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 -V3 vs -V4? (Read 362 times) previous topic - next topic
Alexander Ostuni and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

LAME -V3 vs -V4?

Hello,
after reading here in the forums, I think -V2 might be transparent enough. But what about -V3 vs-V4 vs -V5? The wiki only says:
Quote
[...] while -V 4 should be close to perceptual transparency.
I'm about to encode my FLAC 24/96* classical music collection to mp3 (should be good enough, no need for Opus or something else at same bitrates, right?), but need to decide whether to go with -V2, -V3, -V4, or maybe even -V5?

* After I have learned that 16/44.1 is all it really needs.

Re: LAME -V3 vs -V4?

Reply #1
after reading here in the forums, I think -V2 might be transparent enough. But what about -V3 vs-V4 vs -V5?
There is only one person that can determine whether any setting is transparent for you, and that is you yourself.

I'd say pick a few music tracks from your collection, convert them to V5 and perform an ABX test. Are all tracks transparant, then you're done, V5 is your setting, or you can try V6. If not, do the same thing with V4 etc.

Whether a setting is transparent depends on your taste in music, your ears, your listening equipment, whether you are hung-over or well-rested etc.
Music: sounds arranged such that they construct feelings.

Re: LAME -V3 vs -V4?

Reply #2
Quote
There is only one person that can determine whether any setting is transparent for you, and that is you yourself.
I have also read this template reply so that's why I had to ask, because it's not reliable enough as you yourself say:
Quote
Whether a setting is transparent depends on your taste in music, your ears, your listening equipment, whether you are hung-over or well-rested etc.

Maybe time to remove this template reply? ;)

Re: LAME -V3 vs -V4?

Reply #3
because it's not reliable enough as you yourself say
That's the most reliable way. If it's not enough for you then use lossless.

Re: LAME -V3 vs -V4?

Reply #4
Since you're in charge of running your own ABX tests, you can easily improve the reliability of the results by only conducting tests when you're feeling alert. If you don't want to run your own tests, just use the recommended settings. Those are really the only two options. Nobody can tell you if V2 is overkill except you.

Re: LAME -V3 vs -V4?

Reply #5
If you're not concerned about file size you can go with a "higher quality" setting, even V0 or 360kbps CBR.      But, we can't really say higher quality if we can't hear a difference.  

More compression (smaller files) is the only reason to choose a higher V-number.

Re: LAME -V3 vs -V4?

Reply #6
There is a reason not to choose a low "quality" even if one cannot hear the difference in testing: you test ten files, you convert a thousand, there is quite some chance that one of the 990 is a bit different.

The solution is simple: keep the originals. Then you haven't once and for all "chosen" the low bitrate. Consider the lossy files disposable. If one of the 990 files sound bad ... replace it. If enough of them do ... run the whole procedure at a higher bitrate. 

Digital music stores can have all sorts of reasons to choose 256/320 kbit/s - high numbers look good and therefore they sound good to customers who hear with their eyes - but one very good reason to go overkill is that you don't want to pay a big listening test panel to find a transparency level for each file.
Last two months' worth of foobar2000.org ad revenue has been donated to support war refugees from Ukraine: https://www.foobar2000.org/

 

Re: LAME -V3 vs -V4?

Reply #7
Those settings usually sound very good or even perfect.
Personally, I see it like this;
With todays storage no reason to go lower than V3 or V2.5 when
you want a smaller file size. 

For me  it takes -V1 ~ 224k to get a robust all round quality.  Also -V2 --vbr-old ~ 190k
works well for some reason. 

Given this, Its not a issue to go -V1 as its still lower filesize than the standard 256 / 320 .
At higher bitrates (200+) I am not sure the files are so 'disposable' . I think It can work even
as one archive.
wavpack -b3.63hhcs.5