I found a couple of tracks that are easy to ABX on LAME 3.97 -V 2 --vbr-new while I found it hard and failed to do on LAME 3.90.3 --alt-preset standard.
Metallica - Until It Sleeps [Load]
foo_abx 1.3.1 report
foobar2000 v0.9.4.4
2007/10/08 21:21:38
File A: F:\Listen Tests\Untli It Sleeps.wav
File B: F:\Listen Tests\Untli It Sleeps LAME 3.97 V2.mp3
21:21:38 : Test started.
21:22:18 : 01/01 50.0%
21:22:33 : 02/02 25.0%
21:22:48 : 03/03 12.5%
21:23:12 : 04/04 6.3%
21:23:34 : 05/05 3.1%
21:23:37 : Test finished.
----------
Total: 5/5 (3.1%)
Makes a metallic warbling noise on the drums at around 2.14 - 2.20.
Fear Factory - New Breed (Spoetnik Mix) [Hatefiles]
foo_abx 1.3.1 report
foobar2000 v0.9.4.4
2007/10/08 20:38:49
File A: F:\Listen Tests\New Breed (Spoetnik Mix).wav
File B: F:\Listen Tests\New Breed (Spoetnik Mix) LAME3.97 V2.mp3
20:38:49 : Test started.
20:39:33 : 01/01 50.0%
20:40:07 : 02/02 25.0%
20:41:21 : 03/03 12.5%
20:41:35 : 04/04 6.3%
20:41:58 : 05/05 3.1%
20:42:59 : Test finished.
----------
Total: 5/5 (3.1%)
Metallic warbling and precho at the start, while sounds transparent on LAME 3.90.
can you please provide the WAV samples in lossless compressed format ( 30 seconds max ).
can you please provide the WAV samples in lossless compressed format ( 30 seconds max ).
Yeah i could, but it might effect the problem though.
How? Lossless compression is bit for bit identical to the WAV.
How? Lossless compression is bit for bit identical to the WAV.
The encoding behavior would change dramatic when encoding from a 30 sec instead of the full track, thats what i ment the 30 sec sample might reduce used bits on the bit reservoir.
21:21:38 : Test started.
21:22:18 : 01/01 50.0%
21:22:33 : 02/02 25.0%
21:22:48 : 03/03 12.5%
21:23:12 : 04/04 6.3%
21:23:34 : 05/05 3.1%
21:23:37 : Test finished.
----------
Total: 5/5 (3.1%)
Fischer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Fisher) would call this coincidence.
Metallica - Until It Sleeps sample:
http://www.sendspace.com/file/hk6ijp (http://www.sendspace.com/file/hk6ijp)
Fear Factory - New Breed (Spoetnik Mix) sample:
http://www.sendspace.com/file/nq60re (http://www.sendspace.com/file/nq60re)
We should be only testing 3.98 vs 3.97 and not test 3.90 any more.
Why not? If it's possible 3.90 performs better in some situations, the problem should be analyzed and fixed so that the new versions are the best they can be.
If it's possible 3.90 performs better in some situations, the problem should be analyzed and fixed so that the new versions are the best they can be.
I agree completely, but maybe it would be more helpful if these samples were checked using 3.98 instead of 3.97 since that's the version currently in development.
--alt-preset standard = --vbr-old
--alt-preset fast standard = --vbr-new
You were testing 3.90 vbr-rh (old) vs 3.97 mtrh (new).To get a better picture one should test:
3.97 -V2 --vbr-new vs 3.90 --alt-preset fast standard
3.97 -V2 --vbr-old vs 3.90 --alt-preset standard
Testing 3.90 is problematic to me as the stable version is 3.97 and current version is 3.98. If 3.90 is any reference then are 3.92, 3.93, 3.94, 3.95 , 3.96 any less valid and they should also be tested ?. the other issue is what the hell is the point ? Should we also start testing Vorbis 1.01 ? MPC 0.9, WMA 7, Psytel AAC ?
I agree with shadowking. 3.90 APS should be abx'ed by the OP vs. 3.97 -V2 old method (and most would say 3.98, but may be both old and new method as well).
It has been already noted in the wiki however that the new algorithm may suffer in quality vs. faster speed as compared to the old method.
It has been already noted in the wiki however that the new algorithm may suffer in quality vs. faster speed as compared to the old method.
In some cases its true. I was nearly going to use 'old' but then discovered a range of samples where new is better. Can't make up my mind. I stuck with new - its quicker, not worse overall and is now default.
We should be only testing 3.98 vs 3.97 and not test 3.90 any more.
Why? I don't see anything wrong with using 3.90 as a reference point for comparison. Version 3.98 is our current development branch, feedback for it is always welcome.
I did the abx again on the full track since the sample i uploaded has not been affected.
LAME 3.97 -V 2 --vbr-newfoo_abx 1.3.1 report
foobar2000 v0.9.4.4
2007/10/09 11:53:22
File A: F:\Listen Tests\Untli It Sleeps.wav
File B: F:\Listen Tests\Untli It Sleeps LAME 3.97 V2.mp3
11:53:22 : Test started.
11:54:03 : 01/01 50.0%
11:54:23 : 02/02 25.0%
11:54:41 : 03/03 12.5%
11:54:54 : 04/04 6.3%
11:55:16 : 05/05 3.1%
11:55:38 : 06/06 1.6%
11:55:51 : 07/07 0.8%
11:56:09 : 08/08 0.4%
11:56:32 : 09/09 0.2%
11:56:50 : 10/10 0.1%
11:57:54 : 11/11 0.0%
11:58:06 : 12/12 0.0%
11:58:10 : Test finished.
----------
Total: 12/12 (0.0%)
The artifact goes away at -V0, but its not present on LAME 3.90.3 and LAME 3.98b5 at V2 or APS.
LAME 3.98 beta 5 -V 2foo_abx 1.3.1 report
foobar2000 v0.9.4.4
2007/10/09 12:03:32
File A: F:\Listen Tests\Untli It Sleeps.wav
File B: F:\Listen Tests\Untli It Sleeps (LAME 3.98b5 V2).mp3
12:03:32 : Test started.
12:04:10 : 01/01 50.0%
12:04:31 : 01/02 75.0%
12:04:38 : 02/03 50.0%
12:04:42 : 02/04 68.8%
12:04:56 : 03/05 50.0%
12:04:59 : 03/06 65.6%
12:05:16 : 03/07 77.3%
12:05:21 : 03/08 85.5%
12:05:27 : 03/09 91.0%
12:05:31 : 04/10 82.8%
12:05:49 : 04/11 88.7%
12:05:53 : 05/12 80.6%
12:06:52 : Test finished.
----------
Total: 5/12 (80.6%)
Nice to see that 3.98b5 is fine, even at -V2.
IMO 3.98b5 has the best vbr quality among all the Lame versions I know (also better than that of 3.90).
As for 3.97 it is known that there are specific issues (most of concern: the 'sandpaper noise' problem found by Wombat) though overall quality is great. The problems existed already with 3.96 though to a minor degree. This is why I preferred 3.90 over 3.97, but with 3.98 things have changed.
Hopefully 3.98 will soon be final and will be the HA recommended version then.
@ the Lame devs: Though I understand well that standard behavior should be so that Lame encoded mp3s are playable using WMP, I'd love to see an option in the final version to allow for an unrestricted or nearly unrestricted use of bit reservoir with 320 kbps frames.
Nice to see that 3.98b5 is fine, even at -V2.
IMO 3.98b5 has the best vbr quality among all the Lame versions I know (also better than that of 3.90).
As for 3.97 it is known that there are specific issues (most of concern: the 'sandpaper noise' problem found by Wombat) though overall quality is great. The problems existed already with 3.96 though to a minor degree. This is why I preferred 3.90 over 3.97, but with 3.98 things have changed.
Hopefully 3.98 will soon be final and will be the HA recommended version then.
@ the lame devs: Though I understand well that standard behavior should be so that Lame encoded mp3s are playable using WMP, I'd love to see an option in the final version to allow for an unrestricted or nearly unrestricted use of bit reservoir with 320 kbps frames.
Yeah I am also hoping that LAME 3.98 will be the new recommended version since that imfamus
sandpaper noise problem on 3.97 while 3.97 was recomended and has gone on LAME 3.98.
Also atleast LAME 3.98 still uses 320 frames for VBR on strict ISO mode unlike Fhg's new mp3 surround encoder (uses 32 - 256 for strict ISO).
--alt-preset standard = --vbr-old
--alt-preset fast standard = --vbr-new
You were testing 3.90 vbr-rh (old) vs 3.97 mtrh (new).To get a better picture one should test:
3.97 -V2 --vbr-new vs 3.90 --alt-preset fast standard
3.97 -V2 --vbr-old vs 3.90 --alt-preset standard
Your attempt to impose these arbitrary rules only hinders future development.
Glad to see that 3.98 --vbr-new is not affected like 3.97 --vbr-new on these samples.
Not rules, Common sense .. vbr engine affects quality. We try to match 2 encoder quality settings unless we are testing one engine vs the other.
We try to match 2 encoder quality settings unless we are testing one engine vs the other.
You used the word "we". Does that mean you're on the development team?
So, if there's a sample that's a problem for --vbr-new that doesn't exist for --vbr-old, then you should just give up?
I think all that he is trying to say is that you don't want to change too many variables at the same time. Either compare --vbr-old vs. --vbr-new in the same lame version, or else compare the same vbr engine in two different versions of lame. Changing both of them doesn't tell you where any difference is coming from.
I actually got that, but this shouldn't be about comparing versions; it should be about improving the new one.
Suppose 3.98 -V2 --vbr-old didn't exhibit the problem but 3.98 -V2 did, do "we" just throw "our" hands up in the air?
I was under the impression that --vbr-new was supposed to supersede --vbr-old, so given the same quality level, -V2 (or standard), the new engine should be just as good as the old engine regardless of the version being tested. Robert seems to think that 3.90 --alt-preset standard is fair game (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=58061&view=findpost&p=521628), and I'm certain he knows which engine is being used in each version.
I was under the impression that --vbr-new was supposed to supersede --vbr-old, so given the same quality level, -V2 (or standard), the new engine should be just as good as the old engine regardless of the version being tested.
--vbr-new superiority is much more an
overall one than a constant, systematical one. The same apply to most comparisons (vbr vs cbr, 3.90 vs 3.98, 3.97 vs 3.98, etc...). Strong progress usually contains some regress (the opposite -
few progress for global regression- also works very well).
I supposes that one part of the hard-job for developers is to correct some occasional issues without breaking everything.
how long until 3.98b is 3.98 final? it's about the same time last year the final lame was released... and I don't see any news updates on the changelog from lame.....
I absolutely agree with you, guruboolez, but this doesn't mean that people should be dissuaded from bringing attention to killer samples if they don't fit someone else's notion of common sense.
I found a artifact on another mp3 i have on my computer that has been encoded on LAME 3.97 -V 2 --vbr-new.
LAME 3.97 -V 2 --vbr-newfoo_abx 1.3.1 report
foobar2000 v0.9.4.4
2007/10/09 22:30:24
File A: F:\Listen Tests\Enter Sandman.flac
File B: E:\Music\Albums\Metallica - Metallica\01. Metallica - Enter Sandman.mp3
22:30:24 : Test started.
22:31:51 : 01/01 50.0%
22:32:09 : 02/02 25.0%
22:32:25 : 03/03 12.5%
22:32:52 : 04/04 6.3%
22:33:19 : 05/05 3.1%
22:33:38 : 06/06 1.6%
22:33:49 : 07/07 0.8%
22:34:25 : 08/08 0.4%
22:34:44 : 09/09 0.2%
22:34:55 : 10/10 0.1%
22:35:28 : 11/11 0.0%
22:35:45 : 12/12 0.0%
22:36:00 : Test finished.
----------
Total: 12/12 (0.0%)
A precho at drums at around 4:22.
LAME 3.98 Beta 5 -V 2foo_abx 1.3.1 report
foobar2000 v0.9.4.4
2007/10/09 22:59:40
File A: F:\Listen Tests\Enter Sandman.flac
File B: F:\Listen Tests\Enter Sandman V2 LAME3.98b5.mp3
22:59:40 : Test started.
23:00:54 : 00/01 100.0%
23:01:21 : 01/02 75.0%
23:01:36 : 01/03 87.5%
23:02:42 : 02/04 68.8%
23:03:04 : 02/05 81.3%
23:03:48 : 03/06 65.6%
23:05:09 : 04/07 50.0%
23:05:21 : 05/08 36.3%
23:06:16 : 06/09 25.4%
23:06:38 : 07/10 17.2%
23:07:27 : 08/11 11.3%
23:08:00 : 08/12 19.4%
23:08:32 : Test finished.
----------
Total: 8/12 (19.4%)
LAME 3.90.3 --alt-preset standardfoo_abx 1.3.1 report
foobar2000 v0.9.4.4
2007/10/09 22:51:41
File A: F:\Listen Tests\Enter Sandman.flac
File B: F:\Listen Tests\Enter Sandman LAME3.90 APS.mp3
22:51:41 : Test started.
22:52:55 : 01/01 50.0%
22:53:39 : 01/02 75.0%
22:54:07 : 02/03 50.0%
22:54:27 : 02/04 68.8%
22:54:35 : 03/05 50.0%
22:54:51 : 03/06 65.6%
22:55:07 : 04/07 50.0%
22:55:22 : 05/08 36.3%
22:55:49 : 06/09 25.4%
22:56:06 : 06/10 37.7%
22:56:13 : 07/11 27.4%
22:56:34 : 08/12 19.4%
22:57:20 : Test finished.
----------
Total: 8/12 (19.4%)
hey /mnt... can you ABX these with Nero AAC at -q 5.5
hey /mnt... can you ABX these with Nero AAC at -q 5.5
I'll give it a try.
I did a quick test with Nero AAC encoder.
I used:
Nero AAC codec / Feb 12 2007
since I found a killer sample on the latest version.
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=56849 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=56849)
Nero AAC codec / Feb 12 2007 -q0.55foo_abx 1.3.1 report
foobar2000 v0.9.4.4
2007/10/09 23:34:06
File A: F:\Listen Tests\Until It Sleeps.wav
File B: F:\Listen Tests\Until It Sleeps.mp4
23:34:06 : Test started.
3:35:22 : 00/01 100.0%
23:35:48 : 00/02 100.0%
23:36:02 : 01/03 87.5%
23:36:31 : 02/04 68.8%
23:36:44 : 03/05 50.0%
23:37:01 : 03/06 65.6%
23:37:34 : 04/07 50.0%
23:38:06 : 04/08 63.7%
23:38:35 : 04/09 74.6%
23:38:48 : 04/10 82.8%
23:39:01 : 05/11 72.6%
23:39:14 : 05/12 80.6%
23:39:17 : Test finished.
----------
Total: 5/12 (80.6%)
I had trouble with that one.
Nero AAC codec / Feb 12 2007 -q0.55foo_abx 1.3.1 report
foobar2000 v0.9.4.4
2007/10/09 23:49:53
File A: F:\Listen Tests\Enter Sandman.flac
File B: F:\Listen Tests\Enter Sandman.mp4
23:49:53 : Test started.
23:51:00 : 01/01 50.0%
23:51:35 : 01/02 75.0%
23:51:52 : 02/03 50.0%
23:52:30 : 03/04 31.3%
23:52:45 : 03/05 50.0%
23:52:54 : 04/06 34.4%
23:53:28 : 05/07 22.7%
23:54:06 : 06/08 14.5%
23:54:39 : 07/09 9.0%
23:55:21 : 07/10 17.2%
23:55:49 : 08/11 11.3%
23:56:31 : 09/12 7.3%
23:56:47 : Test finished.
----------
Total: 9/12 (7.3%)
Kept hearing a weird noise at around 4:22 - 4:30 possible metallic warbling.
heavy metal / hard rock is usually very difficult for me to ABX it - the genre I find the easier to ABX is synthpop/electronic...
i feel like giving up on lossy codecs for good, and just sit here in silence on my own until -something- plays flac off an optical disc.
heavy metal / hard rock is usually very difficult for me to ABX it - the genre I find the easier to ABX is synthpop/electronic...
i feel like giving up on lossy codecs for good, and just sit here in silence on my own until -something- plays flac off an optical disc.
Yeah Metal and Rock is hard to ABX since sometimes the drums sound like metallic warbling such as Seek And Destroy by Metallica which has warbling sound like noises like it from a 64kpbs mp3 and the high freq noises from metal tracks does not help aswell
I might move to lossless soon if a lossless format becomes a norm like mp3, which FLAC might end being a stardard lossless or Fhg MPEG4 ALS.
But at the mean time i might re-rip everything to -V0 --vbr-new or use Nero AAC at -q0.65 since it gives the bitrate results as LAME -V 0 or -q 0.6.
i feel like giving up on lossy codecs for good, and just sit here in silence on my own until -something- plays flac off an optical disc.
That is a radical approach.
Does the artifact bother you that much? I mean, when listening casually artifacts are not that annoying to me (especially at V2). Most of the time I cannot hear them, only if I really concentrate.
You know, music is supposed to be a pleasant experience but if you keep listening trying to spot flaws in the encoding it becomes an unpleasant thing. Just relax and enjoy the music.
Training to spot artifacts is a one-way ticket - I'm not totally in peace until I know it's lossless
Dam I found another one, which i picked up on my crappy apple earpods from my ipod.
LAME 3.97 -V 2 --vbr-newfoo_abx 1.3.1 report
foobar2000 v0.9.4.4
2007/10/10 13:53:34
File A: F:\Listen Tests\My Friend Of Misery.flac
File B: E:\Music\Albums\Metallica - Metallica\11. Metallica - My Friend Of Misery.mp3
13:53:34 : Test started.
13:55:22 : 01/01 50.0%
13:55:52 : 02/02 25.0%
13:56:54 : 03/03 12.5%
13:57:09 : 04/04 6.3%
13:57:53 : 05/05 3.1%
13:59:02 : 06/06 1.6%
13:59:45 : 07/07 0.8%
14:00:08 : 08/08 0.4%
14:01:20 : 08/09 2.0%
14:02:32 : 09/10 1.1%
14:03:08 : 10/11 0.6%
14:03:45 : 11/12 0.3%
14:03:48 : Test finished.
----------
Total: 11/12 (0.3%)
Preecho at drums at 3:22
LAME 3.98 Beta 5 -V 2foo_abx 1.3.1 report
foobar2000 v0.9.4.4
2007/10/10 14:12:06
File A: F:\Listen Tests\My Friend Of Misery.flac
File B: F:\Listen Tests\My Friend Of Misery LAME3.98b5 V2.mp3
14:12:06 : Test started.
14:13:51 : 01/01 50.0%
14:14:03 : 02/02 25.0%
14:14:21 : 02/03 50.0%
14:14:29 : 03/04 31.3%
14:14:59 : 04/05 18.8%
14:15:15 : 05/06 10.9%
14:15:46 : 06/07 6.3%
14:17:00 : 07/08 3.5%
14:17:25 : 07/09 9.0%
14:17:38 : 08/10 5.5%
14:18:06 : 09/11 3.3%
14:18:18 : 10/12 1.9%
14:18:24 : Test finished.
----------
Total: 10/12 (1.9%)
The preecho is still there but its harder to hear then the LAME 3.97 version.
I did a abx with the track at V0 on LAME 3.97 and got 7/12, the precho was still there but very hard to hear.
Also some of the tracks i abx showed that LAME 3.98 was better then LAME 3.97 and for some reason -V 2 is not transparent to me anymore, which is kinda odd.
I wouldn't reencode to a higher mp3 setting if preecho is a major issue. Go with lossless or very high bitrate hybrid lossy 450..550 k (zero preecho). Try the new lossywav if you have time.
I have Lossless image files on DVDRs as my backup and I just copy them onto the harddrive and convert them to whatever lossy format will work best on my DAP. Currently I use Lame 3.98b5 -v1 -vbr-new but it may change due to quality reasons (i.e. get quality with a smaller size in a different format or improvements in Lame) so I can swing with these changes with no trouble at all by just popping in a DVD and converting the image file into whatever I need through foobar2000.
*Results may vary*
FYI,
Image file is made from a EAC Secure extraction with Cuesheet, wav file and EAC Log, if the covers are rare to find on the internet I scan and embed them into the file.
Have you tried ABXing -v1 in comparison to -v2 in 3.98b5?
Dam I found another one, which i picked up on my crappy apple earpods from my ipod.
How does it sound with 3.90 --alt-preset standard?
Have you tried ABXing -v1 in comparison to -v2 in 3.98b5?
I did a quick test on that setting
LAME 3.97 -V 1 --vbr-newfoo_abx 1.3.1 report
foobar2000 v0.9.4.4
2007/10/10 20:26:01
File A: F:\Listen Tests\Until It Sleeps LAME3.97 V1.mp3
File B: F:\Listen Tests\Until It Sleeps.wav
20:26:01 : Test started.
20:26:34 : 00/01 100.0%
20:26:59 : 00/02 100.0%
20:27:26 : 00/03 100.0%
20:28:10 : 01/04 93.8%
20:28:37 : 02/05 81.3%
20:29:04 : 02/06 89.1%
20:29:32 : 02/07 93.8%
20:29:46 : 02/08 96.5%
20:30:18 : 03/09 91.0%
20:30:34 : 03/10 94.5%
20:30:54 : 04/11 88.7%
20:31:44 : 04/12 92.7%
20:31:45 : Test finished.
----------
Total: 4/12 (92.7%)
The file size goes up by 1mb and a 30kbps increase. Anyway the annyoing warbling seems to have gone.
Dam I found another one, which i picked up on my crappy apple earpods from my ipod.
How does it sound with 3.90 --alt-preset standard?
LAME 3.90.3 --alt-preset standardfoo_abx 1.3.1 report
foobar2000 v0.9.4.4
2007/10/10 20:09:47
File A: F:\Listen Tests\My Friend Of Misery LAME 3.90 APS.mp3
File B: F:\Listen Tests\My Friend Of Misery.flac
20:09:47 : Test started.
20:10:48 : 01/01 50.0%
20:10:56 : 02/02 25.0%
20:11:09 : 03/03 12.5%
20:12:44 : 03/04 31.3%
20:13:08 : 03/05 50.0%
20:13:48 : 04/06 34.4%
20:13:59 : 05/07 22.7%
20:14:45 : 06/08 14.5%
20:15:17 : 07/09 9.0%
20:15:26 : 08/10 5.5%
20:16:22 : 08/11 11.3%
20:17:53 : 08/12 19.4%
20:17:56 : Test finished.
----------
Total: 8/12 (19.4%)
Its sounds good as the LAME 3.98 encode.
Why is it impossible to create a 30 second extract which still demonstrates the artefact?
I understand the bit reservoir, but maybe it would be sensible to check how that is being used in encoding the full version vs encoding the 30 second clip, before assuming that's the culprit.
I'm sure one of the lame devs can point to a tool which will show what's happening.
Cheers,
David.
Another one a precho again at drums.
LAME 3.97 -V 2 --vbr-newfoo_abx 1.3.1 report
foobar2000 v0.9.4.4
2007/10/11 13:48:42
File A: F:\Listen Tests\Mr Crowley.flac
File B: E:\Music\Albums\Ozzy Osbourne - Blizzard Of Ozz [2002 Remaster]\06. Ozzy Osbourne - Mr. Crowley.mp3
13:48:42 : Test started.
13:49:53 : 01/01 50.0%
13:50:38 : 02/02 25.0%
13:51:28 : 03/03 12.5%
13:51:44 : 04/04 6.3%
13:51:53 : 05/05 3.1%
13:53:16 : 05/06 10.9%
13:54:30 : 06/07 6.3%
13:55:21 : 07/08 3.5%
13:56:38 : 08/09 2.0%
13:57:09 : 09/10 1.1%
13:57:50 : 10/11 0.6%
13:58:08 : 11/12 0.3%
13:58:34 : Test finished.
----------
Total: 11/12 (0.3%)
A precho at drums at near end of the track. My -V 2 --vbr-new transparent bubble has burst
LAME 3.98 -V 2foo_abx 1.3.1 report
foobar2000 v0.9.4.4
2007/10/11 14:03:20
File A: F:\Listen Tests\Mr Crowley.flac
File B: F:\Listen Tests\Mr Crowley LAME 3.98 V2.mp3
14:03:20 : Test started.
14:05:43 : 01/01 50.0%
14:06:13 : 01/02 75.0%
14:06:53 : 01/03 87.5%
14:07:54 : 02/04 68.8%
14:08:17 : 02/05 81.3%
14:09:21 : 03/06 65.6%
14:09:33 : 03/07 77.3%
14:10:33 : 03/08 85.5%
14:10:41 : 03/09 91.0%
14:11:44 : 03/10 94.5%
14:11:52 : 04/11 88.7%
14:13:17 : 05/12 80.6%
14:13:20 : Test finished.
----------
Total: 5/12 (80.6%)
Lot better then LAME 3.97, I had trouble abxing that one.
Another ABX test i just did, sorry for turning this topic into a personal listen test.
The worst artifact i found so far in my mp3 collection and the artifact on that track has been bugging me for months.
LAME 3.97 -V 2 --vbr-newfoo_abx 1.3.1 report
foobar2000 v0.9.4.4
2007/10/11 22:44:02
File A: F:\Listen Tests\Stigmata.flac
File B: E:\Music\Albums\Ministry - The Land Of Rape And Honey\01. Ministry - Stigmata.mp3
22:44:02 : Test started.
22:44:43 : 01/01 50.0%
22:44:53 : 02/02 25.0%
22:45:32 : 03/03 12.5%
22:45:56 : 04/04 6.3%
22:46:19 : 05/05 3.1%
22:46:53 : 06/06 1.6%
22:47:27 : 07/07 0.8%
22:47:49 : 08/08 0.4%
22:48:25 : 09/09 0.2%
22:49:16 : 10/10 0.1%
22:49:42 : 11/11 0.0%
22:50:04 : 12/12 0.0%
22:50:48 : Test finished.
----------
Total: 12/12 (0.0%)
Worst precho artifact I heard so far on -V 2 --vbr-new, but its transparent on -V0 --vbr-new.
LAME 3.90.3 --alt-preset standardfoo_abx 1.3.1 report
foobar2000 v0.9.4.4
2007/10/11 23:21:59
File A: F:\Listen Tests\Stigmata (LAME 3.90.3 APS).mp3
File B: F:\Listen Tests\Stigmata.wav
23:21:59 : Test started.
23:23:07 : 01/01 50.0%
23:23:24 : 02/02 25.0%
23:25:09 : 02/03 50.0%
23:26:13 : 02/04 68.8%
23:26:57 : 02/05 81.3%
23:27:23 : 03/06 65.6%
23:27:33 : 04/07 50.0%
23:27:42 : 05/08 36.3%
23:27:51 : 06/09 25.4%
23:28:06 : 07/10 17.2%
23:28:54 : 08/11 11.3%
23:29:16 : 09/12 7.3%
23:29:17 : Test finished.
----------
Total: 9/12 (7.3%)
Sounds alot better then the LAME 3.97 encode but the artifact is still there but i needed to concentrate to hear it.
LAME 3.98 Beta 5 -V 2foo_abx 1.3.1 report
foobar2000 v0.9.4.4
2007/10/11 23:08:10
File A: F:\Listen Tests\Stigmata.wav
File B: F:\Listen Tests\Stigmata LAME 3.98b5 V2.mp3
23:08:10 : Test started.
23:09:56 : 00/01 100.0%
23:10:37 : 00/02 100.0%
23:11:09 : 01/03 87.5%
23:11:21 : 02/04 68.8%
23:11:29 : 03/05 50.0%
23:11:45 : 04/06 34.4%
23:12:23 : 05/07 22.7%
23:12:33 : 05/08 36.3%
23:12:40 : 05/09 50.0%
23:13:07 : 06/10 37.7%
23:13:40 : 07/11 27.4%
23:14:08 : 08/12 19.4%
23:14:12 : Test finished.
----------
Total: 8/12 (19.4%)
Sounds good as the LAME 3.90.3 encode.