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: [Discussion] List of recommended LAME settings (Read 313384 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

[Discussion] List of recommended LAME settings

Reply #100 –
What about a perceived quality vs size graph?

Arbitrarily, I'd give the following quality levels:

--abr 56: 3
--abr 90: 5
-V5: 7
-V4: 8
-V3:8.5
-V2: 8.7
-V0: 9.1
-b 320: 9.2

This is purely informal, but if you trace a graph of perceived quality vs average size, you will probably obtain a nice curve with valuable indication regarding efficiency of the settings.

[Discussion] List of recommended LAME settings

Reply #101 –
Quote
What about a perceived quality vs size graph?

Arbitrarily, I'd give the following quality levels:

--abr 56: 3
--abr 90: 5
-V5: 7
-V4: 8
-V3:8.5
-V2: 8.7
-V0: 9.1
-b 320: 9.2

This is purely informal, but if you trace a graph of perceived quality vs average size, you will probably obtain a nice curve with valuable indication regarding efficiency of the settings.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=329935"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


yes, that as graph would be valid additional info. Can somebody make the graph ?

[Discussion] List of recommended LAME settings

Reply #102 –
Quote
alt-preset elephant

Must have missed that hidden switch...

I think citing -V4 is pointless.  You either make a recommendation at -VX or you don't.  What's wrong with -V3? Or -V1?

I also think citing -V0 is pointless. It's the best quality VBR setting - what more can you say?

If HA wants to recommend -V2 as a standard for home listening and -V5 for portables then I can see some sense in that.  I would possibly also consider some text explaining that HA would recommend performing some tests (link to "how to abx") for the user to discover whether they require -V1, or whether -V3 or -V4 may be perfectly adequate. i.e. a link to "want to learn more..." or "how to use your own brain".

I basically agree with the following though:

Quote
Problem with recommendation is: we are giving a universal answer to people having very different needs.
I'm on a horse.

[Discussion] List of recommended LAME settings

Reply #103 –
Quote
What about a perceived quality vs size graph?
Quote
yes, that as graph would be valid additional info. Can somebody make the graph ?

How many test files would be acceptible?
I'm on a horse.

[Discussion] List of recommended LAME settings

Reply #104 –
Quote
I suggest to not automatically recommend -V2 because it simply correspond to the old --standard preset. If the "quick start" really have to recommend a transparent setting (i don't really agree with it), it might be -V3 or -V1, or even -V4.

as i understand, you say don't recommend V2 cause it's not always transparent, then go on on saying recommend V3 or V4, which should be "less transparent"! i think V2 is a good bet between V0 and V4 ...

[Discussion] List of recommended LAME settings

Reply #105 –
hm, where is the graph ? Can you post it again, please?

[Discussion] List of recommended LAME settings

Reply #106 –
Quote
Quote
Think of it like this: What would you tell a (clueless) friend to use when teaching him how to encode MP3s.

To clueless people, I'd recommand -V4
To people paying attention to the quality I'd recommand -V2
To nitpicking people I'd recommand -V0

i think the HA primary recommendation should cover the most % of people with the least posible BR. I still think V2 is the best compromise. People are already using CBR 192KBPS, which is more or less the average of V2.

Also, the recommendation is not only for the person encoding, as most of the time, you somehow share what you encoded, by, for example, playing the encoded files throug a music system on a party (what i do), so you don't want to play all yout V4 MP3s and see a big percentage of your firends going "WTF is he playing?".

Also, as i said before, we should make a newbies recommendation, on a first post (recommending probably V2), and then we can go on on a subsecuent post, with more details for advanced users.

if we post a huge post first, 90% of people won't pay attention.

edit: also, we are recommending for people looking for quality encoding, the rest are probably encoding in WMA 64kbps.

[Discussion] List of recommended LAME settings

Reply #107 –
Quote
hm, where is the graph ? Can you post it again, please?
I did post this:



Taken from XLS (2KB ZIP)

... but then realised that this is not what Gabriel said - it's supposed to be filesize vs quality... or are we calling that filesize?

I don't know if it was supposed to be more of a Quality/KB graph.  If so we need to do more tests to get average filesizes for these settings.  I don't mind volunteering to do a set (part of a larger set) of files.
I'm on a horse.

[Discussion] List of recommended LAME settings

Reply #108 –
Quote
as i understand, you say don't recommend V2 cause it's not always transparent
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=329942"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

No.
There are two problems with -V2 as recommended setting:
- not transparent enough for some (rare probably) users.
- transparent but too big for some (most?) users. These people could get the same perceptual quality with -V3, -V4, -V5 or even -V6.

Recommending -V2 is just a legacy of the old recommendation thread. --standard was logically recommended for a simple reason: there were nothing inferior to --standard. Now we have -V3. We have -V4 also. Are they less transparent for most people than -V2? I can't answer, but I have my opinion about it.
Wavpack Hybrid: one encoder for all scenarios
WavPack -c4.5hx6 (44100Hz & 48000Hz) ≈ 390 kbps + correction file
WavPack -c4hx6 (96000Hz) ≈ 768 kbps + correction file
WavPack -h (SACD & DSD) ≈ 2400 kbps at 2.8224 MHz

[Discussion] List of recommended LAME settings

Reply #109 –
Quote
I still think V2 is the best compromise. People are already using CBR 192KBPS, which is more or less the average of V2.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=329944"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I see more and more people coming back to 160 or even 128 encodings, now they have portable players with limited storage capacity.
Take a look on last multiformat listening test:



LAME notation is superior to 4.0, which corresponds to "perceptible but not annoying". Setting was not -V2, V3 and not even V4. It was -V5.
In other word, -V5 is close to be transparent for the people (on average) which took part to this test. If -V5 is close to be transparent, I don't see why we should consider -V2 as an excellent compromise.
It's like recommending mpc --insane because --radio is already very good.
Wavpack Hybrid: one encoder for all scenarios
WavPack -c4.5hx6 (44100Hz & 48000Hz) ≈ 390 kbps + correction file
WavPack -c4hx6 (96000Hz) ≈ 768 kbps + correction file
WavPack -h (SACD & DSD) ≈ 2400 kbps at 2.8224 MHz

[Discussion] List of recommended LAME settings

Reply #110 –
Quote
LAME notation is superior to 4.0, which corresponds to "perceptible but not annoying". Setting was not -V2, V3 and not even V4. It was -V5. In other word, -V5 is close to be transparent for the people (on average) which took part to this test. If -V5 is close to be transparent, I don't see why we should consider -V2 as an excellent compromise.

i understand your point. maybe we can do a V5 to V1 test ...

[Discussion] List of recommended LAME settings

Reply #111 –
Quote
I see more and more people coming back to 160 or even 128 encodings, now they have portable players with limited storage capacity.

maybe we can have two basic recommendations "space is not a problem" and "limited storage". is better thatn saying "deaf people", "expert listeners", cause people don't like to call themself "deaf", and they tend to always think they are the best

[Discussion] List of recommended LAME settings

Reply #112 –
Quote
Quote
I see more and more people coming back to 160 or even 128 encodings, now they have portable players with limited storage capacity.

maybe we can have two basic recommendations "space is not a problem" and "limited storage". is better thatn saying "deaf people", "expert listeners", cause people don't like to call themself "deaf", and they tend to always think they are the best
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I prefer Gabriel's suggestion:
[a href="http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=32288&view=findpost&p=329933]http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....ndpost&p=329933[/url]

If space is not a concern, cbr 320 is a better choice. There are still probelm samples for LAME VBR.
Wavpack Hybrid: one encoder for all scenarios
WavPack -c4.5hx6 (44100Hz & 48000Hz) ≈ 390 kbps + correction file
WavPack -c4hx6 (96000Hz) ≈ 768 kbps + correction file
WavPack -h (SACD & DSD) ≈ 2400 kbps at 2.8224 MHz

[Discussion] List of recommended LAME settings

Reply #113 –
Quote
If space is not a concern, cbr 320 is a better choice. There are still probelm samples for LAME VBR.

i mean normal situations, if space is really not a problem, FLAC is a better option. maybe a:

Recommended settings: V2
Recommended Setting for Limited Storage: V5

[Discussion] List of recommended LAME settings

Reply #114 –
Of course. But compatibility is not the same.
Wavpack Hybrid: one encoder for all scenarios
WavPack -c4.5hx6 (44100Hz & 48000Hz) ≈ 390 kbps + correction file
WavPack -c4hx6 (96000Hz) ≈ 768 kbps + correction file
WavPack -h (SACD & DSD) ≈ 2400 kbps at 2.8224 MHz

[Discussion] List of recommended LAME settings

Reply #115 –
So... since a good recommendation based on quality on which everyone would agree seems impossible, it is only possible to give an advice based on the users particular file size requirements. (which are a. a bit rate or b. none). Now there is the situation where some people are saying -V 2 is generally good enough and others are saying -V 2 is generally overkill. Fact is, no one knows which -V setting is transparent for him/her till he actually tries it out and therefor any recommendation to achieve transparancy is inherently flawed.

IMO no particular recommendation (for transparency) should be given other than using -V and a graph/table mapping bit rates to -V settings which can help the person further in making his choice.
"We cannot win against obsession. They care, we don't. They win."

[Discussion] List of recommended LAME settings

Reply #116 –
I have created the following chart.



Taken from XLS (3KB ZIP)

The data is taken from only one album file (Kings of Leon, Aha Shake Heartbreak) but is intended simply to demonstrate any potential usefulness.

I added -V1 in there, to get the unsightly kink out of the first graph (qualily value is simply the average between -V2 and -V0).

I guess the idea is, the bigger the gap between the two lines, the more quality you are getting for your MB... (-V3 best, then -V4, then -V2).

If there's any interest then we could expand/improve it.  However, bear in mind that the quailty values are subjective, and therefore limit the usefulness of the data.
I'm on a horse.

[Discussion] List of recommended LAME settings

Reply #117 –
Question:
What is the default commandline-option if you do not specify anything?

If V2 is the recommended, the default should be V2, or am I wrong with that?

This would make it much easier to say "Hey use 'LAME x.wav x.mp3', and everything is fine. And btw it uses the default option V2"

[Discussion] List of recommended LAME settings

Reply #118 –
Default is CBR 128

Edit: Remember, we are HA - not LAME dev.  Although we have the benefit of Gabriel's ear, and he the benefit of ours, the two are not synonymous.
I'm on a horse.

[Discussion] List of recommended LAME settings

Reply #119 –
still, i think gabriel's earlier suggestion makes the most sense.  it is simple but clear.  it does make some assumptions about the listener, but i think that is fair for the sake of simplicity.  it clearly gets the idea across to the reader, so they can make an informed decision on their own.  just my 2 cents though.

edit: typo
a windows-free, linux user since 1/31/06.

[Discussion] List of recommended LAME settings

Reply #120 –
agree with grabriel:

VBR settings provide different quality levels, adapted to different configurations/needs.
A few examples:

V5 seems to be appropriate on portable devices used in a nomadic way.
V4 seems to be appropriate if you pay a moderate/medium attention to the music.
V2 will likely be transparent to standard people.
V0 will give you the highest VBR quality, but is a bit extreme regarding bitrate/file size.

the graphs and such should go into the "advanced" explanation ...

[Discussion] List of recommended LAME settings

Reply #121 –
The remaining questions are if we want to keep the "Quick Start" (-V 2) recommendation or leave that out alltogether.

Are there any more oppinions regarding which layout is prefered?
"To understand me, you'll have to swallow a world." Or maybe your words.
 

[Discussion] List of recommended LAME settings

Reply #122 –
Can you update the other 2 stickies, about lame & alpha versions, and especially, which compiles are recommended ?

[Discussion] List of recommended LAME settings

Reply #123 –
Quote
These settings require Lame 3.97 or later.

These settings require Lame 3.94 or later.

[Discussion] List of recommended LAME settings

Reply #124 –
[deleted]