Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: LAME 3.96 FINAL vs. 3.90.3 Test (Read 140055 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

LAME 3.96 FINAL vs. 3.90.3 Test

Reply #100 –
Quote
The only think I have against 3.96. is that I don't have the same switch capability I had before. If you make it idiot proof your going to take away the options tweakers like. I'll quit bitching if I like to tweak so i'll stick with 3.90.3 until 4.0

so what switches are you specifially talking about?
--alt-presets are there for a reason! These other switches DO NOT work better than it, trust me on this.
LAME + Joint Stereo doesn't destroy 'Stereo'

LAME 3.96 FINAL vs. 3.90.3 Test

Reply #101 –
Quote
Okay, I have a hard-drive full of .wav files just waiting to be compressed: which LAME version should I use?

I have read most of this thread, and I see that there are many arguments for both 3.90 and for 3.96, however most of the technical details have gone over my head, and I was hoping for a few generalised recommendations.

I am not too bothered with file size, and would like to compress these files at a quality which I will not decide is too low in a few years time (when I can afford a good-quality hi-fi system, for example)

I am presently using CDex to rip and RazorLAME to compress.

Thanks for any suggestions

I'd use LAME 3.96...you probably won't hear the difference between the two anyway (even the samples that got better or worse). If you are not concerned about file size you could always go with lossless. It saves you ~30% of the original file and will sound identical (you can always restore the source).

Otherwise you could go with --preset extreme , which will result a higher average bitrate and therefore *may* sound better...on many samples it is an overkill, but if you not bothered by the higher filesize choose that setting.

Personally I use LAME 3.96 with --preset standard. Try both encoders and make some test samples and play around with either settings...and choose your own favorite
--alt-presets are there for a reason! These other switches DO NOT work better than it, trust me on this.
LAME + Joint Stereo doesn't destroy 'Stereo'

LAME 3.96 FINAL vs. 3.90.3 Test

Reply #102 –
Here are the results for Preecho1:

Original vs. LAME 3.95 -V 5

Quote
ABX log
ABC/HR for Java Version 0.4b4
May 16, 2004 12:46:29 PM

Sample A: Original.wav
Sample B: 3.96 -V 5.wav
Playback Range: 00.000 to 22.982
    12:45:55 PM f 0/1 pval = 1.0
    12:45:59 PM p 1/2 pval = 0.75
    12:46:02 PM f 1/3 pval = 0.875
    12:46:05 PM p 2/4 pval = 0.687
    12:46:07 PM f 2/5 pval = 0.812
    12:46:10 PM p 3/6 pval = 0.656
    12:46:12 PM p 4/7 pval = 0.5
    12:46:15 PM p 5/8 pval = 0.363

---------
Total: 5 out of 8, p = 0.363


Original vs. LAME --alt-preset 128

Quote
ABX log
ABC/HR for Java Version 0.4b4
May 16, 2004 12:48:49 PM

Sample A: Original.wav
Sample B: 3.90.3 --alt-preset 128.wav
Playback Range: 00.000 to 22.982
    12:48:08 PM p 1/1 pval = 0.5
    12:48:10 PM p 2/2 pval = 0.25
    12:48:12 PM p 3/3 pval = 0.125
    12:48:13 PM p 4/4 pval = 0.062
    12:48:15 PM p 5/5 pval = 0.031
    12:48:17 PM p 6/6 pval = 0.015
    12:48:19 PM p 7/7 pval = 0.0070
    12:48:21 PM p 8/8 pval = 0.0030

---------
Total: 8 out of 8, p = 0.0030


LAME 3.96 -V 5 vs. LAME 3.90.3 --alt-preset 128

Quote
ABX log
ABC/HR for Java Version 0.4b4
May 16, 2004 12:54:04 PM

Sample A: 3.96 -V 5.wav
Sample B: 3.90.3 --alt-preset 128.wav
Playback Range: 00.000 to 23.014
    12:53:40 PM p 1/1 pval = 0.5
    12:53:45 PM p 2/2 pval = 0.25
    12:53:47 PM p 3/3 pval = 0.125
    12:53:49 PM p 4/4 pval = 0.062
    12:53:51 PM p 5/5 pval = 0.031
    12:53:53 PM p 6/6 pval = 0.015
    12:53:56 PM p 7/7 pval = 0.0070
    12:53:58 PM p 8/8 pval = 0.0030

---------
Total: 8 out of 8, p = 0.0030


Result: 3.96 wins!

The sound is much sharper in 3.96 compared to 3.90.3.

LAME 3.96 FINAL vs. 3.90.3 Test

Reply #103 –
Quote from: Jojo,May 15 2004, 12:52 PM
Quote from: bluddnok,May 14 2004, 06:13 PM

Otherwise you could go with --preset extreme , which will result a higher average bitrate and therefore *may* sound better...on many samples it is an overkill, but if you not bothered by the higher filesize choose that setting.

Personally I use LAME 3.96 with --preset standard. Try both encoders and make some test samples and play around with either settings...and choose your own favorite 

Don't forget that 3.96 also has V1 as well, which is in between preset standard and extreme. I'm thinking about using this setting... It shows improvements on certain ps problem samples.

LAME 3.96 FINAL vs. 3.90.3 Test

Reply #104 –
What is the advantage of V1? Isn't this just an untweaked VBR setting, and thus probably not as good as the other presets? And wasn't it available in previous versions? (or am I getting my switches mixed up)

Also, I have come across 3.96 downloads which appear to be different sizes. Are there different versions of 3.96 available, and if so, which version is recommended?

Thanks

LAME 3.96 FINAL vs. 3.90.3 Test

Reply #105 –
Quote
What is the advantage of V1? Isn't this just an untweaked VBR setting, and thus probably not as good as the other presets? And wasn't it available in previous versions? (or am I getting my switches mixed up)

Also, I have come across 3.96 downloads which appear to be different sizes. Are there different versions of 3.96 available, and if so, which version is recommended?

In 3.96, preset standard corresponds to V2, and preset extreme corresponds to V0. V1 is in between, and should be just as "tweaked". This is a change from 3.90.3, where the alt presets use their own special tunings.

These different sized binaries of 3.96 are you have stumbled upon are probably compiled using different compilers. There probably won't be any audible difference between the different versions, but encoding speed may be affected depending on the compiler options used.

LAME 3.96 FINAL vs. 3.90.3 Test

Reply #106 –
Thanks for your reply. So  the switch --V1 will give better (eg higher quality) results than --preset standard?  Does this imply that all the --V(x) settings are as well optimised as the --preset settings? Sorry if i'm asking you to repeat yourself here, but I'm relatively new to this and want to be sure i'm getting it right.

Two other brief questions:
should i be thinking about using vbr-new, or is vbr-old still considered superior?
does the --V1 setting use joint or dual stereo?

thanks again for the advice

LAME 3.96 FINAL vs. 3.90.3 Test

Reply #107 –
- They haven't been tested as much as the presets.
- vbrold is slower but better I think.
- joint stereo always

LAME 3.96 FINAL vs. 3.90.3 Test

Reply #108 –
Quote
So the switch --V1 will give better (eg higher quality) results than --preset standard?

In 3.96, yes.

Quote
Does this imply that all the --V(x) settings are as well optimised as the --preset settings?

In 3.96, yes.

LAME 3.96 FINAL vs. 3.90.3 Test

Reply #109 –
Quote
should i be thinking about using vbr-new, or is vbr-old still considered superior?


Not sure which 3.96 is using nowadays, but it shouldn't matter anyway. 3.96 is much faster than 3.90.3 now, so just use whatever is default for the VBR setting you're using.

Quote
- They haven't been tested as much as the presets.


The presets are V settings themselves, so this doesn't really make sense. But note that there has not been a large scale public testing of 3.96 V2 (preset standard) and above, other than what is in this thread.

LAME 3.96 FINAL vs. 3.90.3 Test

Reply #110 –
Hello,
I bumped into certain "problem" that may be related with some ATH problems in Lame 3.96.
I am just a normal user and instead of doing demanding ABX tests, I use spectral analysis often.
(I know it's not the best thing, but it works for me as a good indicator, because I am sensitive in HF area).
I normally use, for quite some time, custom cut between preset extreme and insane, that is:
"lame -mj -q0 -v -V0 --nspsytune --nssafejoint --lowpass 20600"
I was happy with lame 3.90, 3.92 and 3.93 as all these versions encoded freqs upto the
lowpass freq. I thought it's the way it is meant to be.

I don't have the time to extensively test every new version, but I inclined to see new versions
as improvements. But recently there has been a few versions out, that were labeled as "not recommended",
having "serious issues" or "buggy" (3.95 on mitiok's site, 3.96 on doom9.org). For average user, who is not
interested in spending extravagant amount of time on sites like this, it is discouraging.

Recently I've made some encodings with 3.96b2 (with above settings) and I was unpleasantly surprised
with missing high freqs above 19kHz. And I was not able to find easy way to get them back. I tracked this
change of behavior back to 3.94b and It seems to be ATH-related (I tested --athonly vs. --noath).
There is probably reason for this, but I'd like to know the EXACT why (con's and pro's).
* Any suggestions? at least some link?
* Could it be related with the "3.96 aps  vs. 3.96 -V5 -athaa 1" issue? (the -athaa 1 don't work for me in this case)
* What is the best way to make the 3.96 to encode upto 20kHz? (I tried --athlower 10 with partial improvement,
but I don't know the negative side-effects of this)

THX
-ATHawk

P.S. I know that many ppl don't recognize anything above 18kHz, but my limit is around that 18kHz and
I want just some secure headroom. e.g. for better subconscious feelings or some virtual 3D decoding.
Musepack is HF-friendly too.

LAME 3.96 FINAL vs. 3.90.3 Test

Reply #111 –
Quote
Hello, and welcome to Hydrogenaudio.

You are reading this because you violated forum rule number 8.
Don't worry - you probably didn't know about it, or didn't
understand the implications, and we understand that. The
Hydrogenaudio Terms Of Service are here:

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=3974

The gist of rule #8 is that if you make a claim, you must have
proper supporting evidence for it. This rule is the very core
of Hydrogenaudio, so it is very important that you follow it.

This is a generic post, and not all what follows may be
applicable to this situation. Read through it nevertheless,
it contains essential information and will help you understand
what to do (or not to do).

Why should I bother with all of this, I just want to report
a problem? (link)

For audio quality matters, 'proper supporting evidence' is
a blind listening test result demonstrating that you can hear a
difference, together with a test sample.
Graphs, non-blind tests, subtracting two files and so on are
definetely not!

A proper blind test serves several purposes: it shows that you
are serious towards our community, it proves to yourself that
you can indeed hear a difference, it provides an indication of
the seriousness of the issue at hand, and it helps pinpointing
the problem for differnent listeners.

The easiest and most common way to do a blind test is an ABX
test. There are several free utilities to do one:

http://www.pcabx.com/
http://ff123.net/abchr/abchr.html
http://www.kikeg.arrakis.es/winabx/winabx.zip
http://www.beryllium.net/~remco/linabx/

An ABX test requires you do identify an unknown (X) sample as
either the original (A) or the processed (B) sample. With some
statistics it can be figured out how likely it is that you were
actually hearing a difference instead of just guessing which was
which. Hydrogenaudio uses as a general guideline that < 5% change
of guessing is considered 'proof' that you are hearing a difference.
If you try the ABX test multiple tests, add up all attempts. You
can use http://www.ff123.net/abx/abx.html to calculate the p-value
( < 5% = < 0.05), though most ABX programs have it built in.

If you managed to get a significant score, congratulations, it
seems that the problem is real.

If applicable, you'll need to upload the test clip you used so
other people can verify it and developers can tinker with it.

Uploading copyrighted music is generally illegal, but fair use laws
generally permit short clips (< 30 secs) to be used for purposes
such as this. Your ISP probably has allocated you some webspace for
a webpage. You can upload the clip to it. If you're low on space,
compress it with a lossless encoder (e.g. FLAC http://flac.sf.net),
which will approximately halve the required space. If you don't have
your own webspace, you might want to try the IRC channel, ask a
friend, or simply post on HA and ask if someone wants to help you out.

If you finally make your post to Hydrogenaudio, try to include
as much information as is relevant, and be sure to explain exactly
what and where (important but often forgotten) you hear the problem
best.

Audio is to a large extent a subjective matter, and as such,
quality matters are prone to a few problems. The first is listener
preferences. Something that applies to you may not apply to the
majority of people. Maybe the clip is an exception or problem
case and not representative of general performance. This is why
being able to verify a result is imporant, as well as giving the
developers something concrete to work with.

The second is the mind. The human mind is powerfull, but has some
weaknesses. It is very vulnerable to suggestion and subconscious
influences, even for people experienced in these tests. No matter
how how 'sure' you are  that a problem exists, verify that it's not
your mind playing tricks on you first, it'll save embarassement
later.

'Simply' reporting a problem generally doesn't tell us anything,
isn't indicative of anything, can be impossible to reproduce,
confuses people, and most importantly, wastes precious developer
time determining if the problem is real and serious or not.

You may have saved yourself 5 minutes, but you've cost other people
an hour. That's not very nice.
"To understand me, you'll have to swallow a world." Or maybe your words.

LAME 3.96 FINAL vs. 3.90.3 Test

Reply #112 –
OK, I'll try...
Why the "Catch 22" is coming to my mind?
OK, ERRATA: *THERE IS NO PROBLEM IN LAME 3.96*

I want to encode music my way. I want to have freqs upto 20 KHz independently
of the fact, that I am able to ABX it or not. I cannot prove you, that lame 3.96 is
not encoding the freqs, because the output of spectral analysis is not a valid proof.
If you just imagine, that I want to encode ultrasonic whistle commands for my dog, then I see, I have no way to get any help here (short of faking some ABX tests with my dog .
Similarly, if I claim, that I want some headroom, it is not easy to proof with ABX tests, that a certain sample does not have that headroom. I have my reasons why not to completely trust ABX test - most importantly because the choice must be made consciously, while listening includes a non-conscious processing.

Supposing that lame 3.96 is not encoding freqs upto 20kHz, is there a way to get some educated advice on how to encode the freqs in lame 3.96 upto 20kHz the same or similar way as in 3.93? Or am I just in the wrong place?

Edit: making the question hypothetical due to a lack of proof

LAME 3.96 FINAL vs. 3.90.3 Test

Reply #113 –
You want to encode for your dog, want headroom...don't trust abx?

Too many hangups here - forget them or use lossless compression like FLAC, monkey's audio etc. That way you will get perfect output and a goodnight sleep.

LAME 3.96 FINAL vs. 3.90.3 Test

Reply #114 –
Quote
OK, I'll try...
Why the "Catch 22" is coming to my mind?
OK, ERRATA: *THERE IS NO PROBLEM IN LAME 3.96*

I want to encode music my way. I want to have freqs upto 20 KHz independently
of the fact, that I am able to ABX it or not. I cannot prove you, that lame 3.96 is
not encoding the freqs, because the output of spectral analysis is not a valid proof.


Ignoreing issues of ABXing samples, how do you know 3.90 was encoding those frequencies if you didn't try and test ?  Remember a graph just shows you that theres energy at a frequency, not content.

Furthermore posting this sort of thing (x is better then y because of unsubstantiated reason z) is annoying to many people because it doesn't contribute anything but noise to discussions.  Particualarly in a thread about tuneing and testing (IE gathering objective and quantitative data).  If you still feel strongly about this issue, perhaps you could start a thread in MP3s or General Audio asking about this concern of yours.

LAME 3.96 FINAL vs. 3.90.3 Test

Reply #115 –
Quote
Furthermore posting this sort of thing (x is better then y because of unsubstantiated reason z) is annoying to many people because it doesn't contribute anything but noise to discussions.

I really don't know if my English is so bad or you just don't read what I've written. I did not claim "x is better than y" and the reasons are substantiated for me, because listening is SUBJECTIVE. The reasons were not substantiated for you only because of the HA rules. I don't ignore ABX tests
Quote
why not to completely trust ABX test
, but I can't rely on them solely if I'm aiming for headroom. In my opinion, there is a relation between audio-quality and spectrum. I understand your emphasis on ABX tests in Lame development, but I didn't know, that simply mentioning spectrum analysis will upset you to the extent, that you are unable to understand or answer my questions.

I asked direct concrete questions but I got only evasive answers NOT answering my questions. (to shadowking: What is the whole HA for, if you just recommend lossless?)
Now I worked hard to get some ABX-tests, that could support my questions.
These are my 1st, so plz be patient If you think that there are errors.

The sample I used is rock song Painted On, from "Mother May I", album Splitsville 1995. I chose it, because I've done a lot of codec and listening tests with this before. Since the stress is on the high freqs, I used equalizer (fb2k) to accentuate the freqs around 20 kHz (in both the wav and mp3s). One of the reasons for equalizer was that my hifi equipment is not of high quality (Hama SL73 headphones, CMI8738 4.1 PCI soundcard).

I run 2 series of tests, used ABX function in Foobar2000
Sample 1: processed with equalizer AFTER mp3 encoding (linked is the original wav)
Sample 2: processed with equalizer BEFORE mp3 encoding

I was able to ABX lame 3.96 from original wav on sample1 (with eq), but I had to concentrate on high hat percussion impact in 1.3s. In mp3 it had slightly lower tone than original. ABX score 8/8
I was able to ABX lame 3.96 from 3.93, but the difference was much less noticable, so with maximum concentration I achieved 16/23 (4.7%)
(Didn't have time for 3.93 vs. original)

The sample 2 proved to be much more problematic. Both lame 3.93 and 3.96 had serious problems, both easy ABX 8/8 from original, but I include the ABX logs anyway. 
ABX 3.93 vs 3.96 was easy too, but 3.93 sounded better to my ears, because the artifacts were not so continuous as in 3.96. (still both sounded pretty awful).
While this sample may be considered somewhat artificial, it does not sound too unreal to me and with Musepack I achieved much better (acceptable) results with comparable bitrate.

All encodings were done with these switches:
"-mj -q0 -v -V0 --nspsytune --nssafejoint --lowpass 20600"

The final question is same as in my previous post. Hopefully someone here can say st. reasonable without such strong feelings.

LAME 3.96 FINAL vs. 3.90.3 Test

Reply #116 –
Have you tried using the presets?  They should offer the best performance.  It is also likely that adjusting the lowpass is preventing optimal encoding of audible frequencies.

Lossy audio encoders are entirely designed around preserving sounds that are audible to the human ear and throwing away other sounds to save space.  What you are trying to do is analogous to using a screwdriver to pound in a nail when what you really want is a hammer.  Adjusting the lowpass as you suggest is unlikely to really get what you want.
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.
http://www.phong.org/

LAME 3.96 FINAL vs. 3.90.3 Test

Reply #117 –
Nice try
AFAIK the presets are now just shortcuts to specific combination of switches. According to lame, Insane uses the lowpass at 20500kHz so there is hardly any difference. Extreme has lowpass at 19500kHz - no big difference either. But my point was, that lame ignores the high lowpasses anyway since 3.94b, at least in vbr.  I believe, that the main reason for at least 20kHz lowpass is to prevent aliasing. But I don't know of any reason why to go under 20kHz if you want maximum (but lossy) quality.
Moreover both pe and pi uses qval=3, if that's of any significance, than it should use faster/lower quality algorithms than qval=0 (according to lame --longhelp).

And definitely, if I can ABX lame 3.96 vs. original, there is certainly some deficiency in
Quote
preserving sounds that are audible to the human ear
.

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 3.96 -p. insane (319k) vs. wav (the same sample 2)
much better job in HF on this sample. (probably due to cbr?)
ABX 3/8

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

While this seems to be more issue of vbr vs. cbr, i think it's just one of the factors that has influence on the encoding of HF.

LAME 3.96 FINAL vs. 3.90.3 Test

Reply #118 –
I have troubles with this sample. It has artefacts like clicks or something. Version 3.90.2 produced this artefacts also and it was solved with the -Z option or 3.90.3. But 3.94, 3.95.1 and also 3.96 produces the artefacts again, however at a lower level.

The artefacts can be heard at 0:09 and 0:24 sec.

PieterS

LAME 3.96 FINAL vs. 3.90.3 Test

Reply #119 –
Lame only encodes high frequencies if they are higher than the ATH level. So if they have enough energy, they will be preserved.

LAME 3.96 FINAL vs. 3.90.3 Test

Reply #120 –
Quote
And definitely, if I can ABX lame 3.96 vs. original, there is certainly some deficiency in
Quote
preserving sounds that are audible to the human ear
.

The problem is that you are using an equalizer to accentuate high frequencies. Do you normally use this equalizer setting when you are listening to music? If not it is not really a fair test. As it has been said lossy codecs must throw away some information. By accentuating these high frequencies you are accentuating sounds that are normally masked by much louder, lower frequency sounds. If this is the equalizer you use normally then forget about this comment... If not, try to to see if you can ABX it under normal conditions as well.

EDIT: Ah, equalizer is only used after encoding on sample 1? OK, then sample 2 is interesting, at least theoretically.

The tricky part is to throw away information that is not audible. There are several ways of doing this, cutting high frequencies is only one of them. Even trickier is finding the right combination of all these methods (of throwing information away) to give you the best possible perceived quality at a certain bitrate. For this reason the presets were invented and tested very thoroughly. During this heavy testing it was clear that slightly lowering the low pass frequency to give more bits to encode lower frequencies was very benificial for perceived quality. Not very unexpteced as it is known that the human ear is most sensitive to lower (but not to low..) frequencies, and since high frequencies cost a lot of bits to encode. It is vital to understand that increasing the low pass frequency while not increasing bitrate, will always lead to decreased quality, since less bits are available for encoding contenty in the important areas (mid-frequencies). So if you want the best possible quality (regardless of bitrate) --preset insane would be the best choice.

What I am trying to say is that by increasing the headroom, by increasing the lowpass you are actually decreasing the headroom for lower frequencies. It is however a very good idea to have some extra headroom (more generally speaking), since a setting that is sufficient for one tune, may not be sufficient for another. Why not try ABX:ing some of the presets and then choose one preset higher than you were able to ABX?

Finally, however you have a point that with 3.95 and later lame overrides a lot of settings since the presets have been mapped to -b and -V. The reason for this is for newbies who only use -b and -V to get the best possible quality. You may be able to get around this by switching the order of the switches in your commandline. But as I have said above, I am not recommending it...

LAME 3.96 FINAL vs. 3.90.3 Test

Reply #121 –
Quote
P.S. I know that many ppl don't recognize anything above 18kHz, but my limit is around that 18kHz and
I want just some secure headroom.

That's a totally meaningless statement.

Psychoacoustic codecs try to preserve something that sounds the same, not something that is the same.

You're thinking "OK, so I can hear up to ~18kHz, the codec seems to keep things up to ~18kHz, but I'll try and make it keep thing up to ~20kHz, so I've got a little headroom".

Quote
I want just some secure headroom. e.g. for better subconscious feelings or some virtual 3D decoding.
Musepack is HF-friendly too.


1. Musepack won't keep inaudible high frequency content unless you force it to.
2. Your high frequency hearing won't improve as you get older (though your equipment might) - if you can't hear above 18kHz on full range equipment now, you won't be able to in the future
3. Ultrasonic signals are irrelevant to virtual 3-D decoding
4. The idea that inaudible signals effect subconscious feelings is almost certainly rubbish (at least in terms of psychoacoustic based codecs - when people say "there's no audible difference, but it feels different man!", people here usually listen to the sample and find a huge ABXable audible difference!), but if you believe there's any truth in it, then "use lossless" is the only answer! Really!
5. If you really want "headroom", think about what mp3 encoding is doing in the audible range
6. Remember that mp3 and lame are not perfect. Pushing for a little "headroom" could make the imperfections go away, or it could add more - e.g. forcing it to use bits in places where it doesn't need to at the expense of areas where it does
7. If you're going to use graphs and ignore your ears, you've landed at the wrong forum!


btw, if you're going to try wild 3-D surround decoding, joint stereo is probably the last thing you should be using. However, if you're aiming for transparent encoding of the greatest number of samples for normal stereo listening (no graphs involved) then the most tested settings are the ones to go with.

There are some good graphs vs ears threads in the FAQ, which explain very carefully how you can have two signals that look identical on a spectral analysis, whilst sounding quite different, yet have two signals that look very different on a spectral analysis, whilst sounding identical. You have to under stand the tools you're using, and human ears.

Finally, it's quite funny if you've been using that command line since 3.90.3, because (I suspect) it'll be audibly worse that --alt-preset standard for certain types of sounds. Without the internal hacks of --alt-preset standard, the nspsy model has some weaknesses in 3.90.3. Forcing the bitrate ever higher may hide these for all but the most extreme samples, but then you might as well use 320kbps CBR - that'll give you all the headroom that mp3 has to offer!

Hope this helps.

Cheers,
David.

(btw, you did spot the genuine answer to your question from Gabriel, didn't you?)

LAME 3.96 FINAL vs. 3.90.3 Test

Reply #122 –
>ATHawk

I don't think that shifting the lowpass filter up to 21 kHz will improve quality (that means overall quality, not just high frequencies) with LAME, quite the opposite.

I went into some tests with LAME and black/doom metal songs and found out that it was actually better to lower the transition frequency to about 18.5 kHz at 192 kbits (default is, i think, 19.3 kHz at this bitrate).
If the lowpass frequency was too high, a hat (and other hi-freq percussions) could easilly eat up a reasonable portion of the bitstream, leaving snare, toms and guitars choking... Which was a disappointment.

You simply can't have everything, LAME ain't Musepack. 

MP3 (LAME) is nearly perfect for portables (thanks to great MP3 support), but i am rather skeptic about using LAME (even at high bitrates) for archival purposes...
If you want an archive copy of a CD, go Musepack/braindead or go lossless.

>added: Well, i see i ain't very fast writer, someone wrote the same while i was writing this... 

LAME 3.96 FINAL vs. 3.90.3 Test

Reply #123 –
what does this have to do with testing 3.90.3 vs. 3.96 ? Thread-Split?

- Lyx
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.