Skip to main content


Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: LAME 3.96 FINAL vs. 3.90.3 Test (Read 128904 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

LAME 3.96 FINAL vs. 3.90.3 Test

Reply #125
Lame 3.96 -p. extreme (216k) vs. wav (sample 2)
ABX 8/8 (the same distortion as in my previous test, but now I'm realizing, that the main distortion is probably present in lower freqs than 19 kHz)


Lame 3.90.3  -p. extreme (236k) vs. wav
ABX 8/8 needed some concentration

Can you ABX 3.96 from 3.90.3 at the extreme preset?  If so, it could be quite interesting because it would be a specific sample where 3.96 degrades performance over 3.90.3.
I am *expanding!*  It is so much *squishy* to *smell* you!  *Campers* are the best!  I have *anticipation* and then what?  Better parties in *the middle* for sure.

LAME 3.96 FINAL vs. 3.90.3 Test

Reply #126
Edit: Sorry, this post was a mistake... was doing some tests with the different versions, got them mixed up, and thought I found something profound...

LAME 3.96 FINAL vs. 3.90.3 Test

Reply #127
THX to Gabriel, magic75 and 2Bdecided for some factual answers.

I have many ideas, but for now I'd like to focus on the important
byproduct of my testing i.e. Sample 2.

It is processed before encoding, so I consider it fair to ABX even though it is a "bad scenario" case.
I've already posted ABX tests, that only support my impression, that there is irritating distortion in high freqs (guessing somewhere between 14-19kHz) in Lame 3.96, Lame 3.93 and Lame 3.90.3. (everything -preset extreme)
I made the ABX 3.96 -pe (236kbps) vs. 3.90.3 -pe (216kbps) for phong and for topic (but to me 3.93 sounds the same as 3.90.3). It is 8/8 with some concentration (relatively easy). 3.90.3 (and 3.93) sounds better to me only because the distortion is not so continuous as in 3.96.

The main deficiency will be probably in the VBR (old) code, because this sample is transparent with -p. insane and even "-b 256" sounds better then -p. extreme, but is ABXable with concentration (7/8). The perceived difference in
"256k cbr" is not in the distortion but in the absence of some of the HF, so it sounds better then the VBR.
My guess: It seems that the VBR code is misguided by the presence of HF and certainly reluctant to allocate more bits, when the 320k bitrate limit is far from reach.

LAME 3.96 FINAL vs. 3.90.3 Test

Reply #128
"256k cbr" is not in the distortion but in the absence of some of the HF, so it sounds better then the VBR.

By curiosity, could you try "--preset extreme -Y"

LAME 3.96 FINAL vs. 3.90.3 Test

Reply #129
Greetings Gabriel!
I tried the "--preset extreme -Y" but It doesn't seem to change anything listen-wise vs. plain -pe.

Lame 3.96 -pe -Y vs. wav 8/8 ...the same old distortion

Lame 3.96 -pe -Y vs. -pe 5/8 i.e. sounds the same

I tried a lot of switches, but no one improved the quality within the restraints of the old-vbr. BTW I found out, that the "--substep n" is no more recognized despite its presence in "--longhelp".
Moreover, the "-X n" switch behaves strangely, anything else then the default "-X 3" sounds the same - worse.

Lame 3.96 -pe vs. -pe -X 1 7/8

Hope this will help with the curiosity

SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2021