Skip to main content
Topic: LAME 3.96 FINAL vs. 3.90.3 Test (Read 122701 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

LAME 3.96 FINAL vs. 3.90.3 Test

Reply #75
Quote
but no matter if someone can verify your results: Do you have some numbers about how much adding --athaa-sensitivity 1 increases bitrate - maybe it's so much that we would have to use -V 6 with it instead of -V 5 to get 128kbps on average...

Apart the -V5 setting 128 Kbps target, i've posted my subjective impression about  HF problems. Adding --athaa-sensitivity 1, bitrate increase seems very small and some problems are noticeably reduced. Nevertheless, bitrate should not be the main problem because even plain -V4 (--preset medium) has more HF problems than -V5 --athaa-sensitivity 1 (see bayle sample)... maybe this switch could be useful for mid-low bitrate VBR tuning, not only for a setting around 128 kbps.
WavPack 4.3 -mfx5
LAME 3.97 -V5 --vbr-new --athaa-sensitivity 1

LAME 3.96 FINAL vs. 3.90.3 Test

Reply #76
CORRECTION:

For drone_short, 3.96 -V1 is not better overall than 3.96 pe--it just hides one particular artifact better. I did not mean to imply that it is better overall, as it suffers from louder "air rush" artifacts than pe...

Also, I have verified fatboy at --preset standard...

LAME 3.96 FINAL vs. 3.90.3 Test

Reply #77
Quote
CORRECTION:

For drone_short, 3.96 -V1 is not better overall than 3.96 pe--it just hides one particular artifact better. I did not mean to imply that it is better overall, as it suffers from louder "air rush" artifacts than pe...

Also, I have verified fatboy at --preset standard...

uhm, --preset extreme and -V1 are exactly the same thing using 3.96. Am I missing something?

Did you ABX?

LAME 3.96 FINAL vs. 3.90.3 Test

Reply #78
Quote
Quote
CORRECTION:

For drone_short, 3.96 -V1 is not better overall than 3.96 pe--it just hides one particular artifact better. I did not mean to imply that it is better overall, as it suffers from louder "air rush" artifacts than pe...

Also, I have verified fatboy at --preset standard...

uhm, --preset extreme and -V1 are exactly the same thing using 3.96. Am I missing something?

You are indeed.

--preset extreme is the same as -V0, --preset standard is the same as -V2.

I haven't ABXed it, but I suppose I could if somebody thinks it important.

Edit: wording

LAME 3.96 FINAL vs. 3.90.3 Test

Reply #79
ah, forgot there was a -V0

LAME 3.96 FINAL vs. 3.90.3 Test

Reply #80
[proxima]:

How does 3.96 -V5 --athaa-sensitivity 1 compare in a direct comparison with 3.90.2/3 ap 128 for the 12 samples?

ff123

LAME 3.96 FINAL vs. 3.90.3 Test

Reply #81
Quote
How does 3.96 -V5 --athaa-sensitivity 1 compare in a direct comparison with 3.90.2/3 ap 128 for the 12 samples?

I never compared the two directly. Regarding -V5 vs. 3.90.2 --ap 128 tests i've done, i think that the VBR setting is very good for some samples (i.e. preecho) but quite worse in others (mainly low volume samples) because of HF problems. But the point is that i think "--athaa-sensitivity 1" could help with ringing related problems.

I have to do a direct comparison but i'm quite hopeful that the new VBR setting will perform closest or even better than --ap 128 with 3.90.2
WavPack 4.3 -mfx5
LAME 3.97 -V5 --vbr-new --athaa-sensitivity 1

LAME 3.96 FINAL vs. 3.90.3 Test

Reply #82
Quote
,Apr 22 2004, 01:33 PM]
Quote
How does 3.96 -V5 --athaa-sensitivity 1 compare in a direct comparison with 3.90.2/3 ap 128 for the 12 samples?

I never compared the two directly. Regarding -V5 vs. 3.90.2 --ap 128 tests i've done, i think that the VBR setting is very good for some samples (i.e. preecho) but quite worse in others (mainly low volume samples) because of HF problems. But the point is that i think "--athaa-sensitivity 1" could help with ringing related problems.

I have to do a direct comparison but i'm quite hopeful that the new VBR setting will perform closest or even better than --ap 128 with 3.90.2

That's why I asked.  If it turns out that -V5 --athaa-sensitivity 1 beats out 3.90.2 --ap 128 in a side by side comparison over many samples, then that setting should be used in Roberto's test, assuming the bitrate is ok

ff123

LAME 3.96 FINAL vs. 3.90.3 Test

Reply #83
Posts discussing technical details about --athaa-sensitivity 1 switch split to this thread. Posts related to testing or mixed ones stay here.
Let's suppose that rain washes out a picnic. Who is feeling negative? The rain? Or YOU? What's causing the negative feeling? The rain or your reaction? - Anthony De Mello



LAME 3.96 FINAL vs. 3.90.3 Test

Reply #86
so were there any conclusions drawn from this test.. Which one won 3.96 or good old 3.90.3. In particular with the -aps preset.

LAME 3.96 FINAL vs. 3.90.3 Test

Reply #87
Quote
so were there any conclusions drawn from this test.. Which one won 3.96 or good old 3.90.3. In particular with the -aps preset.

I don't think there were enough responses for a valid answer, either way. Personally, I would like to test some more, but I've been caught up with trying to graduate from school...

3.96 definitely improved some samples over 3.90.3, but also regressed in others. That's about all we know.

LAME 3.96 FINAL vs. 3.90.3 Test

Reply #88
Quote
3.96 definitely improved some samples over 3.90.3, but also regressed in others. That's about all we know.

and it does that at a much lower bitrate!
--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 #89
Quote
Quote
3.96 definitely improved some samples over 3.90.3, but also regressed in others. That's about all we know.

and it does that at a much lower bitrate!

I have encoded a lot of albums (e.g. older Pink Floyd) where actually LAME 3.96 produces higher bitrate than LAME 3.90.3

LAME 3.96 FINAL vs. 3.90.3 Test

Reply #90
I'm slowly reencoding my ~300CD collection right now in 3.96... once i get an acceptible sample size i'll let you people know what the average bitrate cost or savings is with the newer version.

LAME 3.96 FINAL vs. 3.90.3 Test

Reply #91
I've encoded a few hundred CD's now with 3.96. Overall I would say the filesize is bigger on about 50% of the material, and smaller on about 50% of the material.

In other words, it's the same when doing a large collection that consists of varying types of music.
flac>fb2k>kernel streaming>audiophile 2496>magni>dt990 pro

LAME 3.96 FINAL vs. 3.90.3 Test

Reply #92
Quote
I have encoded a lot of albums (e.g. older Pink Floyd) where actually LAME 3.96 produces higher bitrate than LAME 3.90.3

well, I noticed a bitrate increase on tracks with mainly ss frames, like Beatles or Pink Floyd.
Sometimes 3.96 --preset medium produces higher bitrates than 3.90 APS

LAME 3.96 FINAL vs. 3.90.3 Test

Reply #93
So i won't loose anything by switching to 3.96, right? Only that the encoding will be considerable faster on my P233MMX!

LAME 3.96 FINAL vs. 3.90.3 Test

Reply #94
Quote
So i won't loose anything by switching to 3.96, right? Only that the encoding will be considerable faster on my P233MMX!

that's right!
--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 #95
right. faster
+better on some samples
+worse on others

(refer to "Recommended Encoder" sticky...)


later

LAME 3.96 FINAL vs. 3.90.3 Test

Reply #96
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
r3mix zealot.

LAME 3.96 FINAL vs. 3.90.3 Test

Reply #97
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

LAME 3.96 FINAL vs. 3.90.3 Test

Reply #98
Tried and true is all I have to say.
r3mix zealot.

LAME 3.96 FINAL vs. 3.90.3 Test

Reply #99
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

actually, if i understood gabriel in another thread correctly, then 4.0 will have even more switches removed - for a good reason.

However, could be that i misunderstood him - but i think i didn't.

For further explanations on the "why" a longer commandline not necessarily improves quality, refer to the ha.org mp3 FAQ.
- Lyx
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.

 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2019