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: Starting with what version does LAME offer ~3.97 quality? (Read 8143 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Starting with what version does LAME offer ~3.97 quality?

Hello!

My main question is: starting from what version does LAME offer quality comparable to -v2 in 3.97?

I have a lot of mp3s. I have ripped mp3s for good 7 years now using different software. I didn't care about quality then. The oldest version is Lame 3.17, I believe. I have a lot of Lame v3.8x files, as well as gogo(after 3.0) and Fraunhofer files. Most of them have bitrate > 160 kbps.

What I also want to ask is whether such files are worth keeping in terms of quality. Should I rip them once more using the latest 3.97 stable release of LAME? I don't have all the disks now, so some files I want to keep.

The tracks I have sound ok to me, but I have listened to them for so long that I guess I take all their artifacts as given thing and don't nitice them.

I have already replaced all xing and blade files as I have read they are terrible, especially xing joint stereo. Should I do the same with Fraunhofer?

Also, is there big difference in quality between Stereo and Joint Stereo mp3s? I know what S and JS are, but I don't know if it's worth keeping "Stereo" files, since the latest LAME version makes only JS files. Dual channel files I think are the worth in terms of quality/space.

Thanks in advance for help and advice!

Starting with what version does LAME offer ~3.97 quality?

Reply #1 –
lame 3.90.3 modified is also good for vbr, but other versions was worse on variable bitrate
for cbr 192+ kbps - different lame versions output almost the same quality (if its enough for you)

Starting with what version does LAME offer ~3.97 quality?

Reply #2 –
All versions were fine on vbr more or less, regressions were mostly on cbr / abr. Anything from 3.95 is totaly safe using -Vx. Use --alt-presets for 3.90~3.93.1.. Lame 3.8x is also okay , very old versions are okay at 192k +

Starting with what version does LAME offer ~3.97 quality?

Reply #3 –
LAME 3.90 most of the time offers the same quality at --alt-preset standard and LAME 3.92 is safe to use aswell and LAME 3.98 Beta seems to be same quality and sometimes alot better (but not much testing on it, unlike 3.90 and 3.97). But i heard LAME 3.93 has some disortion bug and some other artifact bugs aswell, but it might have been fixed on LAME 3.93.1, but i never used that version.
"I never thought I'd see this much candy in one mission!"

Starting with what version does LAME offer ~3.97 quality?

Reply #4 –
I would ditch the Gogo encodes and any very old lame versions (<3.8x).

Starting with what version does LAME offer ~3.97 quality?

Reply #5 –
I have re-ripped most of my CDs. God, I didn't know that a good encoder can change how the music sounds so much!

Thanks for feedback.

Starting with what version does LAME offer ~3.97 quality?

Reply #6 –
Quote from: Louck on
I have re-ripped most of my CDs. God, I didn't know that a good encoder can change how the music sounds so much!

Thanks for feedback.


Hmmm...usually that's a sign of a *bad* encoder.  But whatever.

Starting with what version does LAME offer ~3.97 quality?

Reply #7 –
Quote from: Louck on
I have re-ripped most of my CDs. God, I didn't know that a good encoder can change how the music sounds so much!


Let me guess, a more solid and balanced high-to-mid-to-bottom and wide sparkle, more robust low end, detail and clean immediacy and overall much more natural sound?

Starting with what version does LAME offer ~3.97 quality?

Reply #8 –
Quote from: loophole on
Quote from: Louck on

I have re-ripped most of my CDs. God, I didn't know that a good encoder can change how the music sounds so much!


Let me guess, a more solid and balanced high-to-mid-to-bottom and wide sparkle, more robust low end, detail and clean immediacy and overall much more natural sound?


Don't be so sarcastic. I had my mp3s for years. They were at low bitrate and encoded with xing/blade/FhG/Plugger. I have listened to those tracks hundreds of times and know them inside out, every hiss and every crack. Now that I've re-ripped some of them, I can barely belive how good those tracks may sound.

Thanks for feedback.

Starting with what version does LAME offer ~3.97 quality?

Reply #9 –
Please don't understand loophole wrong. There are even people around who "hear" differences between lossless encoders.
At least your reaction shows you might not be one of those

Starting with what version does LAME offer ~3.97 quality?

Reply #10 –
Quote from: Louck on
Don't be so sarcastic.


You're right, sarcasm is rarely the right way to get a point across  .  I don't want to speak for anybody, but I think the feeling behind the sarcasm was to encourage people to read the 'Terms of Service' (top L of the page) before posting unsubstantiated (meaning no ABX results log) claims of hearing differences between audio files.

This is not to say that you didn't actually perceive a difference, just that people are more likely to take your opinion seriously when it is accompanied by empirical data.
 

Starting with what version does LAME offer ~3.97 quality?

Reply #11 –
There is an understanding that we don't ask people to ABX the bleeding obvious. Old Xing at <128kbps for example. Even if they, personally, are completely deaf, they are unlikely to mislead anyone by claiming that such old files sounded awful.

If Louck's mp3s were full of hisses and cracks, it sounds more like bad ripping as bad encoding. If someone claims to hear loud audible clicks, I think it would be a bit silly to ask for an ABX - though a sighted comparison to check the clicks weren't actually on the CD might be in order.

I'd agree with the general sentiment though: Ten years ago, many people were happy with 128kbps mp3 from a wide range of encoders. There could be some wishful thinking and placebo in believing that something "better" really does sound dramatically better. Some people would hear a clear difference, but the listening test carried out here prove than many people would not, no matter how hard they try.

Cheers,
David.