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 Recommended Settings? (Read 13061 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

LAME Recommended Settings?

Hey All,

Just reading the LAME Wiki

http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?ti...ncoder_settings

It is not very clear that -V2 is the default recommended setting that is transparent is most cases.

IMO there would be a small section at the top Recommended encoder settings that states this.

Or have things changed? Just would make it easier for new people to find a simple setting.

Thanks

Funkyblue

LAME Recommended Settings?

Reply #1 –
Well, the thing is that Lame 3.98 has changed things.  Many people now believe that -V 3 produces transparent results.  A public listening test hasn't been conducted but this is just using personal data from other people.  I myself would have to agree.  That and -V 2 is still kind of the (preset) standard even though it is probably overkill for many people.  The main issue is that nobody here wants people to encode at -V 2 if those people don't need -V 2.

Anyway, I think that the Recommended encoder settings paragraph covers this saying that -b 320 would be best for archiving, -V 0/1/2/3 for high quality, and -V 4/5/6 for portable listening.

LAME Recommended Settings?

Reply #2 –
But I do think one single setting is must easier to explain and give to people.

-V2 makes reasonable file sizes, and with the size of MP3 players gaining larger and larger storage, I do not think it matters much.

Is a proper listening test with 3.98 going to be conducted again?
There has not been one is several years if my research is correct.

Thanks

LAME Recommended Settings?

Reply #3 –
IIRC this was discussed at the time the wiki article was overhauled, around the time that 3.97 finally overthrew 3.90.3.

It was decided that recommending one setting was wrong, when different people have different hearing.  The groupings merely suggest the kind of area that the majority of people should look at for their purpose.

As far as I am aware the recommendation of --alt-preset-extreme, or the equitable -V2, stopped when we started recommending 3.97 (in favour of the ranges).
I'm on a horse.

LAME Recommended Settings?

Reply #4 –
Quote from: Synthetic Soul on
It was decided that recommending one setting was wrong, when different people have different hearing.  The groupings merely suggest the kind of area that the majority of people should look at for their purpose.


That is what I thought but I couldn't remember 100% if that was true or not.  So yeah, there isn't really a recommended setting other than the paragraph which lists the various -V values for their advised uses.

Quote from: funkyblue on
But I do think one single setting is must easier to explain and give to people.

-V2 makes reasonable file sizes, and with the size of MP3 players gaining larger and larger storage, I do not think it matters much.


I don't think there could ever be one recommended setting for everyone.  Sure, -V 2 might produce acceptable file sizes for you but not for me as the files are way too big.  I have a 16GB iPod touch and I can only fit about 1500 songs at -V 2 along with some music videos and whatnot.  I can fit about 1900 songs at -V 3, a little over 2400 songs at -V 4, and I can fit about 2600 songs using the iTunes AAC encoder at 128kbps VBR.  I would much rather carry around 2000+ songs than 1500.  There are often times when a playlist of that size come in handy for me.  I often drive long distances and stay in hotels for a day or two.  I have often listened to an entire 2600 song playlist in one travel period.  That is 7.5 days of pure music.  Sure, 1500 songs would be a lot but I actually need the extra amount.  That and I have a new car that can play mp3 CDs only or accept audio through an auxiliary input.  I can fit over 200 songs on a 700MB CD-RW disc encoded at -V 4/3 yet I can fit about 60 less using -V 2.  Again, I like not having to worry about switching out discs and whatnot and just leaving it in there.

Also don't forget that flash storage based portable players are now becoming the defacto standard.  Apple really did something when they pushed their iPod nanos onto everyone and that is make the market switch to solid state memory for their players.  Companies such as Creative were trading in their 60GB hard drive models for 4, 8, and 16GB solid state players that held less content but took up less amount of space and consumed lower amounts of power.  So the entire market has been shifting towards these 4GB, 8GB, 16GB, and 32GB players.  It took companies quite a bit of time to come out with 32GB capacity players and they were expensive in the beginning (most of them are expensive now as well) so don't expect 64GB solid state players anytime soon (mainly from the big companies like Apple) or with inexpensive price tags.

It is true that the market is switching to larger capacity players over the years but it has taken a couple of steps backwards with the implementations of solid state storage.

LAME Recommended Settings?

Reply #5 –
While I do understand the wiki having a list of different info for different types, there always used to be a decent single option.

I'm not discounting using lower settings to put more music on or anything.

A setting that has the lowest bitrate while still remaining transparent. Hence the need for a new test and a new recommended setting.

LAME Recommended Settings?

Reply #6 –
If you were ok with the bitrate and quality of LAME 3.90.3 --alt-preset standard, then use 3.98 at -V 2. HA can't recommend "a setting that has the lowest bitrate while still remaining transparent" because:

1. there will always be a killer sample that is not transparent to every single person at even preset insane
2. and people's ability to hear artifacts are not the same.

LAME Recommended Settings?

Reply #7 –
lame.exe says this:
Code: [Select]
usage: lame.exe [options] <infile> [outfile]

    <infile> and/or <outfile> can be "-", which means stdin/stdout.

RECOMMENDED:
    lame -V2 input.wav output.mp3

OPTIONS:
.
.
.


I agree with the reasoning behind the wiki page, though.

LAME Recommended Settings?

Reply #8 –
Quote from: twostar on
If you were ok with the bitrate and quality of LAME 3.90.3 --alt-preset standard, then use 3.98 at -V 2. HA can't recommend "a setting that has the lowest bitrate while still remaining transparent" because:

1. there will always be a killer sample that is not transparent to every single person at even preset insane
2. and people's ability to hear artifacts are not the same.


I think your forgetting the reasons why there was a --alt-standard, --r3mix, -V2

It was to create a transparent in almost all instances to filesize. IE one setting that could be used by most people for everything as the smallest size.

While I understand your points, I still think we need a text to create a new single setting for LAME.

LAME Recommended Settings?

Reply #9 –
Another thing to consider here, where recommendations are concerned, is online retailers dealing in DRM-free mp3's. Namely Amazon and eMusic, but many other smaller vendors as well.
eMusic.com has generally used LAME V2 for their encodes, which I think is an optimal setting for an online music store - it's going to be transparent on vast majority of samples for vast majority of people, without excessively bloating the bitrate. (Of course, I realize "excessively bloating" is open to a fair bit of interpretational leeway.)

While I'm very glad that Amazon has started to make most cd's available in DRM-free mp3, I'm disappointed that they went with LAME V0, because I consider most of the extra filesize wasted in comparison to V2.
I have also seen a few recent eMusic albums encoded using V0. I don't know if this is a concerted switch on the part of eMusic to "keep up with Amazon," or was simply a random occurrence and not a change in policy.

Of course, I'm much more annoyed when smaller online vendors encode their mp3's using CBR 320kbps files. That's weighting very marginal (if any) gains to "best possible sound quality far over large increases in filesize.
God kills a kitten every time you encode with CBR 320

LAME Recommended Settings?

Reply #10 –
That is exactly my point. Thanks

Finding a single setting that is "transparent on vast majority of samples for vast majority of people, without excessively bloating the bitrate."

Another point is, V2 might have once been considered transparent, but maybe -V3 is at that point now. Who knows?
It's been a long time since a new setting was tested, and Lame 3.98 has improved quality,

I do hope we can once again have a single HA recommended setting.

LAME Recommended Settings?

Reply #11 –
I would love to see a listening test to see how many people can hear the difference between -V2 and -V3, both on problem samples as well as easier ones.

LAME Recommended Settings?

Reply #12 –
I think it's useless to argue for going the -V3, -V2 up to -V0 way.
It's all personal taste.
We all know that -V3 is expected to be transparent to anybody most of the time.
We also know that even for -V0 there will be spots in tracks that aren't transparent.
It's known as well that there is improvement (up to transparency) on problematic tracks when going from -V3 to -V0. (Listen to harpsichord music for instance or tracks with long-lasting tones at a pitch that doesn't change). Which is of minor significance for one class of users and relevant to others.
It' s also a fact that with nowaday's storage capacities even on portables it's minor significant for many users whether they have an average bitrate of 170 kbps or 240 kbps.

It's a very individual decision what -V setting is most appropriate to a person.

Moreover there are interesting variations when using the -Y switch which is defaulted when using -V3. -V1 -Y for instance yields an average bitrate of 195 kbps on my 'typical' samples set (for a comparison: -V0 yields 238 kbps) and is my personal sweetspot when targeting at very high quality while staying with moderate bitrate (when encoding for my mobile phone). Also just one interesting setting.
lame3995o -Q1.7 --lowpass 17

LAME Recommended Settings?

Reply #13 –
Quote from: timcupery on
While I'm very glad that Amazon has started to make most cd's available in DRM-free mp3, I'm disappointed that they went with LAME V0, because I consider most of the extra filesize wasted in comparison to V2.

Just out of curiousity, are you on a slower internet connection, or do download speeds not necessarily factor into your opinion?

LAME Recommended Settings?

Reply #14 –
Quote from: Ron Jones on
Just out of curiousity, are you on a slower internet connection, or do download speeds not necessarily factor into your opinion?

My reason for wanting smaller filesize is the space they take up on a player (and to a lesser degree, a hard drive). Download speed is no problem for me
God kills a kitten every time you encode with CBR 320

LAME Recommended Settings?

Reply #15 –
Quote from: halb27 on
I think it's useless to argue for going the -V3, -V2 up to -V0 way.
It's all personal taste.
We all know that -V3 is expected to be transparent to anybody most of the time.


Well less have a test to PROVE it!

It is MUCH easier to have a single setting that is lowest bitrate and transparency to a majority of people and music.

--alt-preset standard and -V2 are very popular as people could use a single setting. Not only can MP3 sites use it, but its much easier to give me a single setting to use with LAME.

I do not understand why HA stopped with a single setting. If -V3 is transparent, lets test it!

LAME Recommended Settings?

Reply #16 –
I agree with the practical usefulness of having a generally-recommended setting under the criteria that I outlined above.

However, I'll note once again that there is a lot of wiggle-room in making such criteria operational - the questions will remain, "transparent to how many people?" and "even if there are problem samples that stump the setting, how common are artifacts in actual music?"
God kills a kitten every time you encode with CBR 320

LAME Recommended Settings?

Reply #17 –
While I respect those arguments. Those questions did not stop -V2 and --alt-preset standard from being created...

LAME Recommended Settings?

Reply #18 –
Quote from: funkyblue on
Finding a single setting that is "transparent on vast majority of samples for vast majority of people, without excessively bloating the bitrate."

That's another point where people will have varying opinions. What is an excessive, bloated bitrate? Is it 128, 160, 192, 256, 320? I myself find -V 5 transparent even with killer samples. But I use -V 2 because I'm fine with the bitrate. I think anything above that is excessive. People using -V 3 might find 192 excessive. People used to itunes might find anything above 128 excessive.

LAME Recommended Settings?

Reply #19 –
Quote from: twostar on
That's another point where people will have varying opinions. What is an excessive, bloated bitrate? Is it 128, 160, 192, 256, 320? I myself find -V 5 transparent even with killer samples. But I use -V 2 because I'm fine with the bitrate. I think anything above that is excessive. People using -V 3 might find 192 excessive. People used to itunes might find anything above 128 excessive.

Nevertheless, I think my definition of "transparent to the vast majority of people on the vast majority of samples" gets you around this issue somewhat - and it's an important issue for online retailers who want their offerings to be of sufficient quality for the vast majority of potential customers.
The jump from 128 to V2 dramatically decreases the number of people to whom the mp3's aren't transparent.
But the jump from V2 to V0 doesn't decrease that number much at all.
God kills a kitten every time you encode with CBR 320

LAME Recommended Settings?

Reply #20 –
I think the most fundamental reasons why -V2 isn't prominently featured as before is because a lot's changed since the old days. Think of the state of encoding back then. The idea to recommend a standard was because tons of people used crappy encoders or silly command lines. But then add that to the fact hard disk prices were higher and most people here didn't archive in lossless. With most people here going for lossless these days, it's less critical to be recommending a general purpose mp3 setting, and more usual to just recommend either lossless encoding or trying a few -v settings and finding what suits you. And add to that the fact that to many of us -v5 is transparent because the encoder has years more tuning also obscures which setting should be recommended.

So a recommendation would just create needless circular discussion about why that one is chosen. It's similar to asking "what's the best ___" in that it enables ignorance by providing a sense that one size fits all.

I think mostly the wiki info is fine. I would reword some stuff but in essence and approach I agree with it.

LAME Recommended Settings?

Reply #21 –
Quote from: funkyblue on
While I respect those arguments. Those questions did not stop -V2 and --alt-preset standard from being created...


Those arguments most certainly came into question when deciding on the recommended setting to use for older versions of Lame.  Additionally, those arguments have always been in place even back when --alt-preset standard was the recommended setting to use.  Some people argued that --alt-preset medium was good enough.  There are just too many aspects to think about when deciding upon a general recommended setting.  There is absolutely no way that an accurate test can be conducted on hydrogenaudio spanning a good selection of tracks out there, all of the listening environments, all listening equipment, and all ears.

That is why it is just best for the user to decide what setting is best for them.  For example, we could just say -V 2 and be done with it but not everyone needs -V 2 and there are many people who are content with -V 5.  However, there are other people who need -V 0 in order to start failing ABX tests.  You cannot in any way, shape, or form accommodate everyone.

LAME Recommended Settings?

Reply #22 –
But the thing is A LARGE amount of people accepted that --alt-present standard and -V2 was a decent standard and fine for a majority of people.

There is nothing to stop people using their down settings!

While you can't include everything, I still think we need an updated single setting! If it can be down TWICE before it can be done again.

Do you not see the point of having a decent single setting that works for a majority of people with a majority of artifacts?

(Can someone also please point me to the threads of the last two tests. I cannot find them!)

Thanks

LAME Recommended Settings?

Reply #23 –
Quote from: funkyblue on
But the thing is A LARGE amount of people accepted that --alt-present standard and -V2 was a decent standard and fine for a majority of people.
...
Do you not see the point of having a decent single setting that works for a majority of people with a majority of artifacts?

We want the world to be simple. But it isn't.
There were times when --alt-present standard was considered THE setting by many people because of the reputation of this setting (and certainly also because of the name). That was an episode.
It's true that the average bitrate area ~200 kbps is particularly attractive because on one hand this is still moderate bitrate (very moderate with respect to nowaday's storage capacities), and on the other hand brings down most of the artefacts to an inaudible or tolerable level. But this doesn't mean we should all use -V2, simply because there's no clear border between 'good' and 'bad'. Different people have different favorites as for their musical genres, their listening habits, their quality demands, and they have a different amount of tracks to store as well as different storage capacities, so it's fine to have the -V scale with no dominating specific -V value.
Imagine a lover of harpsichord music. It would be a bad idea to suggest him to use -V2. -V0 is the better advice for him.

Look at this thread: there are people who are happy with -V5, other people like me prefer -V0 or similar as they don't have to care much about file size but put quality even in rare situations to the top of their demands. And there's a lot of people in between prefering -V3 or -V2. Everybody's fine as long he's happy with the results of his setting.
lame3995o -Q1.7 --lowpass 17

LAME Recommended Settings?

Reply #24 –
Well try to convince HA for a V4 test.. when the next V5 test will show 4.5~5.0 on 'normal' music. What will V4 yield ? Now does that give ideas about V3 ?

Its too complex. Clearly to me V1 is a better 'standard' than V2 for hard samples. Taking into account that we won't have V4 tests, V3 is a better 'standard' for those already stressed by V5.

Then at the top end the fatboys ,hihat, eig and probably many others not transparent at 320k. The things is despite all the work, belief of miracles, mp3 was born for 128k portable use. Attempts to make an mpc or similar of it have to an extent worked. Transcode it to 140k for portables and in most cases it sounds great but the more you try to max it out the more it will show you its mp3 roots.