and the recommended settings from hydrogenaudio.

I did some ABX-testing today in order to see how good ogg is in comparison with Lame which I always prefered for ripping. Well I was rather shocked when I realized that I could easily almost on all samples could ABX the Lame file when compared to the original wav file. That was something which I didn't expect.

On the other hand I could ABX Aotuvs Beta5 at q5 also but it was more difficult. I didn't manage to ABX q6 on the Samples I used.

I am a little bit scared now as my hole music collection is ripped with Lame in the recommended settings and I don't know if I should go for Ogg now as Lame doesn't seem to improve above V2 settings.

I can't go for lossless as my Laptop drive isn't big enough for that (I own around 450 CDs I guess). I do have a flash based player that allows me to play ogg, mp3 and wma files and I don't want to store music in different formats and/or filesizes for Laptop and flash player.

Any recommendations for me?

Thank you!

Lame -V2 not transparent to me

Reply #1 –
What are the exact artifacts you're noticing? If they regard known problem points with MP3 - particularly with lowpass and preecho, I guess - moving to a well-maintained codec where those issues are less of a concern should be a safe move.

Lame -V2 not transparent to me

Reply #2 –
Quote from: Axon on
What are the exact artifacts you're noticing? If they regard known problem points with MP3 - particularly with lowpass and preecho, I guess - moving to a well-maintained codec where those issues are less of a concern should be a safe move.


Mainly I notice them on drums (hihats). I mostly listen to rock music and it seemed kind of annoying to me here.

But I also noticed that the whole song seemed to sound a bit different in the heights that the original. How should I describe that?! It seemed to have more emphasis on the heights that the original ... I know it sounds strange ... 

Lame -V2 not transparent to me

Reply #3 –
Lame 3.97 has it's issues though -V2 is expected to be transparent usually.
Anyway with 3.98beta the Lame devs have made a big progress. The official 3.98b6 has just been released, and you're welcome to try it. Quality scales well, so if you shouldn't be satisfied by -V2 it's worth while trying -V1 or -V0.
lame3995o -Q1.7 --lowpass 17

Lame -V2 not transparent to me

Reply #4 –
I will have a closer look on 3.98b6 then and do some more testing to find the right setting for my purpose.

I will also take aoTuVb5 into account. My iRiver T60 seems to handle them well  ... my old iMP-550 had real issues here.

Edit: I just noticed a problem with 3.98b6. I use the dll-Version with CDex but it always gives me the same filesize, even if I tell the program to use V0 or V1.

Lame -V2 not transparent to me

Reply #5 –
Quote from: diewaldo on
I will have a closer look on 3.98b6 then and do some more testing to find the right setting for my purpose.

I will also take aoTuVb5 into account. My iRiver T60 seems to handle them well  ... my old iMP-550 had real issues here.

Edit: I just noticed a problem with 3.98b6. I use the dll-Version with CDex but it always gives me the same filesize, even if I tell the program to use V0 or V1.

How sure are you that you had been encoding at -V2?

What are you using for ABX testing? Could you provide some sample logs?

Lame -V2 not transparent to me

Reply #6 –
Quote from: diewaldo on
Edit: I just noticed a problem with 3.98b6. I use the dll-Version with CDex but it always gives me the same filesize, even if I tell the program to use V0 or V1.


What's your settings??
Try these:

Version: MPEG I
Bitrate Min: 32
Bitrate Max: 320
Mode: J-Stereo
Quality: High(q=2)
VBR Method: VBR-New
VBR Quality: V n [where n is 2 or anything you want]
Output samplerate: Auto

CDex produces exactly the same result as "lame.exe -V n --vbr-new file.wav"

Lame -V2 not transparent to me

Reply #7 –
why not just use command line encoding for a few test files so you know exactly what you are getting?

and i agree with what has been said, if v2 isn't good enough try v1, or v0 or 320, or else move to ogg.

Lame -V2 not transparent to me

Reply #8 –
Quote from: pdq on
Quote from: diewaldo on

I will have a closer look on 3.98b6 then and do some more testing to find the right setting for my purpose.

I will also take aoTuVb5 into account. My iRiver T60 seems to handle them well  ... my old iMP-550 had real issues here.

Edit: I just noticed a problem with 3.98b6. I use the dll-Version with CDex but it always gives me the same filesize, even if I tell the program to use V0 or V1.

How sure are you that you had been encoding at -V2?

What are you using for ABX testing? Could you provide some sample logs?


I used Foobar for Testing and the file information told me I encoded at -V2.

I will do some more testing. Are there any other programs recommended for ABX-Testing? I will post some logs then.

I just have a log from a short test I did. I stopped after 6 tries with this test as it seemed pretty obvious with this special song.

foo_abx 1.3.1 report
foobar2000 v0.9.4.5
2007/12/22 16:07:57

File A: C:\Dokumente und Einstellungen\Thomas\Eigene Dateien\Eigene Musik\Various\ROCK HARD FESTIVAL 2007  - LIVE -\01-ARMORED SAINT - March Of The Saint.mp3
File B: C:\Dokumente und Einstellungen\Thomas\Eigene Dateien\Eigene Musik\Various\ROCK HARD FESTIVAL 2007  - LIVE -\01-ARMORED SAINT - March Of The Saint.wav

16:07:57 : Test started.
16:09:27 : 00/01  100.0%
16:10:16 : 01/02  75.0%
16:10:37 : 02/03  50.0%
16:11:39 : 03/04  31.3%
16:12:24 : 04/05  18.8%
16:13:18 : 05/06  10.9%
16:13:25 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 5/6 (10.9%)

Lame -V2 not transparent to me

Reply #9 –
you may want to try reaching 0.0% coz with 10% you still could be guessing... Is this 3.98b6 V2? Could you ABX at V0.... Many things I can ABX at V2, I usually cannot at V0. And this newest lame version ABX is even more difficult... like I said in another topic, LAME is reaching the point of becoming a very refined codec and compete well even with Vorbis in which you could not distinguish which one is each.

Lame -V2 not transparent to me

Reply #10 –
Quote from: Bourne on
you may want to try reaching 0.0% coz with 10% you still could be guessing...

0% can never be reached. What you mean is something "closer" to 0%, not 0% itself.
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.

Lame -V2 not transparent to me

Reply #11 –
Quote from: diewaldo on
I can't go for lossless as my Laptop drive isn't big enough for that (I own around 450 CDs I guess). I do have a flash based player that allows me to play ogg, mp3 and wma files and I don't want to store music in different formats and/or filesizes for Laptop and flash player.

does your laptop have a dvd burner? if it does, you can burn the lossless files to dvd and keep the oggs since your player supports them. if you have more cash, you could get an external hd.

Lame -V2 not transparent to me

Reply #12 –
just being pratical lyx...

from topic: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....c=58152&hl=

Quote
File A: F:\Listen Tests\Die In A Crash (Sample).wav
File B: F:\Listen Tests\Die In A Crash (Sample) LAME3.98b5 V0.mp3

16:11:41 : Test started.
16:12:09 : 01/01  50.0%
16:12:22 : 02/02  25.0%
16:12:30 : 03/03  12.5%
16:12:42 : 04/04  6.3%
16:13:20 : 05/05  3.1%
16:13:50 : 06/06  1.6%
16:14:08 : 07/07  0.8%
16:14:28 : 08/08  0.4%
16:14:42 : 09/09  0.2%
16:14:52 : 10/10  0.1%
16:15:16 : 11/11  0.0%
16:16:13 : 12/12  0.0%
16:16:16 : Test finished.

Lame -V2 not transparent to me

Reply #13 –
Are you using -V2 --vbr-new or -V2 --vbr-old ??
If you use foobar for encoding...
you should use "Fast mode" with it.

Lame -V2 not transparent to me

Reply #14 –
I was using LAME 3.97 -V2 --vbr-new.

However I just tested the same sample with LAME 3.98b6 -V2 --vbr-new and it seemed that it improved quite a lot for me!



foo_abx 1.3.1 report
foobar2000 v0.9.4.5
2007/12/23 08:22:48

File A: C:\Dokumente und Einstellungen\Thomas\Eigene Dateien\Eigene Musik\Various\Rock Hard Festival 2007\01-ARMORED SAINT - March Of The Saint.mp3
File B: C:\Dokumente und Einstellungen\Thomas\Eigene Dateien\Eigene Musik\Various\Rock Hard Festival 2007\01-ARMORED SAINT - March Of The Saint.wav

08:22:48 : Test started.
08:23:44 : 01/01  50.0%
08:25:11 : 01/02  75.0%
08:25:56 : 02/03  50.0%
08:26:54 : 02/04  68.8%
08:29:20 : 02/05  81.3%
08:30:10 : 03/06  65.6%
08:30:32 : 03/07  77.3%
08:30:58 : 03/08  85.5%
08:31:55 : 04/09  74.6%
08:32:34 : 05/10  62.3%
08:33:56 : 05/11  72.6%
08:34:06 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 5/11 (72.6%)


The anoying sounds I heard regarding the hihats are totally gone here. 

For comparison here the results for aoTuVb5 -q6:


foo_abx 1.3.1 report
foobar2000 v0.9.4.5
2007/12/23 08:40:43

File A: C:\Dokumente und Einstellungen\Thomas\Eigene Dateien\Eigene Musik\Various\Rock Hard Festival 2007\01-ARMORED SAINT - March Of The Saint.wav
File B: C:\Dokumente und Einstellungen\Thomas\Eigene Dateien\Eigene Musik\OGG\Various\Rock Hard Festival 2007\01-ARMORED SAINT - March Of The Saint.ogg

08:40:43 : Test started.
08:41:48 : 01/01  50.0%
08:42:47 : 01/02  75.0%
08:43:30 : 02/03  50.0%
08:44:10 : 02/04  68.8%
08:44:33 : 03/05  50.0%
08:45:15 : 03/06  65.6%
08:46:33 : 03/07  77.3%
08:46:49 : 04/08  63.7%
08:47:00 : 05/09  50.0%
08:47:32 : 06/10  37.7%
08:48:06 : 06/11  50.0%
08:48:47 : 06/12  61.3%
08:49:04 : 07/13  50.0%
08:49:32 : 08/14  39.5%
08:49:59 : 09/15  30.4%
08:50:15 : 10/16  22.7%
08:51:22 : 11/17  16.6%
08:52:51 : 11/18  24.0%
08:53:18 : 11/19  32.4%
08:53:32 : 11/20  41.2%
08:53:45 : 11/21  50.0%
08:54:11 : 12/22  41.6%
08:54:34 : 12/23  50.0%
08:54:38 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 12/23 (50.0%)

Lame -V2 not transparent to me

Reply #15 –
-V2 sounds transparent to me. I'm sorry if this is the wrong place (I'm very new around here), but I want to use -V2 with a minimum bitrate of 160. Are these the right settings? Would these be of high enough quality for just listening to music using cheap speakers and an iPod?

My settings are:

-b 160 -V2 --vbr-new -q0

(I use EAC to rip my CDs)

Lame -V2 not transparent to me

Reply #16 –
Setting a lower bitrate limit does not increase audio quality. Setting an upper limit would decrease audio quality.
If you have a flawed mp3 device, then it would make some sense, but then you would like to enforce the minimum bitrate for silence too: "-V2 --vbr-new -b160 -F"

Lame -V2 not transparent to me

Reply #17 –
Thanks for the info. And seeing as I am re-ripping my whole CD collection (due to previously ripping them @ 128 kbps  ), do you recommend I use:

'-V2 --vbr-new -q0'?

Lame -V2 not transparent to me

Reply #18 –
I would suggest lame 3.98 beta 6 with a plain "-V2" setup.

Lame -V2 not transparent to me

Reply #19 –
OK, thanks again. 

I also did a quick test with a song from my Alien Ant Farm CD, and noticed even with the '-b 160', it didn't use anything lower than 192 kbps (apart from 32 kbps, which I assume is for complete silence).

Edit: Oh, and by the way, why do you recommend 3.98 beta 6? (I am currently using the final version of 3.97)

Lame -V2 not transparent to me

Reply #20 –
I guess it was me who first suggested to the OP to give 3.98b6 a try.
There are some reasons to do so
  • the extremely bad pre-echo sample 'eig' has improved a lot with 3.98b6. So we can expect this improvement to be relevant for more pre-echo problems. The OP wrote about issues with drums, so 3.98b6 is a candidate for the solution of these problems. Meanwhile diewaldo has found it is the solution.
  • 3.97 has a specific problem called 'sandpaper noise' which affects voices. This problem is gone with 3.98b6. This kind of problem can be heard for instance with the 'Birds' sample.
  • There were certain weaknesses with Lame's psy model not just with 3.97, but also with 3.96 and other versions, and it was especially bad when using VBR (as VBR enhances the goods and bads of the psy model). These problems are gone with 3.98b6. My top sample for these kind of problems is 'trumpet' (before I heard a 3.97 -V2 encoding of trumpet the mp3 world was fine to me, but with this sample I was totally upset. With 3.98 the world is fine again). I'm not sure whether or not the 'sandpaper noise problem' also falls into this category - from mere listening the problem sounds similar.
The HA recommendations are just a guideline, and only final versions will make it into it.
With 3.98b6 we're certainly so close to final (qualitywise) that in my very personal opinion it would be unwise to prefer 3.97 final just for the academic sake of using a final version.
lame3995o -Q1.7 --lowpass 17

Lame -V2 not transparent to me

Reply #21 –
Sounds good, but I think I'm going to wait a while until 3.98 final comes out. 

Although I might do some quick listening tests tomorrow just to see how it works out.

Lame -V2 not transparent to me

Reply #22 –
Quote from: robert on
I would suggest lame 3.98 beta 6 with a plain "-V2" setup.


Why do you advise against -q0?
Does it make quality worse, or does it just take more encoding time than it's worth? or something else?

Lame -V2 not transparent to me

Reply #23 –
-V0 is the highest VBR setting you can have, making larger files. Unless you have golden ears, usually you will not need such high bit rates for your audio to sound transparent.

Q0 is slower, but of higher quality, and large file size.
OP can't edit initial post when a solution is determined  :'-(

Lame -V2 not transparent to me

Reply #24 –
Quote from: jamesbaud on
Quote from: robert on

I would suggest lame 3.98 beta 6 with a plain "-V2" setup.


Why do you advise against -q0?
Does it make quality worse, or does it just take more encoding time than it's worth? or something else?

Did I? Just try LAME 3.98b6 with plain "-V2".

Quote from: SamHain86 on
-V0 is the highest VBR setting you can have, making larger files. Unless you have golden ears, usually you will not need such high bit rates for your audio to sound transparent.

jamesbaud talked about -q0, not -V0.