HydrogenAudio

Lossy Audio Compression => MP3 => MP3 - General => Topic started by: IgorC on 2012-11-08 02:29:25

Title: LAME 3.100 alpha testing
Post by: IgorC on 2012-11-08 02:29:25
New build of LAME  3.100 alpha is available on http://www.rarewares.org/mp3-lame-bundle.php (http://www.rarewares.org/mp3-lame-bundle.php)

Changelog (http://lame.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/lame/lame/doc/html/history.html?revision=HEAD)
Title: LAME 3.100 alpha testing
Post by: IgorC on 2012-11-08 02:59:44
As of bitrate for current  alpha 2 it's (3.99.5 V5)<(3.100a2 V5 )<(3.99.5 V 4.999)

So I tried one sample (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=97770&view=findpost&p=813595) with these settings.
[!--sizeo:2--][span style=\"font-size:10pt;line-height:100%\"][!--/sizeo--]
Code: [Select]
ABC/HR Version 1.1 beta 2, 18 June 2004
Testname:

1R = D:\Audio\Test samples\09 Fugue Prem. Notes\lame 3.100a2\sample09 3.99.5 V5.wav
2R = D:\Audio\Test samples\09 Fugue Prem. Notes\lame 3.100a2\sample09 3.99.5 V4.999.wav
3R = D:\Audio\Test samples\09 Fugue Prem. Notes\lame 3.100a2\sample09 3.100a2 V5.wav

---------------------------------------
General Comments:

---------------------------------------
1R File: D:\Audio\Test samples\09 Fugue Prem. Notes\lame 3.100a2\sample09 3.99.5 V5.wav
1R Rating: 2.5
1R Comment:
---------------------------------------
2R File: D:\Audio\Test samples\09 Fugue Prem. Notes\lame 3.100a2\sample09 3.99.5 V4.999.wav
2R Rating: 2.8
2R Comment:
---------------------------------------
3R File: D:\Audio\Test samples\09 Fugue Prem. Notes\lame 3.100a2\sample09 3.100a2 V5.wav
3R Rating: 2.8
3R Comment:
---------------------------------------
ABX Results:
D:\Audio\Test samples\09 Fugue Prem. Notes\lame 3.100a2\sample09 3.99.5 V5.wav vs D:\Audio\Test samples\09 Fugue Prem. Notes\lame 3.100a2\sample09 3.99.5 V4.999.wav
    5 out of 5, pval = 0.031


[/size]

Title: LAME 3.100 alpha testing
Post by: halb27 on 2012-11-08 10:40:11
I tested 3.100a2 at the -V2 quality level for lead-voice, trumpet_myPrince, harp40_1, and eig_essence (samples are here (http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/2681777/ProblemSamples/ProblemSamples.zip)).

lead-voice which is real bad with 3.99.5 -V2 has improved so much that IMO the result is in accordance with what -V2 users expect: transparency usually and no real obvious issue even on rare occasion.

Also with trumpet_myPrince the 3.100a2 result is better than that of 3.99.5. I was able to ABX the difference.

Same goes for harp40_1.

The obvious spot around sec. 3.0 of eig_essence however got a bit worse with 3.100a2. I was able to ABX the difference.
Title: LAME 3.100 alpha testing
Post by: IgorC on 2012-11-08 14:33:49
halb27,

Before anything. Does 3.100 -V2 comparable bitrate to 3.99.5 V2 on large number of files?
Title: LAME 3.100 alpha testing
Post by: lameboy on 2012-11-08 14:36:26
How is the LAME header written in 3.100? (I'm using a Mac so I can't test the new alpha binary)

There was some controversy when 3.99.1 used "L3.99r1" instead of the standard "LAME3.99" causing some programs not to correctly identify LAME encodes (this was fixed in 3.99.2).
Max number of characters is 9. My suggestion was "LAME31001" for an eventual 3.100.1 release.

LAME 3.99 discussion (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=91372&view=findpost&p=775802)

Title: LAME 3.100 alpha testing
Post by: halb27 on 2012-11-08 15:07:45
... Does 3.100 -V2 comparable bitrate to 3.99.5 V2 on large number of files?

Average bitrate is comparable though a tiny bit higher: for my standard test set of various pop music 3.99.5 -V2 takes an average of 190 kbps, for 3.100a2 -V2 it's 195 kbps. For -V0 it's 260 kbps (3.99.5) vs. 264 kbps (3.100a2).
Title: LAME 3.100 alpha testing
Post by: Dynamic on 2012-11-08 15:09:07
So I tried one sample (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=97770&view=findpost&p=813595) with these settings.


I'll share my findings, which in relation to 3.100.alpha2 back up what IgorC ABXed.

I tried the same Fugue_Premikres_notes sample as IgorC and was able to ABX the 3.100.alpha2 -V5 version (5/5 ABX). I realised this is another case of the transient+tonal problem sample class (harpsichord is usually going to be like this, and unlike guitar, you'll never expect to hear pitch-bending in a harpsichord so it can't pass as part of the music).

I was tempted to try halb27's high-bitrate short-block method (-Vn+) for this sample to see if it helped, and I still have an old (not final) version of 3.99.5y that unintentionally allowed -V5+ to be used.

I used 3.99.5yFinal to encode -V5 and 3.99.5yNotFinal to encode -V5+ and both resulting MP3 files are attached in the Upload thread (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=97770&view=findpost&p=813633) along with my fb2k ABX logs. (There's a 3.99.5z version now, but the approach is slightly different).

Neither was transparent (5/5 ABX), but I felt -V5+ was better so to be sure I heard a difference, I ABXed -V5 against -V5+ and while this was harder (somewhat noisy environment today didn't help) and both had some wavering in the pitch of the harpsichord notes (esp the last note was nice and clean on the original, and cleaner on the -V5+ version, so I focused there). I knew this was tougher, so went for 10 trials, and got 9/10 ABX.

To try to describe the difference, in essence after the plucking transient, the pitch of the original lossless harpsichord was immediately a strong consistent tone. In the -V5+ version the tone seemed to come in about right then waver slightly before becoming consistent in pitch. In the -V5 version it seemed come in less precisely on-pitch and to waver a little before the bit of wavering that I picked out in the -V5+ version, so it wavered overall a little longer, seeming like about two mild pitch-bends or tremolo oscillations rather than one.

It was easy to ABX a strong consistent tone in the lossless against any of the tones that had a wavering, poorly defined starting pitch, but more difficult to focus on the duration and nature of the wavering pitch between the -V5+ and -V5 versions.

I know this is only loosely about 3.100.alpha2, which is supposed to improve the transient-tonal problems in lead-voice for example but clearly isn't enough to cope entirely with harpsichord - which is also both highly tonal and high in sharp transients.

If I get time, I might try to compare 3.100.alpha2 to 3.99.5yNotFinal -V5.
Title: LAME 3.100 alpha testing
Post by: halb27 on 2012-11-08 15:29:44
For a fair comparison (in terms of average bitrate) 3.99.5yNotFinal -V5+ should be matched against a 3.100.a2 setting like -V3 IMO.
Moreover I'd prefer if you used a newer version than 3.995.yNotFinal, for instance 3.99.5z -V3+, or 3.995c or newer if you want to use -V5+ or similar. In contrast to these I have no information about the internal parameters available for 3.995.yNotFinal because this version erraneously provided -V5+.
Title: LAME 3.100 alpha testing
Post by: IgorC on 2012-11-08 16:11:01
Average bitrate is comparable though a tiny bit higher: for my standard test set of various pop music 3.99.5 -V2 takes an average of 190 kbps, for 3.100a2 -V2 it's 195 kbps. For -V0 it's 260 kbps (3.99.5) vs. 264 kbps (3.100a2).

Such difference in bitrate makes actually difference.
That's OK  if some samples end up with higher bitrate and other with lower, but 3.100a2 V5/V2 isn't comparable 3.99.5 V5/V2 because first one always ends up with higher bitrate.

Otherwise we're comparing oranges vs elephants.

Title: LAME 3.100 alpha testing
Post by: Dynamic on 2012-11-08 16:17:30
Yes, I should have made it clear that I was really just using that not Final 3.99.5y version just to investigate whether the short-block high bitrate approach would be enough to fix or improve the frequency resolution problem or whether some of it might well be outside the short blocks themselves (I believe the more recent versions of halb27's LAME extension also modify long-block behaviour, so I chose the old version that leaves them alone).

It wasn't supposed to be a like-for-like comparison of comparable bitrates but an enquiry into what part of the problem was in the short blocks. I'm confident that -V5+ improves it, so if I have enough time, I may try to find out what's required to make it transparent, if transparency is even possible with harpsichord sounds like this (and from my past reading I think that transient smearing at least might be somewhere that MP3 can't quite provide transparency).

It may well be that also the marginal masking decisions made by the -V5 thresholds (as opposed to -V3 or -V2 where they tend to be tuned to ensure quite robust transparency, with just a few exceptions) are allowing too much inaccuracy in quantization during the long blocks as well, which might be why the wavering goes on a little after the short blocks for the transient should have finished, and that these issues could be solved by going to a higher quality setting (lower -V number), while the short blocks might require the + mode in addition to continue to settle quickly on the accurate tone frequency).

For general encoding with high robustness against transient+tonal problems, I'd certainly recommend people look into halb27's latest versions in the lame 3.99.5z functional extension thread.
Title: LAME 3.100 alpha testing
Post by: Porcus on 2012-11-08 16:23:21
IgorC: 190 vs 195 is oranges vs elephants ... seriously? Or did you read hundredandninetysomething vs twohundredandsixtysomething?

If it only takes a few sample signals to find one where 3.100 -V2 is ABXably better than 3.99 -V2 at the cost of 2.6 percent increase, then isn't that at this level a (small and preliminary) indication of a pretty good job? After all, the V of VBR is about knowing where to spend more bits.
Title: LAME 3.100 alpha testing
Post by: halb27 on 2012-11-08 16:27:02
Average bitrate for my test set using -V5:
3.98.4: 138 kbps
3.99.5: 128 kbps
3.100a2: 133 kbps
Title: LAME 3.100 alpha testing
Post by: halb27 on 2012-11-08 16:56:57
I finished my -V2 listening test with herding_calls and trumpet.

I could ABX herding_calls easily using 3.99.5. I was not able to ABX the 3.100a2 result.

I could also ABX the 3.99.5 result of trumpet (though I don't know why because today I could not consciously spot a difference). I could not ABX the 3.100a2 result.


So judging from the samples I care about: this is a great progress concerning tonal issues compared to previous Lame versions.
Title: LAME 3.100 alpha testing
Post by: IgorC on 2012-11-08 16:59:00
Average bitrate for my test set using -V5:
3.98.4: 138 kbps
3.99.5: 128 kbps
3.100a2: 133 kbps

5 kbps make difference. See my abx log in this thread between v4.999 and v5.
Title: LAME 3.100 alpha testing
Post by: IgorC on 2012-11-08 17:07:45
IgorC: 190 vs 195 is oranges vs elephants ... seriously? Or did you read hundredandninetysomething vs twohundredandsixtysomething?

If it only takes a few sample signals to find one where 3.100 -V2 is ABXably better than 3.99 -V2 at the cost of 2.6 percent increase, then isn't that at this level a (small and preliminary) indication of a pretty good job? After all, the V of VBR is about knowing where to spend more bits.

1.
It's not about a few kbps for some samples. It's for ALL samples.

2.Who guarantee that quality improvement come from smarter algorithms and not from pure bitrate increase?
Title: LAME 3.100 alpha testing
Post by: halb27 on 2012-11-08 17:20:23
Who guarantee that quality improvement come from smarter algorithms and not from pure bitrate increase?

A 5 kbps difference really doesn't change quality because of this small increase in bitrate. Please do think of bitrate difference in terms of average bitrate difference for a representable set of full length regular tracks. If bitrate is significantly higher with problem sample snippets this is very welcome! And look at 3.98.4's average bitrate in my post above.
Your ABX log was about a rather modest improvement in quality. Maybe 5 kbps difference is sufficient to make up for this quality increase.
With the samples I tested there is a severe quality improvement however, and cannot be contributed to a 5 kbps higher average bitrate. But we do know that robert significantly improved on the machinery, the small increase in average bitrate is just a side effect of this.
Title: LAME 3.100 alpha testing
Post by: halb27 on 2012-11-08 17:40:17
I tested 3.100a2 -V0 for the samples that were not transparent using -V2:

eig_essence: The rather obvious issues around second 3.0 are easily ABXable, but at least 3.100a2's -V0 quality is on par to me with the quality of 3.99.5.

lead-voice: With the very good -V2 result I was a bit surprised that I could still ABX the -V0 result of 3.100a2 rather easily. It's a small issue at second ~1.8 that enables me to do so.

harp40_1: I had a pretty hard time ABXing but I succeeded. I'd call the result 'close to transparent' however, and we probably cannot expect to get a transparent mp3 result.

trumpet_myPrince: ABXing as with harp40_1, so a 'close to transparent' result.
Title: LAME 3.100 alpha testing
Post by: IgorC on 2012-11-08 17:50:38
A 5 kbps difference really doesn't change quality because of this small increase in bitrate.

Third time I'm mentioning my previos abx log.

For that particular sample  3.100a2 V5  ends up with +4.4% extra bitrate comparing to 3.99.5 V5.  Meh, +4.4% big deal?!
Now when I've tried 3.99.5 V4.999 that ends up with +1.9% extra bitrate comparing to 3.100a2. Meh, +1.9% big deal again?!
But the "improvement" of 3.100a2 has evaporated.

If You could just notice it was a matter of a few kbps during all this time.
Title: LAME 3.100 alpha testing
Post by: halb27 on 2012-11-08 18:32:20
OK, so the -V5 quality improvement of this sample may be explainable by the bitrate difference.

Nonetheless the important question is: is there a noticeable progress for several problematic tracks? If yes, I wouldn't care about a small average bitrate increase.
With respect to my experience with -V2 the answer for me is: yes (and at 190 kbps a 5 kbps increase is even more negligible).
Title: LAME 3.100 alpha testing
Post by: IgorC on 2012-11-08 19:52:35
if 5 kbps doesn't matter then try 3.99.5 V1.9 or V1.8 and 3.100a V2.
Probably 3.99.5 V1.8 will end up with extra +5 kbps.
And I can say for sure LAME 3.100 (at least a2) won't present a quality improvement anymore.
Wanna try?
Title: LAME 3.100 alpha testing
Post by: halb27 on 2012-11-08 20:16:54
3.99.5 -V1.85 yields an average bitrate of 195 kbps for my test set and so is a good match to 3.100a2 -V2.
I did a quick comparison.
lead-voice is clearly better with 3.100a2 (no ABXing necessary).
trumpet_myPrince is clearly better too, though not as obvious, but I could ABX the difference.
The improvements of 3.100 are targeting at tremolo/ringing issues. So a significant improvement in this field is reason enough IMO to appreciate 3.100.
Title: LAME 3.100 alpha testing
Post by: IgorC on 2012-11-08 21:07:12
Thank You for understanding, halb27.

MPEG tests mention <1% for difference between total average bitrates. http://mpeg.chiariglione.org/quality_tests.php (http://mpeg.chiariglione.org/quality_tests.php)
And it's not craziness. It's really for a good reason. Those guys know what they do.

I will try some tonal ... and transients samples as well. Will report it later.
Title: LAME 3.100 alpha testing
Post by: shadowking on 2012-11-09 01:37:25
As long as problematic samples benefit then slight overall bitrate increase is justified IMO.  If the psymodel is more robust that should not turn people off that there is 6% increase. So far its clear that from v3.98 is more defensive and 3.99 / 3.100 even more so . V1 / V0 produce higher bitrate and i have tested the other day some problem samples of the past and the quality is near transparent and thats what matters to me .  In the past  there was little to zero tunings on anything other than V2 or --preset standard. Going to --preset extreme often did nothing. Now there is a proper VBR scale that works.
Title: LAME 3.100 alpha testing
Post by: IgorC on 2012-11-09 02:09:00
As long as problematic samples benefit then slight overall bitrate increase is justified IMO.  If the psymodel is more robust that should not turn people off that there is 6% increase.

Most of people will agree with this wiki info.  It's the idea of VBR. But that should not turn off people to try  two versions of encoder with different vbr settings simply because it doesn't end up with the same bitrate anymore as previously.
It creates an illusion of endless improvement untill you get 300 kbps for v2 (?)


Shortly it's not a problem if an encoder increase bitrate on its hard samples, the problem is when encoder just use more bitrate for any kind of samples and people confuse this situation with the first scenario, buying it as improvement.
Title: LAME 3.100 alpha testing
Post by: shadowking on 2012-11-09 03:13:42
As i can tell the recent encoders are using mega-bitrates with the new vbr code on samples like fatboy / emese even at V5. But not on 'normal' music. This is desirable behaviour for VBR.  Obviously V5 / V4 users are sensitive to bloat . But if V3 becomes 180k I don't see that as an issue , like wise if V1 / V0 are 250..300 that's fine for 'overkill' settings.
Title: LAME 3.100 alpha testing
Post by: BFG on 2012-11-09 06:05:04
Personally, I'm less concerned about bitrate and more concerned about getting the most transparent MP3 possible in a 320kbps package, paying special attention to sharp attacks and tonal issues.  I'm guessing that's true for the majority of -V0 -q0 users.
Title: LAME 3.100 alpha testing
Post by: halb27 on 2012-11-09 06:49:26
So what we've learnt is:

- For an exact comparison we should match average bitrate closely. So for instance match 3.100a2 -V2 against 3.99.5 -V1.85.

- Especially at high quality levels deviations in average bitrate are of minor concern to many users of these levels. Quality is what counts in the first place to them.

But that's no contradiction. Just let's search first for an average bitrate comparative setting before comparing.
Title: LAME 3.100 alpha testing
Post by: Gainless on 2012-11-09 19:49:49
Another sample, pre-echos on the kicks with -V 2 (thanks to Igor for finding it btw):

Meduzz Kick Sample (http://www.mediafire.com/?opyao7qq3xjwi9w)
Title: LAME 3.100 alpha testing
Post by: saratoga on 2012-11-09 21:58:04
- Especially at high quality levels deviations in average bitrate are of minor concern to many users of these levels. Quality is what counts in the first place to them.

But that's no contradiction. Just let's search first for an average bitrate comparative setting before comparing.


For what its worth, I'm perfectly happy if V2 leads to higher bitrates on difficult to encode samples if it means fewer artifacts.    I think the main concern is that tweaks might boost the bitrate on samples that are already transparent, which would be a regression.  I would say we should run a set of normal (that is, not known problem samples) and see if bitrates changes on those too.
Title: LAME 3.100 alpha testing
Post by: BFG on 2012-11-09 22:32:38
I would say we should run a set of normal (that is, not known problem samples) and see if bitrates changes on those too.

Anyone have a lengthy monotone sample that could be used?  That would be the ultimate "normal" test.
I have something fairly close - the "DJ Alarm" sample at the end of U2's Zooropa CD - that could be used.  It's basically a bitone klaxon.
Title: LAME 3.100 alpha testing
Post by: halb27 on 2012-11-10 10:16:42
???
IMO a selection of tracks should be used which you usually listen to, and which are not of a very special kind. The selection isn't very critical, and it doesn't take extremely many tracks. But genre included is, and when talking about average bitrate genre information should be given.
If it's about pop music it's also important to include relatively new recordings for the main part. I changed my test set this year for this reason. Due to my age of 63 my old test set consisted of rather old recordings to a high percentage, recordings from the time before the loudness war. I exchanged most of them for newer recordings (and I increased the number of tracks). Average bitrate went up a few kbps.
Title: LAME 3.100 alpha testing
Post by: Kamedo2 on 2012-12-02 06:50:25
I'm considering a listening test of this new LAME 3.100 alpha, along with some other encoders.
What settings should I use? Is there a better setting that I should test?
I'll be using additional 5 easy samples, along with 20 I used in my last test.
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=98003 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=98003)

LAME 256k:
lame3.99.5\lame -S -V0.3 %i %o
lame3.100.a2-64\lame -S -V0.4 %i %o

LAME 160k:
lame3.99.5\lame -S -V3.8 %i %o
lame3.100.a2-64\lame -S -V4.1 %i %o

Helix, BladeEnc(low anchor) 160k:
hmp3 %i %o -X2 -U2 -V88
bladeenc -quit -nocfg %i %o -160

Decode option:
madplay -q -b 32 -o %o %i

The test will take 30~60 days(estimated). Gonna be hard.
Title: LAME 3.100 alpha testing
Post by: Gainless on 2012-12-02 11:05:58
I'm considering a listening test of this new LAME 3.100 alpha, along with some other encoders.
What settings should I use? Is there a better setting that I should test?
I'll be using additional 5 easy samples, along with 20 I used in my last test.
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=98003 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=98003)

LAME 256k:
lame3.99.5\lame -S -V0.3 %i %o
lame3.100.a2-64\lame -S -V0.4 %i %o

LAME 160k:
lame3.99.5\lame -S -V3.8 %i %o
lame3.100.a2-64\lame -S -V4.1 %i %o

Helix, BladeEnc(low anchor) 160k:
hmp3 %i %o -X2 -U2 -V88
bladeenc -quit -nocfg %i %o -160

Decode option:
madplay -q -b 32 -o %o %i

The test will take 30~60 days(estimated). Gonna be hard.

A test with -V 2 should be a lot more relevant to most people here, as this is the most popular setting. At least for me it would be interesting to know how far this is true at all.
Title: LAME 3.100 alpha testing
Post by: IgorC on 2012-12-02 12:53:42
Kamedo2,

Performing a full test with an early alpha version of LAME would be waste of time and effort.  Currently it has only one change that affects the quality of output. One could think of a  tests on a few samples at most in this case. 

halb27 was  working intensively on his functional extension of LAME (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=97071&view=findpost&p=815367). I have tried a few samples and it was actually  great.
Title: LAME 3.100 alpha testing
Post by: Kamedo2 on 2012-12-02 14:40:34
Performing a full test with an early alpha version of LAME would be waste of time and effort.  Currently it has only one change that affects the quality of output. One could think of a  tests on a few samples at most in this case. 

halb27 was  working intensively on his functional extension of LAME (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=97071&view=findpost&p=815367). I have tried a few samples and it was actually  great.

Thank you very much. I'll do the test on LAME V+ instead.
Title: LAME 3.100 alpha testing
Post by: Kamedo2 on 2012-12-08 18:02:08
A small a priori test of LAME 3.100a2.
3.100VBR V3.6, 3.100CBR q0 160kbps, 3.99.5 V3.4
(http://i50.tinypic.com/2jth1z.png)
(http://i45.tinypic.com/2mdnfv7.png)
Code: [Select]
% This format is compatible with my graphmaker, as well as ff123's FRIEDMAN.
3.100VBR    3.100CBR    3.99VBR    
4.700    4.100    4.500    
4.500    4.300    4.100    
4.200    3.900    4.400    
5.000    4.200    4.500    
5.000    4.200    4.400    
%samples    Reunion Blues    Jazz
%samples    French    Speech
%samples    undelete    Pops
%samples    Dimmu Borgir    Metal
%samples    Run up    Pops

Code: [Select]
3.100VBR    3.100CBR    3.99VBR    
176388    160357    177434
171927    160292    178264
181507    160327    180015
164784    160569    165735
161089    160553    159509
Average bitrate:
171139    160420    172191
Calibrated bitrate:
160742    160044    159764

Samples used:last five samples of http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=98003 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=98003)
The number of sample is only 5, so it's not a very trustworthy data. Maybe it would be very nice if someone reproduce the results, especially the VBR vs VBR part.
Title: LAME 3.100 alpha testing
Post by: halb27 on 2012-12-08 21:03:12
Wow! This looks great!
So despite its alpha status I'd welcome 3.100a2 VBR to participate.
Title: LAME 3.100 alpha testing
Post by: IgorC on 2012-12-09 16:41:45
Maybe it would be very nice if someone reproduce the results, especially the VBR vs VBR part.
Can I ask You what kind of artifacts do You hear on "Reunion Blues"? I got totally opposite results.
Probably we're listening to different instruments there. While there are some misc. artifacts here and there, the main issue I hear is the distortion on hi-hat.

Well, we are two different listeners with different hardware.

Here's my result for this sample.
http://www.mediafire.com/?cyjfaoam2b9kmhq (http://www.mediafire.com/?cyjfaoam2b9kmhq)
Code: [Select]
ABC/HR Version 1.1 beta 2, 18 June 2004
Testname:

1L = D:\Audio\3.100a2\01 Reunion Blues\01 reunion blues 3.100a2.wav
2L = D:\Audio\3.100a2\01 Reunion Blues\01 reunion blues 3.99.5.wav

---------------------------------------
General Comments:

---------------------------------------
1L File: D:\Audio\3.100a2\01 Reunion Blues\01 reunion blues 3.100a2.wav
1L Rating: 4.4
1L Comment: The artifacts sound like flush water on hi-hat.
---------------------------------------
2L File: D:\Audio\3.100a2\01 Reunion Blues\01 reunion blues 3.99.5.wav
2L Rating: 4.7
2L Comment:
---------------------------------------
ABX Results:
D:\Audio\3.100a2\01 Reunion Blues\01 reunion blues 3.100a2.wav vs D:\Audio\3.100a2\01 Reunion Blues\01 reunion blues 3.99.5.wav
    5 out of 5, pval = 0.031

I've performed this test twice and it's the same.
Title: LAME 3.100 alpha testing
Post by: Kamedo2 on 2012-12-09 17:43:35
Can I ask You what kind of artifacts do You hear on "Reunion Blues"? I got totally opposite results.
Probably we're listening to different instruments there. While there are some misc. artifacts here and there, the main issue I hear is the distortion on hi-hat.
What I've noticed is a low frequency collapse in left channel, piano, which is sometimes found in libfaac. The artifact is very slight.

I've performed this test twice and it's the same.

I tried to reproduce the result, but failed to do so. This time, I used Pioneer SE-DHP800-2.
Code: [Select]
ABC/HR for Java, Version 0.53a, 10 12 2012
Testname: 25rbmp3160k

Tester:

1R = C:\d\autoencode6\sound_out\25rb_.lame3099_v34.mp3
2R = C:\d\autoencode6\sound_out\25rb_.lame3100_v36.mp3
3R = C:\d\autoencode6\sound_out\25rb_.lame3100_160k.mp3

Ratings on a scale from 1.0 to 5.0

---------------------------------------
General Comments: I've noticed a low frequency distortion in piano.
---------------------------------------
3R File: C:\d\autoencode6\sound_out\25rb_.lame3100_160k.mp3
3R Rating: 4.2
3R Comment: Hi-hat distortions and less clear piano and other low freq sound.
---------------------------------------

ABX Results:
Original vs C:\d\autoencode6\sound_out\25rb_.lame3100_160k.mp3
    12 out of 15, pval = 0.017
Original vs C:\d\autoencode6\sound_out\25rb_.lame3100_v36.mp3
    9 out of 15, pval = 0.303
Original vs C:\d\autoencode6\sound_out\25rb_.lame3099_v34.mp3
    10 out of 15, pval = 0.15


---- Detailed ABX results ----
Original vs C:\d\autoencode6\sound_out\25rb_.lame3100_160k.mp3
Playback Range: 00.000 to 30.000
    2:01:03 AM p 1/1 pval = 0.5
    2:02:29 AM p 2/2 pval = 0.25
    2:03:22 AM f 2/3 pval = 0.5
    2:03:46 AM p 3/4 pval = 0.312
    2:03:58 AM p 4/5 pval = 0.187
    2:04:21 AM p 5/6 pval = 0.109
    2:04:32 AM p 6/7 pval = 0.062
    2:04:43 AM p 7/8 pval = 0.035
    2:04:57 AM f 7/9 pval = 0.089
    2:05:07 AM p 8/10 pval = 0.054
    2:05:39 AM p 9/11 pval = 0.032
    2:05:49 AM p 10/12 pval = 0.019
    2:06:01 AM p 11/13 pval = 0.011
    2:06:24 AM p 12/14 pval = 0.0060
    2:06:51 AM f 12/15 pval = 0.017

Original vs C:\d\autoencode6\sound_out\25rb_.lame3100_v36.mp3
Playback Range: 00.000 to 30.000
    2:20:51 AM f 0/1 pval = 1.0
    2:21:03 AM f 0/2 pval = 1.0
    2:21:50 AM p 1/3 pval = 0.875
    2:22:21 AM p 2/4 pval = 0.687
    2:22:53 AM p 3/5 pval = 0.5
    2:23:21 AM p 4/6 pval = 0.343
    2:23:51 AM f 4/7 pval = 0.5
    2:24:16 AM p 5/8 pval = 0.363
    2:24:36 AM f 5/9 pval = 0.5
    2:25:14 AM p 6/10 pval = 0.376
    2:25:25 AM p 7/11 pval = 0.274
    2:25:39 AM f 7/12 pval = 0.387
    2:26:04 AM p 8/13 pval = 0.29
    2:26:22 AM f 8/14 pval = 0.395
    2:27:01 AM p 9/15 pval = 0.303

Original vs C:\d\autoencode6\sound_out\25rb_.lame3099_v34.mp3
Playback Range: 00.000 to 30.000
    2:12:19 AM f 0/1 pval = 1.0
    2:13:18 AM p 1/2 pval = 0.75
    2:13:46 AM p 2/3 pval = 0.5
    2:15:01 AM p 3/4 pval = 0.312
    2:15:31 AM f 3/5 pval = 0.5
    2:15:47 AM p 4/6 pval = 0.343
    2:16:03 AM f 4/7 pval = 0.5
    2:16:24 AM p 5/8 pval = 0.363
    2:16:41 AM p 6/9 pval = 0.253
    2:16:54 AM f 6/10 pval = 0.376
    2:17:07 AM p 7/11 pval = 0.274
    2:17:40 AM f 7/12 pval = 0.387
    2:18:06 AM p 8/13 pval = 0.29
    2:18:20 AM p 9/14 pval = 0.211
    2:18:59 AM p 10/15 pval = 0.15

Title: LAME 3.100 alpha testing
Post by: IgorC on 2012-12-09 18:09:06
Welcome to our world. 

Today You clearly hear the difference. Next day You get something different. It's normal.
That's why we need public tests. Still personal listening tests are informative and useful.
Title: LAME 3.100 alpha testing
Post by: Kamedo2 on 2012-12-09 19:17:45
Today You clearly hear the difference. Next day You get something different. It's normal.
That's why we need public tests. Still personal listening tests are informative and useful.

Yes, the ABC/HR score can sometimes fluctuate. We are humans, not machines.
I plotted how much the deviation can be in a graph.
(http://i49.tinypic.com/314frm9.png)
It says if I scored something 3.5, in 2 months later, I may occasionally score the same thing 3.0 or 4.0. And the standard deviation was 0.154 in the last Opus test.
Title: LAME 3.100 alpha testing
Post by: Kamedo2 on 2012-12-11 14:43:26
Yes, the ABC/HR score can sometimes fluctuate. We are humans, not machines.

Oops, I forgot to say that, in the September scores(x-axis) I used RP-HT560, in the November scores(y-axis) I used RP-HJE150.
These two scores were measured by two different headphones. So naturally they sound differently, rather than to say it's "fluctuation".
Title: LAME 3.100 alpha testing
Post by: goa pride on 2013-07-25 21:07:13
lame 3.100 alpha don't write parameters to tag, mediainfo show nothing like -m j -V 0 -q 0 ... as the 3.99.5 version
Title: LAME 3.100 alpha testing
Post by: polemon on 2013-08-27 07:11:56
Where can I download the current sources?

http://sourceforge.net/projects/lame/files/lame/ (http://sourceforge.net/projects/lame/files/lame/) <--- there's just 3.99.5
Title: LAME 3.100 alpha testing
Post by: halb27 on 2013-08-27 07:56:26
Where can I download the current sources? ...

http://lame.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/lame/lame/?view=tar (http://lame.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/lame/lame/?view=tar)
Title: LAME 3.100 alpha testing
Post by: goa pride on 2013-12-31 17:56:16
more than a year has passed
have found flaws?
I do not with -V0 option, it's time to update with Lame3100a
Title: LAME 3.100 alpha testing
Post by: Francksoy-Wizzu on 2014-04-23 13:20:26
Could anyone help me succeding using the current build of lame.exe 3.100 alpha 2 with Foobar2000?

I can setup and use Lame 3.99.5 and even 3.100i (hbr27 version) just fine in Foobar2000.

But for some reason the 3.100 alpha 2 .exe (downloaded from rarewaves) just fails and returns a "check parameters" error, whatever parameters I try... I insisted for 45 minutes with loads of different paramaters, to no avail... 

What would be the correct theoretical parameters to use for, say, V0 encoding, with 3.100 alpha 2? 
Title: LAME 3.100 alpha testing
Post by: polemon on 2015-01-01 06:02:17
Has there been any work done lately to LAME? It's 2015 now, and maybe someone could give a small statement about how things are, and when or if we're going to expect either an alpha 3 or beta release.
Title: LAME 3.100 alpha testing
Post by: LedHed8 on 2015-01-01 06:37:51
Has there been any work done lately to LAME? It's 2015 now, and maybe someone could give a small statement about how things are, and when or if we're going to expect either an alpha 3 or beta release.


Recent Lame Development Discussion (http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=107753&pid=885295&st=0&#entry885295)