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: Qval 0 at 256kbit CBR with LAME 3.96.1 - safe? (Read 4874 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Qval 0 at 256kbit CBR with LAME 3.96.1 - safe?

Hi there,

I have a rather simple question which i couldn't solve properly by browsing the forum. The thing I wonder about is:

Are there any known problems with -q 0 switch when using LAME 3.96.1 and encoding with -b 256 or can I make use of this qval setting without having concerns about possible quality problems?

Thanks very much in advance, even for pointing me to a corresponding thread for this topic

Regards, Irie

Qval 0 at 256kbit CBR with LAME 3.96.1 - safe?

Reply #1 –
Quote from: Irie on
Hi there,

I have a rather simple question which i couldn't solve properly by browsing the forum. The thing I wonder about is:

Are there any known problems with -q 0 switch when using LAME 3.96.1 and encoding with -b 256 or can I make use of this qval setting without having concerns about possible quality problems?

Thanks very much in advance, even for pointing me to a corresponding thread for this topic

Regards, Irie

First I recommend you to get the latest Lame version.
I would just stick with the default quality because I was able to hear some artifacts with -q 0 when encoding at high bitrates.

J.M.
 

Qval 0 at 256kbit CBR with LAME 3.96.1 - safe?

Reply #2 –
Quote from: jmartis on
First I recommend you to get the latest Lame version.
I would just stick with the default quality because I was able to hear some artifacts with -q 0 when encoding at high bitrates.

J.M.


Alright, thanks!

By reading some more related topics I meanwhile learned that there was a bug regarding -q0 and -q1 in LAME versions 3.94-3.96.1. Besides the fact that they have been corrected in newer versions: what about -q 2, could there be any profits from using it in comparison to the default -q 3?

Sorry for probing questions, i'm just interested in these details

Irie

Qval 0 at 256kbit CBR with LAME 3.96.1 - safe?

Reply #3 –
Quote from: Irie on
Alright, thanks!

By reading some more related topics I meanwhile learned that there was a bug regarding -q0 and -q1 in LAME versions 3.94-3.96.1. Besides the fact that they have been corrected in newer versions: what about -q 2, could there be any profits from using it in comparison to the default -q 3?

Sorry for probing questions, i'm just interested in these details

Irie

The artifact I mentioned exists at -q 0 up to -q 2 (it is described as "ringing") in ALL versions from 3.96, but it will appear just in extreme cases and I doubt you will hear any difference between -q 2 and -q 3. My recommendation is to use -q 3 (=default) quality setting.
(There can as well be cases where -q 2 (or -q 0) performs better than than default -q 3, but I have not noticed such case with my music)

Note: If you really want to know which is better for you, I suggest you to encode some of your favourite music and do an ABX test. This is the only way to find out.

J.M.

Qval 0 at 256kbit CBR with LAME 3.96.1 - safe?

Reply #4 –
Quote from: jmartis on
The artifact I mentioned exists at -q 0 up to -q 2 (it is described as "ringing") in ALL versions from 3.96, but it will appear just in extreme cases and I doubt you will hear any difference between -q 2 and -q 3. My recommendation is to use -q 3 (=default) quality setting.
(There can as well be cases where -q 2 (or -q 0) performs better than than default -q 3, but I have not noticed such case with my music)

Note: If you really want to know which is better for you, I suggest you to encode some of your favourite music and do an ABX test. This is the only way to find out.

J.M.


Well, your recommendation is enough for me, i'll stick with the default setting. Doing ABX testing will be a little overkill for me. Thanks a lot for your help!!

Irie