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: Harpsichord encoding: LAME standard vs extreme (Read 5342 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Harpsichord encoding: LAME standard vs extreme

Hi,

I am going to start encoding my whole collection of lossless files into lossy format for playback on my iPod and iTunes. My question is: will the LAME extreme preset give better results than standard?

Two things are bugging me:

1. I suppose that there will not be any difference when using my iPod, but, what if I connect my computer to a good amp and a good set of speakers? I don't have these yet, so I cannot do a blind test for the moment. Secondly, I could use my lossless files for playback on my computer, but I like managing my collection with iTunes, and this will save me a lot of space (I have about 600 Gigas of music)
2. What about LAME encoding for instruments like a harpsichord (I have many recordings ofthis instrument and it's the one I play, so good quality is needed), or a good recording of an orchestra? Should I go for the insane preset (my iPod is 4G, I think it does not have the distortion problem at high bitrates found in 3G iPods).

Thanks

Harpsichord encoding: LAME standard vs extreme

Reply #1 –
preset extreme will give you better quality, but you'll most likely never hear the difference using speakers with usual household background noise. you'd have to abx that just to be sure.

Harpsichord encoding: LAME standard vs extreme

Reply #2 –
Preset extreme works well for me for classical music.  With harpsichord recordings, the only time I've noticed (slight) encoding artifacts is with rips of older analog recordings (e.g. Leonhardt 60's and 70's recordings.)  Otherwise, harpsichord (and everything else) recordings sound amazingly good on my iPod using preset extreme mp3s.

Harpsichord encoding: LAME standard vs extreme

Reply #3 –
Sadly I can't tell the difference between most originals and any lame encoding above 128kbps (most of the time). Although I definitely can tell a difference if I've only been hearing the MP3 compressed version for a while, and then I hear a lossless version.

The difference is almost like when you buy new speakers/headphones and you constantly think you hear "more" of the sound, even if it isn't artifacts.

And no, I am not violating TOS#8.. ;-)

Harpsichord encoding: LAME standard vs extreme

Reply #4 –
I haven't seen any ABX proof that preset extreme performs better than standard.

Harpsichord encoding: LAME standard vs extreme

Reply #6 –
In the *extremely* rare instance that --preset standard is not transparent on a sample, it will probably still not be transparent at a higher bitrate, either. --preset standard is designed to be the only MP3 encoder setting you will ever need, don't question it.

Harpsichord encoding: LAME standard vs extreme

Reply #7 –
Quote
I haven't seen any ABX proof that preset extreme performs better than standard.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[a href="http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=7783&view=findpost&p=77456]http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....indpost&p=77456[/url]

I've compared some times standard and extreme presets with lame on harpsichord (I also have a lot of recordings), and noticed that --standard usually perform badly on this instrument, and extreme better (but it's not transparent - and not really good too on some samples).
For harpsichord, I wouldn't use mp3 (and not lame). WMA is nevertheless extremely good, even the standard encoder.

Harpsichord encoding: LAME standard vs extreme

Reply #8 –
Quote
I haven't seen any ABX proof that preset extreme performs better than standard.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


You should look harder!

[a href="http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=7783&view=findpost&p=77456]http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....indpost&p=77456[/url]

This is for lame version 3.90.2 though - no idea how the current (very different) lame version performs.


If I was critical, I wouldn't encode close miked solo harpsichord music for listening to via headphones using mp3. If I had to use mp3, I'd use api (320kbps CBR). I find this transparent (guruboolez doesn't always) but it's a high bitrate for a lossy file!

For harpsichords recorded in different acoustics, or with an orchestra, aps mp3 can be fine (to my ears).

Cheers,
David.

EDIT: DOH!!!!!!! Sorry to duplicate your post guru! I honestly didn't see it, I just went off searching for the -Z thread when I saw westgroveg's comment. Now I feel stupid - it seems I should look harder too!!!

Harpsichord encoding: LAME standard vs extreme

Reply #9 –
Quote
Quote
I haven't seen any ABX proof that preset extreme performs better than standard.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[a href="http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=7783&view=findpost&p=77456]http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....indpost&p=77456[/url]

I've compared some times standard and extreme presets with lame on harpsichord (I also have a lot of recordings), and noticed that --standard usually perform badly on this instrument, and extreme better (but it's not transparent - and not really good too on some samples).
For harpsichord, I wouldn't use mp3 (and not lame). WMA is nevertheless extremely good, even the standard encoder.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=240715"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


What version of lame were you using? I thought wma sounded better than the older 3.90.3 lame but not the newer 3.96.1.
 

Harpsichord encoding: LAME standard vs extreme

Reply #10 –
This discussion is too old; I can't therefore remember all details. Sorry.