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.

Poll

Which lame version you'd use?

Lame 3.90.3 (old but tested - years ago - trnsparent to most)
[ 44 ] (17.7%)
Lame 3.96.1 (new stable - still found some q problems)
[ 88 ] (35.5%)
Lame 3.97a (alpha - but still proves to be best on some tests done recently)
[ 116 ] (46.8%)

Total Members Voted: 344

Topic: Lame 3.97 (Read 33291 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Lame 3.97

Reply #25 –
Funny that only about 15% of the members that voted actually use the recommended encoder version.

Quite a disobedient crowd, huh?
Over thinking, over analyzing separates the body from the mind.

Lame 3.97

Reply #26 –
Quote
Funny that only about 15% of the members that voted actually use the recommended encoder version. Quite a disobedient crowd, huh?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

  I was thinking the same thing. It makes sense for the recommended version to be conservative, I guess, but HA's recommdation has been pretty darn conservative. However, this is nowhere near what [a href="http://www.ubernet.org/]ÜberNet[/url] does - they absolutely require all mp3's being traded on their network be 3.90.3, 3.90.2 or 3.92 (the latter two are "grudgingly accepted"). 3.96.1 isn't tested enough to be trusted.
If you want to read over their exacting standards for ripping, check out
http://www.ubernet.org/?p=UberStandard
It's quite interesting, and there are actually points at which I specifically do things differently than they recommend, like trimming silence (using wavtrim) off the beginning of songs, or doing different replaygain stuff to optimize gains per song (best-of albums, especially, often have some songs that are much louder than others because the mastering wasn't standardized, and I sometimes go through and gain them to approximately equal *listening* volume, which isn't necessarily equal numerical gain).
God kills a kitten every time you encode with CBR 320

Lame 3.97

Reply #27 –
Regarding -V0 being less tuned than -V2.

Frankly, this has always been the case. It is impossible to tune a preset that aims for "better than transparent". -V0 (or --preset extreme) has actually never been proven to be better at anything, but just throws more bandwidth at the same problems resulting in a THEORETICAL benefit. As far as I know, problem samples are still problematic with -V0.

Any problem samples discovered are solved (or an attempt is made to solve them) at -V2, so yes - that is where all the tuning takes place, and has taken place since the 3.90 days.

EDIT: I should clarify though that improvements to -V2 benefit -V0 as well, so at the very least -V0 will be equivalent in quality to -V2 in any given version. So in this sense, -V0 IS improving too.

Lame 3.97

Reply #28 –
They should list Ubernet in dictionary definition for anal...

Lame 3.97

Reply #29 –
What's the difference between "-V2 --vbr-new" and "--preset standard --vbr-new"? By themselves they (-V2 and -aps) generate the same files, but with --vbr-new they generate different ones, so which one should people actually be using, since I've seen numerous posts with either one.

Edit: clarify: not asking whether people should be using --vbr-new or not, but whether it should go with '-V2' or '-aps', as they generate different files when used in combination with '--vbr-new'.

Lame 3.97

Reply #30 –
Quote
What's the difference between "-V2 --vbr-new" and "--preset standard --vbr-new"? [a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=319187"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

They should be the same. The easier way to write --preset standard --vbr-new is --preset fast standard

Quote
By themselves they (-V2 and -aps) generate the same files, but with --vbr-new they generate different ones, so which one should people actually be using, since I've seen numerous posts with either one.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=319187"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

-V2 is equal to --preset standard
-V2 --vbr-new is equal to --preset fast standard
The fast/new vbr algorithm has been developing over time, and now in the 3.97 alphas, is finally equal to or exceeding the original (slower) vbr algorithm in quality.
God kills a kitten every time you encode with CBR 320

Lame 3.97

Reply #31 –
Quote
Regarding -V0 being less tuned than -V2.

Frankly, this has always been the case. It is impossible to tune a preset that aims for "better than transparent". -V0 (or --preset extreme) has actually never been proven to be better at anything, but just throws more bandwidth at the same problems resulting in a THEORETICAL benefit. As far as I know, problem samples are still problematic with -V0.
.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=319088"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


This is not entirely correct. Sure big problems in V2 are still audiable in V0, but smaller ones are either reduced or become inaudiable. I've managed to abx some artifacts on V2 here and there - little differences, some were a little annoying. I had lots of 7/8 results on normal music. When I pushed to 16 trials I managed 13 or 14/16 at times. It wasn't easy and I had to pause a lot.. Anyway I had no such luck on V0 ever - not with 3.90.3, 3.96.1 , 3.97 , vbr new or old.

Lame 3.97

Reply #32 –
Quote
They should be the same.

Yes, they should be the same, but aren't. I know that -aps --vbr-new aliases to -apfs, but -V2 --vbr-new and --aps --vbr-new generate different data and histograms.

Edit: -V2 --vbr-new generates the same files as --alt-preset fast standard, which is expected because of the mappings. However, these two files are different from --alt-preset standard --vbr-new, which is kind of odd.

Lame 3.97

Reply #33 –
Quote
Quote
They should be the same.

Yes, they should be the same, but aren't. I know that -aps --vbr-new aliases to -apfs, but -V2 --vbr-new and --aps --vbr-new generate different data and histograms.

Edit: -V2 --vbr-new generates the same files as --alt-preset fast standard, which is expected because of the mappings. However, these two files are different from --alt-preset standard --vbr-new, which is kind of odd.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=319236"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


i think gabriel stated why this happens.
--aps --vbr-new immediately runs --aps and doesnt take --vbr-new into account

Lame 3.97

Reply #34 –
Quote
Quote
Quote
They should be the same.

Yes, they should be the same, but aren't. I know that -aps --vbr-new aliases to -apfs, but -V2 --vbr-new and --aps --vbr-new generate different data and histograms.

Edit: -V2 --vbr-new generates the same files as --alt-preset fast standard, which is expected because of the mappings. However, these two files are different from --alt-preset standard --vbr-new, which is kind of odd.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


i think gabriel stated why this happens.
--aps --vbr-new immediately runs --aps and doesnt take --vbr-new into account
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=320868"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That isn't exactly correct --aps --vbr-new does take --vbr-new into account, but at the wrong moment:

Quote
--preset standard --vbr-new : apply preset standard immediately, and switches to vbr-new during initialisation (preset tuning are then wrong)


[a href="http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=36212&view=findpost&p=319264]link to Gabriel's post[/url]

Lame 3.97

Reply #35 –
indeed, you should use "--preset fast standard", not "--preset standard --vbr-new"

Lame 3.97

Reply #36 –
The newer,the better?

Lame 3.97

Reply #37 –
Quote
The newer,the better?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=321065"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Not always. But in this case, yes.

Lame 3.97

Reply #38 –
Quote
It is true that there had been less listening test results regarding V0 than regarding V2, but V0 should still sound superior to V2.
Quote
I should clarify though that improvements to -V2 benefit -V0 as well, so at the very least -V0 will be equivalent in quality to -V2 in any given version. So in this sense, -V0 IS improving too.

Would these comments about -V0 also apply to -V1 ?

Regards,
Madrigal

Lame 3.97

Reply #39 –
Currently I'm using 3.96.1, only because I'm afraid of the 'alpha' tag.  I'll probably re-rip my collection of 3.97 when it goes final (hopefully soon ).
</signature>

Lame 3.97

Reply #40 –
i am using lame 3.97a11 for transcoding my mp3s into 128kbps cbr mp3s (it's required for my portable). and i like the the way it sounds.
Lame 3.97: -V2 --vbr-new

Lame 3.97

Reply #41 –
I'm a tad apprehensive regarding alpha software too, therefore I'm still using 3.96.1 until 3.97 beta comes out.
WavPack 5.7.0 -b384hx6cmv / qaac64 2.83 -V 100

Lame 3.97

Reply #42 –
what are your expereinces with bitrate distributons, averaged bitrates following the -V -vbr-new) system in lame 3.97 alpha12 eg. ?

in the 3.95 topic, for -V5 is stated ca. 130 as "target"/averaged bitrate, which I can confirm for 3.97a12, too.

My findings with 3.97a12 go from 102 - 151 even for 1 album, which averages to 130.

And what would be the best quality setting for medium to low bitrates, ie. 128 - 160 kbit.,
-V5, -V6, preset 133, preset 140, 150 whatever (as abr) or better -V5 -vbr-new , compared to -V5, as the -vbr-new setting has been worked out more , so -vbr-new is faster and better quality ?!

Lame 3.97

Reply #43 –
Quote
what are your expereinces with bitrate distributons
From my experience the bitrate distribution in 3.97.x and --vbr-new is very poor compared with old vbr method. Often you have like 50% at one bitrate, 25 at both bitrates around.

This does not say anything about quality. But makes me sceptic...

Lame 3.97

Reply #44 –
i encoded around 50 songs with 3.97a10 -V4 --vbr-new and avg bitrate is around 150k. Can't tell much from 3 samples.

Lame 3.97

Reply #45 –
I've encoded about 1100 songs (~6 GBs) in various genres (complex electronics, progressive rock, ambient, industrial, etc.) with that commandline and the average bitrate is 150 kbps (actually, some albums went, ~100kbps and they sound pretty well even with that ridiculous bitrate). I think this value can be safely considered as a target bitrate for --(fast) medium preset.
Infrasonic Quartet + Sennheiser HD650 + Microlab Solo 2 mk3. 

Lame 3.97

Reply #46 –
So it does, for some reason, bits seem to cluster around a particular value. Still the file size is smaller, the sound is better. i don't get it. The phenomenon does occur at V2 to V0, at the standard settings.
Could one of the lame developers comment on this? Is it that the bitrate distribution needs further tuning or what?

Lame 3.97

Reply #47 –
Quote
Could one of the lame developers comment on this? Is it that the bitrate distribution needs further tuning or what?

Do not look at the bitrate distribution if it is annoying you.
More seriously, frame size distribution is not that relevant. Even using the same algorithm, frame size distribution could be made quite different while preserving the same number of bits per frame by a different use of the reservoir.
 

Lame 3.97

Reply #48 –
Quote
Quote
Could one of the lame developers comment on this? Is it that the bitrate distribution needs further tuning or what?

Do not look at the bitrate distribution if it is annoying you.
More seriously, frame size distribution is not that relevant. Even using the same algorithm, frame size distribution could be made quite different while preserving the same number of bits per frame by a different use of the reservoir.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

If [a href="http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=32379]mp3 repacker[/url] was used on the two files, would the output then be the same?