HydrogenAudio

Hydrogenaudio Forum => Polls => Topic started by: Synthetic Soul on 2008-10-20 18:23:09

Poll
Question: What VBR setting do you use?
Option 1: -V0 (.XXX) (--[alt-]preset [fast] extreme) votes: 128
Option 2: -V1 (.XXX) votes: 18
Option 3: -V2 (.XXX) (--[alt-]preset [fast] standard) votes: 173
Option 4: -V3 (.XXX) votes: 44
Option 5: -V4 (.XXX) (--[alt-]preset [fast] medium) votes: 24
Option 6: -V5 (.XXX) votes: 52
Option 7: -V6 (.XXX) votes: 7
Option 8: -V7 (.XXX) votes: 0
Option 9: -V8 (.XXX) or -V9 (.XXX) votes: 1
Option 10: Other votes: 5
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: Synthetic Soul on 2008-10-20 18:23:09
Following memomai's thread (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=66643) on the subject, a poll regarding your LAME VBR habits.

NB: If you use -V5.5, choose the "-V5 (.XXX)" option.

If you don't use VBR, don't bother contributing; this poll is for LAME VBR users only.
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: Bodhi on 2008-10-20 18:30:10
V5
3.98.2
No floating point

(Since today...)
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: memomai on 2008-10-20 18:37:09
thanks Synthetic_Soul, perfect poll!
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: zipr on 2008-10-20 18:40:27
I use 3.98.2 with V2. I probably could get by with a higher setting, but don't have the time to ABX and find out what the best setting would be for me...
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: xmixahlx on 2008-10-20 18:54:42
3.98.2 + -V2
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: Neasden on 2008-10-20 19:25:40
-V 0  (excessive but this is my comfort zone)
LAME 3.98.2 (higher bitrates, longer changelog against 3.97)
No floating point (too complicated)
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: skelly831 on 2008-10-20 19:41:01
3.98.2, -V 5, no floating point values, keep it simple amigos
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: /mnt on 2008-10-20 19:56:02
Am still using V2, since V0 sometimes only does some minor improvements; but most of time V0 does solve my problems though. Also still using LAME 3.97, since i find regression issues are more common with 3.98.2 at V2. I even had to encode a box set with 3.90.3, since I found about 2 tracks on the first disc that was not transparent with 3.97 (even at V0) and a track was not transparent with 3.98.2, but sound fine to me with 3.90.3 at APS.

Anyway if I have to move to higher bitrate, I would use V1 over V0 since V1 is effective with only a 30kbps increase, IMO theres no difference between those settings most of the time. I have even been thinking of using V3, since on some of my personal test I find to only sound only a tad worse on tracks that are not transparent at V2.
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: Slipstreem on 2008-10-20 20:11:08
Voted! 3.98.2 at -V3 with no floating point usage here. I do appreciate good encodings, but I'm not mega-fussy to be honest so integer values suit me fine.

Thanks to memomai for kicking this off and to Synthetic Soul for setting up the poll. Good job!

Cheers, Slipstreem. 
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: Alexxander on 2008-10-20 21:00:29
I use v3.98.2, -V2 for my "mobile music" (in car deck and on my Sandisk Sansa with rockbox) but most probably will switch to -V3 (I have to do some more abx-tests). For my family I encode to -V4 because they don't know about artifacts and don't identify them.

Edit: I voted -V2 and I don't using floating point, I like things to be as simple as possible. For more bitrate control we have ABR.
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: mr budzone on 2008-10-20 21:18:38
I actually went from -V5 to V5.7 on my portable, I dont really believe I hear any difference in the enviroments i listen in =)
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: lvqcl on 2008-10-20 21:40:01
3.98.2, -V 2.

Winamp, foobar2000, CDex... They all allow to use floating-point values with, say, Vorbis but not with LAME.
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: houyhnhnm on 2008-10-20 22:22:57
V2, 3.98.2, no floating point values.
  • [a href='index.php?showtopic=19785']2004[/a]
  • [a href='index.php?showtopic=32741']2005[/a]
  • [a href='index.php?showtopic=45592']2006[/a]
  • [a href='index.php?showtopic=55879']2007[/a]

Standard is standard...

Quote
I think you'd need to start a new topic. If you do, bear in mind that the value is now floating point, so you may need to use options like "-V2(.X)", rather than "-V2". or maybe ask people to round their value to the nearest integer.  A separate question asking if anyone is actually using a floating point value may be interesting...
I've got no rights to start a poll.

I think anyone can make a poll (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?act=Help&CODE=01&HID=13). 

(http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/5586/pollea4.png)
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: twostar on 2008-10-20 23:32:01
I voted 3.98.2 and -V2.

Just a sidenote, the last time there was a similar poll (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=55879), -V2 was the leading choice.
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: kornchild2002 on 2008-10-21 00:49:40
I chose -V 3 with Lame 3.98.2 and no floating point values.  I have since migrated down from -V 2 with 3.97 and can now fit about 25 extra songs on a 700MB CD-RW disc and about 500 extra songs on a 16GB device.  All-in-all, I have been please with 3.98's (and 3.98.2's) encoding results and now see no need in using a high bitrate setting like -V 2.
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: memomai on 2008-10-21 07:46:23
Quote
I voted 3.98.2 and -V2.

Just a sidenote, the last time there was a similar poll, -V2 was the leading choice.


This poll was for lame 3.97 not 3.98(.2)
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: Synthetic Soul on 2008-10-21 10:09:07
Thanks for the links to other polls, it will be interesting to compare the results.  I did have a quick look, but couldn't find them.

I voted early on, but I guess I should post my preferences:
  • -V5
  • 3.98.2
  • No
I've been using -V5 for quite a while now, since guruboolez posted some favourable results (with the 3.97 betas I think).  At the time many members were using -V2/--alt-preset standard or -V0/--alt-preset extreme, and I felt quite inadequate.  Since then we have had listening tests proving that the setting is transparent to many people, which makes me feel a little better about my hearing.  I'm just happy that I can squeeze more on my pathetic 1GB Nano.

NB: I have tried testing the first three samples in the current ~128kbps listening test (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=66564) and I just cannot tell any difference.  I'm not sure I even found the low anchor on one.
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: melomaniac on 2008-10-21 10:20:53
V2, 3.98.2, no floating point values.
  • [a href='index.php?showtopic=19785']2004[/a]
  • [a href='index.php?showtopic=32741']2005[/a]
  • [a href='index.php?showtopic=45592']2006[/a]
  • [a href='index.php?showtopic=55879']2007[/a]
Standard is standard...


At the moment (210 votes), you can see that more and more people are using other presets than V2. I'm not sure if we can still call it a "standard" in 2008.

I've been using -V5 for quite a while now, since guruboolez posted some favourable results (with the 3.97 betas I think).  At the time many members were using -V2/--alt-preset standard or -V0/--alt-preset extreme, and I felt quite inadequate.  Since then we have had listening tests proving that the setting is transparent to many people, which makes me feel a little better about my hearing.


You exactly summarize my thinking Synthetic Soul.
I've followed Guru's listening tests for years (also en français) with great interest too.
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: david.lisb on 2008-10-21 10:53:52
-V0 -b224

best quality !!
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: PHOYO on 2008-10-21 11:10:29
-V0 -b224

best quality !!


No, the best quality setting is -b 320.

Your command line just breaks VBR.
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: .halverhahn on 2008-10-21 11:21:54
Version: Lame 3.98.2
Music: V0
Audio Book, Radio Play, Comedy: V2
Portable: V5
Floating Point: Sometimes
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: david.lisb on 2008-10-21 11:28:40
ABR 270 was my favorite, but now: -V0 -b224: the quality of preset extreme without the problem of VBR
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: bug80 on 2008-10-21 11:28:50
version: 3.98.2
portable: V4
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: Lyx on 2008-10-21 11:38:56
Using V3, because i don't keep a lossless backup, yet i consider the V2 overkill and being affected by SFB21 bloat. I do not expect my music to be "perfect" - i just want any issues to be rare and non-annoying in severity.
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: kornchild2002 on 2008-10-21 12:08:45
ABR 270 was my favorite, but now: -V0 -b224: the quality of preset extreme without the problem of VBR


Don't want to go off-topic but why would VBR be a problem?  Lame was tuned for VBR encoding and forcing a minimum bitrate like you have only limits the encoder and can cause decreased quality.

I wonder who voted for 3.90.3 as that is rather old and I thought it was no longer recommended after 3.97b1 came out.
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: Slipstreem on 2008-10-21 12:23:38
As -V0 -b224 is neither an option in this poll nor a recommended setting, may I respectfully suggest that david.lisb starts his own thread and provides test results to support his claim of "best quality"? I'm sure that many of us would help him with advice on how to do so in his own thread if the procedure is unfamiliar to him.

Cheers, Slipstreem. 
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: poleepkwa on 2008-10-21 12:42:47
I have been using V5 as well after I Synthetic recommended as such and i have been please with the results...
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: halb27 on 2008-10-21 13:59:25
-V0 -b224

best quality !!

I understand the idea (trying to prevent usage of too low a bitrate in those rare situations where the VBR machinery does so).
I'm afraid it doesn't work. I tried the approach (not exactly yours), but after using mp3packer afterwards average bitrate was the same as when not using the -b switch. It's not a proof that it doesn't work, but it doesn't look promising. Using at least 224 kbps frames doesn't necessarily mean the provided space is really used. Which is a pity of course.
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: halb27 on 2008-10-21 14:22:09
Don't want to go off-topic but why would VBR be a problem?  Lame was tuned for VBR encoding and forcing a minimum bitrate like you have only limits the encoder and can cause decreased quality. ...

Prior to 3.98 there were issues with VBR when encoding certain tonal samples of the 'sandpaper' problem and similar kind (for instance Birds, herding_calls, trumpet). Probably the issues are weaknesses in the psy model, but they were enlarged by using VBR. ABR provided better results than VBR here.
It's always personal how to deal with problem samples, but one way out was to use ABR 220+. david.lisb's idea is to kind of bring the ABR idea to the VBR world by using the -b switch. This decreases efficiency of course, but as many users don't have to care any more a lot about average bitrate this is a valid approach. It can't decrease quality. Unfortunately according to my experience the approach doesn't really work. Audio content seems to be the same as when not using the -b switch.

I wonder who voted for 3.90.3 as that is rather old ...

According to the poll only few people use old Lame versions, and most users use 3.98. So what's the problem? Though Lame development is highly welcome and we should be thankful for any progress with new Lame versions we shouldn't be over-optimistic with progress achieved. It's simply true that already 3.90.3 was great. When it's about optimum quality nobody can really tell whether 3.98 -V0  is better or say 3.93.1 (or 3.90.3) ABR 270, simply because both results are great, and whether the one or other encoder is a tiny bit better depends on the sample under consideration.

It's so much personal decision which encoder and setting to use, and there is seldom a clearly objective decision basis. Beware of opinions like 'it must be newest version' or 'it must be VBR', though using the ever newest version and VBR is the most obvious approach.
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: memomai on 2008-10-21 14:48:16
Quote
I wonder who voted for 3.90.3 as that is rather old ...


some people keep tradition  and think by staying on 3.90.3 they stay on the safe way to get transparency. Why not? 3.90.3 is the only lame one which was highly promised to produce transparency. look to the history of the encoders which are used. Remeber the MPC trend? everyone used it, then 3.90.3 was said to deliver transparency, too, so the trend was back to MP3 again.

Everyone said lame 3.90.3 is the best one, not only hydrogenaudio was happy, also all the others were happy with 3.90.3, and it took a loooong time till a NEWER lame version (3.96.1) was recommended. But not everyone could "trust" the new version, ALTHOUGH it was the new recommended one officially.

version 3.92, especially 3.93, afterwards 3.95 left distrust to users, so everyone stayed with 3.90.3..

This may be the reason why STILL some people stay on 3.90.3. Also /mnt found some samples where 3.90.3 is better than 3.97... Does this really build more trust to users? I don't think so, but since I've realised that I cannot tell the difference between V6 and original, I'm very happy with 3.98.2 and -V 5.
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: _Raziel-BG on 2008-10-21 15:05:19
LAME VBR: -V2
LAME version: 3.98.2
Floating point: No
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: Synthetic Soul on 2008-10-21 15:18:47
With regard to newer versions vs 3.90.3: it should be noted that Hydrogen Audio stated that it would not change the recommended version (3.90.3) until a better - not equal - version was created.  3.97beta finally achieved this accolade.

I'm not saying that it, and any version since are better in all respects, but it's worth noting Hydrogen Audio's thoughts on the subject.
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: kornchild2002 on 2008-10-21 15:47:03
some people keep tradition  and think by staying on 3.90.3 they stay on the safe way to get transparency. Why not?


Why not?  I don't know, why use 3.98.2 over 3.97?  I was just curious to see which people would respond since I have yet to see someone post "I voted for 3.90.3 as I still use it."  Just curious to see who still uses 3.90.3 and why.

According to the poll only few people use old Lame versions, and most users use 3.98. So what's the problem?


There is no problem, I was just curious.  The point of my comment was not to start a flame war or insult people, I was just curious who still uses 3.90.3.

With regard to newer versions vs 3.90.3: it should be noted that Hydrogen Audio stated that it would not change the recommended version (3.90.3) until a better - not equal - version was created.  3.97beta finally achieved this accolade.

I'm not saying that it, and any version since are better in all respects, but it's worth noting Hydrogen Audio's thoughts on the subject.


That is what I thought but I wasn't sure what had happened.  I thought I remembered when 3.97b1 was the recommended Lame encoder and how some people didn't like that it was a beta encoder.

Just to make it clear: my comment wasn't made to bring back negative arguments or start a "teh 3.98.2 is teh bests and 3.90.3 is teh sucksorz!" line of comments.  I was just curious as to who chose 3.90.3 and why.  Most people are replying back with what encoder they choose, what setting they are using, and why.
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: pdq on 2008-10-21 15:51:34
I wonder who voted for 3.90.3 as that is rather old and I thought it was no longer recommended after 3.97b1 came out.

I voted for 3.90.3 because I haven't bought a new CD in about six years (very happy with what I have) so I have not needed any newer version. If I suddenly have a lot of spare time (  ) then I will rerip to lossless and probably encode to something like -V5 (well suited to my 62 year old ears).
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: memomai on 2008-10-21 16:27:40
Quote
Just to make it clear: my comment wasn't made to bring back negative arguments or start a "teh 3.98.2 is teh bests and 3.90.3 is teh sucksorz!" line of comments. I was just curious as to who chose 3.90.3 and why. Most people are replying back with what encoder they choose, what setting they are using, and why.


Everyone should feel free to choose the codec and setting he or she like to use even on HA

EDIT: Hey, where are the Blade lovers? Hands up!
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: Synthetic Soul on 2008-10-21 19:06:09
That is what I thought but I wasn't sure what had happened. I thought I remembered when 3.97b1 was the recommended Lame encoder and how some people didn't like that it was a beta encoder.
That's correct: there was some discussion regarding a beta becoming the new recommendation.  FYI, this is the thread (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=32288&hl=) that I always remember as being "the time".

Just to make it clear: my comment wasn't made to bring back negative arguments or start a "teh 3.98.2 is teh bests and 3.90.3 is teh sucksorz!" line of comments. I was just curious as to who chose 3.90.3 and why. Most people are replying back with what encoder they choose, what setting they are using, and why.
I understand this.  I did wonder, which is why I included it as an option.

Edit: For my part I am wondering:
  • What the other VBR setting is (maybe david.lisb?).
  • Why 10 people don't use 3.98 in question 2, but only 6 in question 3.
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: /mnt on 2008-10-21 19:51:48
I wonder who voted for 3.90.3 as that is rather old and I thought it was no longer recommended after 3.97b1 came out.


I would use 3.90.3, if it wasn't so slow. I think the uberstandard ripping group still use it though.

I had to use LAME 3.90.3 to encode Ministry's single collection box set. Since a few tracks (1, 4 and 5) on the first disc had some noticable artifacts on LAME 3.97, while its ok with 3.90.3. You can find the ABX reports of one the tracks here (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=65101&view=findpost&p=593550). But am might be better off using V0, since i can pick up regression issues at V2 on both 3.97 and 3.98.

Hey, where are the Blade lovers? Hands up!


LOL, I don't why alot people bash Xing as the worst mp3 encoder; while Blade was much worse. Am supprised, that a poster sitting in a office at Fhg hasn't bragged how awesome the Fhg sorround mp3 encoder is .
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: kornchild2002 on 2008-10-21 20:08:06
Everyone should feel free to choose the codec and setting he or she like to use even on HA


I agree, I am not trying to force an encoder/setting on people to match my own methods.  I was just curious about who and why since most people seem to be responding back with that information.

I voted for 3.90.3 because I haven't bought a new CD in about six years (very happy with what I have) so I have not needed any newer version. If I suddenly have a lot of spare time (  ) then I will rerip to lossless and probably encode to something like -V5 (well suited to my 62 year old ears).


Very interesting.  Thank you for fulfilling my curiosity.  That is all I wanted to know, I won't say "your choices is teh suckorz minez iz teh bests" as you can use whatever you want even if it was the Xing mp3 encoder from 2001.

That's correct: there was some discussion regarding a beta becoming the new recommendation.  FYI, this is the thread (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=32288&hl=) that I always remember as being "the time".


Yes, that thread brings back memories.  I remember talking to a colleague at work who used the Lame mp3 encoder (I was surprised to find someone else in person who actually used Lame) and refused to update to 3.97b1 as it was a beta.  I sat him down, had him conduct some listening tests, and he eventually switched.  That is interesting about the current poll results, I wonder what is going on.

Edit: deleted unnecessary quote
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: null-null-pi on 2008-10-22 18:08:05
hi there, first post for me on ha.org ^^

i use 3.98.2 V6.5 due to the fact that my portable only has 512MB of memory plus it's producing some static-like sounds while scrolling the songtitle on the display (which is almost always the case). it easily out-annoys the artifacts which i encountered using this setting. it's all about tradeoffs...
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: TRE on 2008-10-23 07:46:25
I use -V5 (3.98.2) as it is a good ratio size / quality

Those files are used to listen music on my computer, on my phone, on my ipod, on my ypz5 and stored on a usb memory stick to listen in my car.

Nobody is able to hear this is MP3 except by ABX'ing with original tracks
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: sketchy_c on 2008-10-24 12:54:49
I listen to my own stuff on Vorbis (q5), but if I'm encoding mixes I've made for others I'll use 3.98 at either -V0 or an ABR ~200-225 if I need to be more considerate of filesizes.  I haven't played around with floating point yet.
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: audiobookie on 2008-11-05 01:01:58
File size for spoken word is important to me.
Was V8 3.97
Now V9 3.98
This gives about the same file size.

V8 in 3.98 gives much larger than even V7 vbr-new did in 3.97.

I thought vbr-new was just becoming default vbr in 3.98, it seems to have become much more!
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: Xenno on 2008-11-05 03:23:33
Hangin with 3.96.1 and alt pre ext
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: halb27 on 2008-11-05 17:56:12
The poll results are very interesting, especially the focusses on -V0, -V2/3, and -V5.
High percentage of -V2 votes was expected due to the traditional 'standard' paradigm and the fact that -V2 is fine with pretty rare exceptions. -V3 addresses more or less the same expectations and so it's no surprise that -V3 gathered pretty many votes though not as much as -V2.
That -V5 has its lovers was also expected as quality usually is fine and there are still many users with restricted storage capacities.
Pretty much of a surprise to me is the rather high percentage of -V0 users. Sure many users can use a higher bitrate with today's storage capacities and thus do the best Lame VBR offers even though this gives a benefit only on rare occasion. But I was surprised about the high number of votes.
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: pdq on 2008-11-05 18:07:20
I am not so much surprised that a few people use -V0 as that anybody uses -V1. If you are going to go against conventional wisdom and go beyond -V2, why not go all the way to -V0, or 320 cbr?
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: halb27 on 2008-11-05 21:32:38
I am not so much surprised that a few people use -V0 as that anybody uses -V1. If you are going to go against conventional wisdom and go beyond -V2, why not go all the way to -V0, or 320 cbr?

That's why the percentage of -V1 users is so small while the second largest user group is the -V0 users.
It's nothing wrong chosing -V1 as the personal optimum quality/bitrate setting so why should there be no -V1 users at all? Though it can be understood that most people who want to go beyond -V2 go straight to -V0.
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: Maggi on 2008-11-06 08:31:04
I'm using LAME 3.98 (not yet updated to .2) with -V0 for ripping CDs

[edit]
the -V0 MP3s are played back with Winamp's MAD plugin at 24bit and sent via S/PDIF to my Denon AVR and

I use Winamp's out_lame plugin with -V5 for recompressing them with ReplayGain applied to feed my car stereo mp3 player.
[/edit]

Cheers,
Maggi
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: Alexxander on 2008-11-06 08:50:52
I'm using LAME 3.98 (not yet updated to .2) with -V0 for ripping CDs

Then I use -V5 for recompressing them with ReplayGain applied to feed my car stereo.

I'm sure you will get comments on this one because you say you recompress mp3 from -V0 to -V5 and that produces poorer results than compressing from CD or lossless directly to -V5. Maybe you're happy with the quality you get right now but consider ripping to lossless once and forever (check out ripping guides for Windows in HA Wiki (http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Exact_Audio_Copy)). Afterwards you can convert to whatever lossy format and quality you want.
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: Maggi on 2008-11-06 09:07:11
I'm using LAME 3.98 (not yet updated to .2) with -V0 for ripping CDs

Then I use -V5 for recompressing them with ReplayGain applied to feed my car stereo.

I'm sure you will get comments on this one because you say you recompress mp3 from -V0 to -V5 and that produces poorer results than compressing from CD or lossless directly to -V5. Maybe you're happy with the quality you get right now but consider ripping to lossless once and forever (check out ripping guides for Windows in HA Wiki (http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Exact_Audio_Copy)). Afterwards you can convert to whatever lossy format and quality you want.


Thanx for the note, Alexxander !

I just edited my posting to further explain my usage and since I don't drive a Rolls Royce or any other "silent" car, V5 is more than enough to substitute radio reception ...

Admittedly, I could re-rip everything to a lossless format, but my CD collection has grown over the years (approaching 1k), so it would be a huge task that I'm not willing to challenge yet, because -V0 sounds splendid on my Denon and recompressing them to -V5 is still great for in car listening.

Cheers !
Maggi
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: GeSomeone on 2008-11-06 17:43:26
up-to-date LAME 3.98.2 
For (my) highest quality mp3's I use -V 1, the rest is routinely -V2 (I use no DAP).
In 3.98 -V 1 makes sometime sense for me, but only for reasonably well recorded/mastered music. I have used -V 1.5 a couple of times (slightly better file sizes) but now I think what the heck, either -V 1 or -V 2.
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: quackalist on 2008-11-07 00:58:53
Voted V0, 3.98, not that I imagine it betters V2 which I used to use other then rarely but storage isn't at a premium now so I allow a large 'comfort zone' just because.

Fact is, I have a lot of FLAC's on my HD too, and if I have any temporary storage issues I recode a lot to V0 while I ponder another HD
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: Kitsuned on 2008-11-14 11:48:44
My two cents buys a vote for:

Lame 3.98
-V3 setting (great for portables given gbs of space)
no floating points (never saw the need)
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: ajfoucault on 2008-12-04 04:29:22
3.98.2
V0
Real me do this!
JK~!
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: antman on 2008-12-05 02:10:09
Lame 3.98.2/V5.7
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: somemightsay on 2008-12-05 02:38:27
3.98.2

-V0
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: xSerpentx on 2008-12-13 01:44:26
V4
LAME 3.98

I'm actually re-ripping.  I want to save space and I noticed from reading here so much that my current files (V0) is way overkill and I will mostly be listening to these V4 mp3's on my iPhone or iPod classic.

Before you guys say anything...I'm really not interested in lossless.
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: Frankie on 2009-04-03 18:43:20
Mostly V4 for use with my iAudio F2. Up to V0 for other purposes.
3.98.2
Floating point? Never used it. But still I think it's a good thing that we are given the choice to use it.....
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: rick.hughes on 2009-04-03 19:30:46
I play my FLAC archive on my home stereo, and only use mp3 on my portable. Since it only has 12GB and is primarily used in the car I use -V6 by default. If I ever notice any problem I will just encode that one song again rather than use more space than needed on all the others.
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: trout on 2009-04-03 19:46:54
-V 1.337

Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: skope on 2009-05-09 22:04:44
Hey everyone! I stick to using 3.90.3modified --alt-preset standard. It's slow and probably outpeformed qualitywise, still it feels solid to me. It's like a tank. 

EDIT: Oh, I forgot to mention that I play my mp3's in my iPod Classic 80GB with KOSS Porta Pro's. I encode mainly hip-hop music which usually gives me pretty good file sizes on the V2 (standard) setting. At home I play the CD's in my stereo.
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: PaJaRo on 2009-05-10 19:13:25
When I transcode from a lossy source (I know it is not a good practice, but I do it for portability to my DAP) I usually use -V 4.
When I transcode from a lossless source, again to listening the music in a DAP, I use -V 3.
I mostly use flac on my computer (since hard disk space is not a problem).

I'm using lame 3.98.2 I've never used floating point, but it could be a good idea.
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: Pike84 on 2009-05-12 09:39:59
What is the practical significance of using floating point values in this case? I tried searching, but there seems to be very little information on the subject .
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: halb27 on 2009-05-12 11:26:34
IMO the advantage of non-integer -V values is with listening tests. You can adjust quality setting to achieve an average bitrate which gives a fair comparison with the contenders.
So Lame 3.98 -V5.7 was used with last fall's 128 kbps mp3 test. I used -V1.5 (--lowpass 16.7) for a fair comparison with dBpoweramp's FhG encoder @ CBR 192 in a private listening test. (As I was content with the results I sticked with -V1.5 though difference in quality and bitrate towards -V2 or -V1 is expected to be negligible).
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: Pike84 on 2009-05-13 09:03:32
So, it's just about being able to use decimal numbers, in addition to integers? It's not like decimals couldn't be used with fixed-point values?
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: halb27 on 2009-05-13 11:21:09
So, it's just about being able to use decimal numbers, in addition to integers? It's not like decimals couldn't be used with fixed-point values?

I don't know if I understand you correctly. If it's about the number of digits after the decimal point: it's possible to use more than 1 digit though I can't imagine anybody has the need for it.
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: Pike84 on 2009-05-13 15:29:00
Well, I'm not sure if I understand this floating point stuff very well myself, and I guess computers using binaries has something to do with it...

Anyway, what I meant was that is it necessary to use floating point values to be able to use any non-integer value for the quality setting of LAME? I guess I'm being a bit lazy for not wanting to read a lot about the floating point implementations with computers and LAME here, but I was hoping that someone could dumb it down for me .
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: halb27 on 2009-05-13 15:35:03
It's not about implementation, just about the -V value given on the command line.

Guess it wasn't a good idea refering to 'floating point' values at all. In our context of -V value 'floating point value' should read 'non-integer value'.
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: Pike84 on 2009-05-13 16:24:10
Oh, ok. I thought it had some deeper meaning behind it, but I guess not .
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: ZinCh on 2009-05-17 20:40:16
Sometimes I am using floating point to get target size.
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: gasmann on 2009-05-18 19:36:10
It looks like I'm stuck with LAME 3.98.2 -V 5 for my portable. Maybe I could go even lower (I've never tried) because -V 5 is generally transparent for me. I'm using MP3 only for my old portable having 256 MB. But it is of high quality (hell, it was expensive!) and I'm fine with 4 hours of music, that's enough for me (apart from that it's not very practical to have a lot of music on it because it has no folder navigation, you have to skip through all songs to find what you want).
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: d_headshot on 2009-05-20 03:44:10
What are floating point values?
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: WonderSlug on 2009-05-20 04:42:12
What are floating point values?


Numbers with decimal values


Integers -->  1, 2, 3, 128, 1353698 and so on


Floating Point -->  1.6, 12.1, 313.453, 895.3237952
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: lock67ca on 2009-06-21 13:49:07
Most of my collection is ripped with 3.97b  at vbr new but I've been using 3.98 at -v2 since it was released.  I may try using -v5, since I'd like to get more stuff crammed onto my portables with as little quality loss as possible.
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: GeneV on 2009-07-03 14:36:25
I went through a couple of test with a few pop/rock songs, comparing ABR 160 and 192 vs. VBR at similar bitrates.
I made ABX-Tests and the outcome is that ABR clearly sounds better.
It should be mentioned that I always use the -q 0 switch, which increases encoding time but seems to deliver significantly better quality.

I also compared different ABR bitrates. The optimum seems to be 192. I found that 224 or more do not produce audible improvements,
while 160 is only slightly less in qualitiy and 128 a tolerable value, if size matters at least as much as quality.

So my default encoding options are: --abr 192 -q 0

Peace
Gene
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: halb27 on 2009-07-03 18:53:09
... I made ABX-Tests and the outcome is that ABR clearly sounds better. ...

Do you use 3.98?
I've been an ABR advocate for a long time before 3.98 came out (maybe I still am at very high bitrate ABR 250...300, but it's not very relevant to me any more).
With 3.98 however I can hardly imagine samples where ABR is clearly better than VBR in your bitrate range though ABR certainly is fine too.
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: Rei Murasame on 2009-07-03 19:36:26
I go with Lame 3.98, -V2. The distribution of the votes so far though, almost seems to suggest to me that V2 is migrating towards being 'standard' in name, but not actuality?
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: kwanbis on 2009-07-03 20:22:47
What you mean? almost 40% use V2.
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: Rei Murasame on 2009-07-03 21:25:01
What you mean? almost 40% use V2.

I was looking mostly at the 25% that had shown up in V0; I had expected that there would've been like 70% on V2, and then most of the rest of it distributed somewhere below that.

Seeing these results is different than what I was anticipating. Basically it looks as if most people who didn't choose V2, tended to step up to V0, rather than step downwards. My question would be: Did those 25% of people that chose V0 do so "just to be safe", or was it because they were able to ABX artefacts with V2 that they weren't able to find in V0?
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: kwanbis on 2009-07-03 22:21:47
I'm sure 95% just to be safe

No abx to prove
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: GeneV on 2009-07-10 21:40:52
... I made ABX-Tests and the outcome is that ABR clearly sounds better. ...

Do you use 3.98?
I've been an ABR advocate for a long time before 3.98 came out (maybe I still am at very high bitrate ABR 250...300, but it's not very relevant to me any more).
With 3.98 however I can hardly imagine samples where ABR is clearly better than VBR in your bitrate range though ABR certainly is fine too.


OK, the tests were back in Jan.2008 and I used 3.98beta. Maybe things turn out different with 3.98.2 - I haven't tested that.
So THX for the hint, maybe I should repeat the tests based on the lastest stable version (I guess it's 3.98.2).


Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: rpp3po on 2009-07-11 05:04:12
Did those 25% of people that chose V0 do so "just to be safe", or was it because they were able to ABX artefacts with V2 that they weren't able to find in V0?


Usually when LAME fails miserably at ~192kbit/s it will fail up to 320kbit/s. That's why I wouldn't go above Quicktime TVBR 127 (~192kbit/s) or Nero q 5.5. The codec either gets it (most of the time) or it fails anywhere up to 320 kbit/s CBR. This "just to be safe" nest egg is often worthless.
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: GeneV on 2009-10-11 19:02:25
... I made ABX-Tests and the outcome is that ABR clearly sounds better. ...

Do you use 3.98?
I've been an ABR advocate for a long time before 3.98 came out (maybe I still am at very high bitrate ABR 250...300, but it's not very relevant to me any more).
With 3.98 however I can hardly imagine samples where ABR is clearly better than VBR in your bitrate range though ABR certainly is fine too.


OK, the tests were back in Jan.2008 and I used 3.98beta. Maybe things turn out different with 3.98.2 - I haven't tested that.
So THX for the hint, maybe I should repeat the tests based on the lastest stable version (I guess it's 3.98.2).


Coming back to my own posting I'd like to add this:
I finally made some new ABX-tests with lame 3.98.2. The outcome again is that with the same bitrate ABR sounds slightly better than VBR. Possible explanation is: With ABR I can effectively use the -q0 switch, which is ignored(!) when using VBR (-V2 is always q=2, -V3 is always q=3 etc., even if -q0 is specified    ). Although the encoding time significantly increases with -q0 compared to -q2 or less, I don't care, because on my machine encoding is still fast enough. What counts is that I get better quality at the same bitrate resp. more qualtiy with lower filesize.

Cheers
Gene
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: lvqcl on 2009-10-12 15:54:29
Possible explanation is: With ABR I can effectively use the -q0 switch, which is ignored(!) when using VBR (-V2 is always q=2, -V3 is always q=3 etc., even if -q0 is specified    )


In fact, it's the other way round: if you specify "-V2 -q2",  LAME 3.98 will use "-V2 -q0" settings.
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: GeneV on 2009-10-14 15:58:56
Possible explanation is: With ABR I can effectively use the -q0 switch, which is ignored(!) when using VBR (-V2 is always q=2, -V3 is always q=3 etc., even if -q0 is specified    )


In fact, it's the other way round: if you specify "-V2 -q2",  LAME 3.98 will use "-V2 -q0" settings.


This I can not verify. When encoding with -V2 lame always reports VBR(q=2), no matter what the switch -q specifies. I've tried this with different lame-compiles (from bakerweb and from Rarewares) and it always turns out this way. Then, which lame.exe are you using?
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: jmcguckin on 2009-10-14 17:19:55
while I stick to AAC for my primary lossy format, I do encode to LAME mp3 from time to time, and when I do I use v. 3.99a (since after testing, I haven't been able to distinguish a difference between it and v. 3.98.2, and it encodes approximately 25-30% faster on my MacBook)... as for the quality settings, I'm a pretty die-hard -V2 fan, though I'll occasionally drop down to -V3 for stuff in my library that I won't need nearly as high a quality setting for (less complex stuff).  and no, I don't use floating point (though that's only because I've never looked into it).
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: vvill on 2009-11-12 16:08:16
I switch between v0 and v2 for music, depending on the style and how much I like the music.

Voice, books, etc. v2 at best.

I think I'm still using 3.97 *shrug*
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: Soviet Commissar on 2009-11-12 21:28:37
I actually regularly use V0 and V2, one for classical or orchestral, the other for everything else, so I just put V2 since that's the one I use the most (a majority of my classical has already been ripped).  I have 3.98.2, though I've been playing around with the 3.99.a1 LAME a bit.  I don't use floating point, seeing as I don't really know what it is or what it does.
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: dv1989 on 2010-05-27 13:58:41
I don't want to bump for its own sake, and this information has been posted several times on the forum, but this exchange needs clarification:
Possible explanation is: With ABR I can effectively use the -q0 switch, which is ignored(!) when using VBR (-V2 is always q=2, -V3 is always q=3 etc., even if -q0 is specified    )


In fact, it's the other way round: if you specify "-V2 -q2",  LAME 3.98 will use "-V2 -q0" settings.


This I can not verify. When encoding with -V2 lame always reports VBR(q=2), no matter what the switch -q specifies. I've tried this with different lame-compiles (from bakerweb and from Rarewares) and it always turns out this way. Then, which lame.exe are you using?

--vbr-new effectively has only 3 -q settings: Values from 0 to 3 are equivalent, as are 4-6 and 7-9 respectively. Also, in all modes, -q3 is now default, with -h equivalent to -q2.
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: moozooh on 2010-05-27 14:27:33
LAME has become surprisingly good in the last few years. Its current pre-echo robustness is amazing (3.98.4 -V0 and -b 320 have caught up to Vorbis aoTuV b4 -q5 according to my experience, which is unbelievable considering the limitations), and the psy-model is really efficient at spending bits. Hats off to Gabriel, Robert and the rest of the team!

Sometime ago I decided to encode all music for my own portable needs at ~150–160 kbps, because I found it to be the perfect bitrate at which a high degree of transparency can be achieved, thus my codecs of choice nowadays are LAME 3.98.4 at -V 3.5 for artifact-robust music, and either Vorbis aoTuV post-b5.7 -q 5 or Musepack 1.3.0 SV8 -q 5 for the rest, depending on the resulting bitrate.
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: а.п.т. on 2010-05-28 12:09:47
Sometime ago I decided to encode all music for my own portable needs at ~150–160 kbps, because I found it to be the perfect bitrate at which a high degree of transparency can be achieved, thus my codecs of choice nowadays are LAME 3.98.4 at -V 3.5 for artifact-robust music, and either Vorbis aoTuV post-b5.7 -q 5 or Musepack 1.3.0 SV8 -q 5 for the rest, depending on the resulting bitrate.


If I get it right, you use a 3-phase process with your transcodes:
1. Encode to mp3 (LAME)
2. Check whether you can catch some artifacts in the result files, and if you can:
3. Encode to ogg and mpc and choose the filess with appropriate bitrate.

I wonder, why don't you skip the first two phases, though? You will save time and you will make the process more error-proof. Otherwise, you should check carefully every mp3 file and even then it is possible to omit some artifacts.
Title: Which LAME VBR settings do you use?
Post by: moozooh on 2010-06-01 00:21:38
Actually it's somewhat easier. If I know an album isn't prone to pre-echo (pretty much the only artifact I can easily distinguish at the bitrate range I've chosen), or I'm not sure, or I don't care much, I'll encode to all three simultaneously and see which one results in the lowest bitrate. If that happens to be LAME, I'll quickly check if I'm bothered by quality, and if I'm not (which is what happens most of the time), I'll take it.

However, if I know an album is prone to pre-echo — and a lot of the music I listen to is like that — I'll just encode to Vorbis and Musepack, skipping LAME, and see which one results in lower bitrate. Otherwise these two are pretty much identical for my purposes, and I can't distinguish between them.

It requires slightly more time, but the methodology is pretty simple and a satisfying result is ensured.