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: How good are older Lame versions? (Read 5105 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

How good are older Lame versions?

Hi - Is there any technical criteria to rate the (theoretic) quality of
already existing MP3 files encoded with different Lame versions/settings?

Of course i know that 3.91 and 3.93x aren't very advantageous...
But are there any older Lame versions with grave bugs?

And what is technically better in the following case:
Lame 3.92 (-q5 -b192 ?) 'vs.' Lame 3.87 beta1, VBR ~220kBit/s


I hope there is a simple to find 'post-classifying' possibility...
Thanks for any solution,
384kbps
 

How good are older Lame versions?

Reply #1 –
Quote
Hi - Is there any technical criteria to rate the (theoretic) quality of
already existing MP3 files encoded with different Lame versions/settings?

try encspot or any similar apps.
Quote
But are there any older Lame versions with grave bugs?

yep. depends how old.
Quote
And what is technically better in the following case:
Lame 3.92 (-q5 -b192 ?) 'vs.' Lame 3.87 beta1, VBR ~220kBit/s

lame 3.92.
Be healthy, be kind, grow rich and prosper

How good are older Lame versions?

Reply #2 –
Thanks for your opinion!

Quote
try encspot or any similar apps.

Well, i have EncSpot already. But it does not run in batch mode ;=)
...and the command-line tools don't show any 'quality-colour'.


Quote
Quote
But are there any older Lame versions with grave bugs?

yep. depends how old.

Versions 3.8x, specially version 3.87 and 3.89.

384kbps

How good are older Lame versions?

Reply #3 –
i read that in 3.89 some problems that caused a lot of ringing were fixed. but even since 3.89 there were optimizations made to speed and quality.
Be healthy, be kind, grow rich and prosper

How good are older Lame versions?

Reply #5 –
Quote
Quote
And what is technically better in the following case:
Lame 3.92 (-q5 -b192 ?) 'vs.' Lame 3.87 beta1, VBR ~220kBit/s

lame 3.92.

I'm not sure about that.

A VBR from that time is probably an old R3mix setting. Usually, r3mix was better than simple 192kbps on those compiles. IIRC one listening test showed as much (slightly later version).

Aren't the same settings still defaulted in 3.92 as in 3.87 (i.e. most of the listed improvements won't kick in unless you use the correct switch) - so basically 192kbps (just using -q5 rather than a preset) would be quite similar in both versions? (I may be very wrong on this - I'd never use that setting!). You'd expect any properly encoded file to be -q0-2, so it's strange to have -q5, which would worry me.

Chances are the older VBR is better than the newer (not from a preset) CBR. If it turns out that the 3.92 one is from --alt preset cbr 192, then that's better.


You could just listen to them both! That's what I would do. If they both sounded perfect to me, I'd probably keep the smaller one in this case.

(Though with two CBR files, I sometimes keep the bigger one. Not always - often the bigger one is blade or transcoded!)

Cheers,
David.

How good are older Lame versions?

Reply #6 –
Quote
http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/*che...y.html?rev=1.70

Belong the red color many quality improvements were introduced
in version 3.90 and even 3.88. ( Of course i also like to thank all the developpers
for every step they made in previous versions  )

So from a technical point of view should i now generally face towards MP3s
encoded with 3.87 and before with a certain scepticism!?


Quote
You could just listen to them both!

Thanks for your interesting post. - And yes, i will equal the loundness and
try to get a some hearing tests the nexts days.

Nethertheless i wish to have a more abstract possibility to classify them faster...

How good are older Lame versions?

Reply #7 –
From the changelog that Gabriel linked to:

Quote
LAME 3.91    December 29 2001
Darin Morrison:  Bugfix for --alt-preset (for content with low volume, clean vocals), only important for the "fast standard" preset

Was this bugfix incorporated into 3.90.2 and 3.90.3?

How good are older Lame versions?

Reply #8 –
Quote
Was this bugfix incorporated into 3.90.2 and 3.90.3?

Yes.

Edit:  To clarify, Darin Morrison is Dibrom, who was the main man behind the alt-presets, and the 3.90.2 and .3 builds.  In fact, as I recall, 3.90.2 was released before the official 3.91 specifically to address the fast standard issue.

How good are older Lame versions?

Reply #9 –
Thanks.

How good are older Lame versions?

Reply #10 –
Quote
A VBR from that time is probably an old R3mix setting. Usually, r3mix was better than simple 192kbps on those compiles. IIRC one listening test showed as much (slightly later version).

you never know. i've seen a lot of people encoding their files using their own custom "settings". this is quite common on usenet and irc. that's why a lot of lame vbr files sound like crap.

Quote
You'd expect any properly encoded file to be -q0-2, so it's strange to have -q5, which would worry me.

i totally agree. i too would never use this kind of setting as there is really no purpose for it.

Quote
Chances are the older VBR is better than the newer (not from a preset) CBR. If it turns out that the 3.92 one is from --alt preset cbr 192, then that's better.

it's possible. i remember the heated debates on the old r3mix boards with people complaining about persistent ringing artifacts with 3.87 (using the default gpsycho model).
Be healthy, be kind, grow rich and prosper

How good are older Lame versions?

Reply #11 –
So many posts - great!

This weekend i'm able to use a better equipment so i have made some samples.
At first, forgive me. - After uploading i thought myself it wasn't a wise idea...:

3x 2 Min, as OGG - Original: Lame 3.92 cbr 192kBit/s stereo (12 MB!)
3x 2 Min, as OGG - Original: Lame 3.87 vbr ~220kBit/s stereo (12 MB!)

This unpretty transcodung is because I have used wavegain to gain them
on the same loudness level. APE or FLAC would be the better choice than but...


12 MB is huge so i don't really expect that there is someone out there
who like to make a test - but if yes, thanks!


384kbps

(...still looking for a 'technical' classification solution)

____________________________

Post edit note:
Big Ogg files! - My internet service provider 'pleased' me to remove them

How good are older Lame versions?

Reply #12 –
Quote
If it turns out that the 3.92 one is from --alt preset cbr 192, then that's better.

This is really a bit strange...
As i have seen 'Lame --alt-preset cbr 192' and even 'Lame -b 192'
are creating MP3s with a quality value of 58 (-q2) inside the Lame tag.
The CBR 192 MP3 as mentioned at the top has only a value of 55 (=> -q5).

Is this a big diference!?
Well i don't have much expericence with 192 CBR presets...
I use VBR as long i can immagine.
(...ok, the first time i ever have made (occasionally) an MP3 as VBR,
i saw the fluctuating bitrate, tought my software would be out of order,
wished my Windows to hell and begun to re-install...)

;=) 384kbps