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: >[Bug?]< LAME 3.97 Beta 1 (Read 6285 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

>[Bug?]< LAME 3.97 Beta 1

First of all,sorry for my poor english
I don't really know if it's a know thing or it's a bug...so,let explain it:

Encoder Used: Lame 3.97 Beta 1 (also happens with 3.96.1,a little less clear,i didn't tested it with other encoders cos i don't have them)
Options Used: --alt-preset 64 -mm

Overall sound is simply bad,and when the vocal starts,it sounds very distorted,give it a listen:

http://www.mcbryan.com/64mm.mp3
(--alt-preset 64 -mm)

The funny part is that using stereo it sounds more clear (or is it masked by "quality artifacts"? i can't say it exactly,but i don't think it)

http://www.mcbryan.com/64.mp3
(--alt-preset 64)

Comments,tnx 

>[Bug?]< LAME 3.97 Beta 1

Reply #1 –
how performs -V9 (--vbr-new) (target bitrate is 65 kbit/s) or -V 8 (--vbr-new) against your abr commandlines ?


from list of recommended settings:

Code: [Select]
setting                        averaged bitrate      bitrate range

-V 8 - vbr-new                            85       65…105
-V 8                                      85       65…105 
-V 9 - vbr-new                            65       45…85 
-V 9                                      65       45…85

>[Bug?]< LAME 3.97 Beta 1

Reply #2 –
Quote
how performs -V9 (--vbr-new) (target bitrate is 65 kbit/s) or -V 8 (--vbr-new) against your abr commandlines ?


from list of recommended settings:

Code: [Select]
setting                        averaged bitrate      bitrate range

-V 8 - vbr-new                            85       65…105
-V 8                                      85       65…105 
-V 9 - vbr-new                            65       45…85 
-V 9                                      65       45…85

[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Thank you for answering.

Starting from the same .wav,now i used

[a href="http://www.mcbryan.com/V9.mp3]http://www.mcbryan.com/V9.mp3[/url]
(-V9 --vbr-new)

http://www.mcbryan.com/V9mm.mp3
(-V9 --vbr-new -mm)

The stereo file sounds more "closed" (or "mono like") than using --alt-preset 64,more cutted frequencies, i guess

I can't compare the mono file (V9mm) with the other one (64mm),cos the frequencies are different (24khz vs 44khz),do i have to think i'm not using the right switches for ~64kbps mono with 3.97b1? Or Isn't the --alt-preset the -best- switch?


Edit:

Only for explain better the problem,i get it also with Lame 4.0 Alpha 14 using --alt-preset 128

http://www.mcbryan.com/A14S.mp3

>[Bug?]< LAME 3.97 Beta 1

Reply #3 –
Quote
Comments,tnx 
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=329993"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Either you or I have to clean the ears from all the mud in it.. I can't understand how you can say the stereo encoded clip sounds clearer. I don't like it when the lowpass goes down towards 10 khz. It sounds too muffled in my opinion.

>[Bug?]< LAME 3.97 Beta 1

Reply #4 –
Quote
Quote
[X,Sep 27 2005, 06:35 PM]Comments,tnx 
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=329993"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Either you or I have to clean the ears from all the mud in it.. I can't understand how you can say the stereo encoded clip sounds clearer. I don't like it when the lowpass goes down towards 10 khz. It sounds too muffled in my opinion.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=330001"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]



In the mono file (64mm) i hear the sound distorted,a little bit "trembling",i don't know if i'm explaining it right 

>[Bug?]< LAME 3.97 Beta 1

Reply #5 –
Quote
In the mono file (64mm) i hear the sound distorted,a little bit "trembling",i don't know if i'm explaining it right 
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=330005"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


OK. Apparently you are more sensitive than me to that trembling noise. Have you tried to force a lower limit for the lowpass filter or to force the use of the same sampling frequency in the mono encoded version?

add "--lowpass 12000" or "--resample 24000" to your commandline

>[Bug?]< LAME 3.97 Beta 1

Reply #6 –
Quote
Quote
[X,Sep 27 2005, 07:44 PM]In the mono file (64mm) i hear the sound distorted,a little bit "trembling",i don't know if i'm explaining it right 
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=330005"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


OK. Apparently you are more sensitive than me to that trembling noise. Have you tried to force a lower limit for the lowpass filter or to force the use of the same sampling frequency in the mono encoded version?

add "--lowpass 12000" or "--resample 24000" to your commandline
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=330007"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]



Tnx,but i'm not searching for a "workaround",i'm signaling a quality issue in the preset.  This version is still in beta,so i think it can be corrected before go stable 

>[Bug?]< LAME 3.97 Beta 1

Reply #7 –
Quote
Tnx,but i'm not searching for a "workaround",i'm signaling a quality issue in the preset.  This version is still in beta,so i think it can be corrected before go stable 
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=330013"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Sure, but you know you're comparing a 24khz file to a 44.1 khz file? Of course they will sound different. It's a tradeoff between artefacts and keeping the high frequencies. I (and apparently the lame developers) prefer more high freq content to the absolutely artefact free encodes you seem to prefer.

>[Bug?]< LAME 3.97 Beta 1

Reply #8 –
Quote
Quote
[X,Sep 27 2005, 08:22 PM]Tnx,but i'm not searching for a "workaround",i'm signaling a quality issue in the preset.  This version is still in beta,so i think it can be corrected before go stable 
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=330013"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Sure, but you know you're comparing a 24khz file to a 44.1 khz file? Of course they will sound different. It's a tradeoff between artefacts and keeping the high frequencies. I (and apparently the lame developers) prefer more high freq content to the absolutely artefact free encodes you seem to prefer.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=330014"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I never did it 

- I refused to compare the 24khz file (-V9 -mm) and 44.1khz file (--alt-preset 64 -mm),the frequencies are different,so i have no reason to do it
- I prefer the first encode (64.mp3,--alt-preset 64) cos the second (V9.mp3,-V9) sounds more "closed",so still,i prefer frequencies than artefacts,-V9 for me is an inadeguate "workaround"

It's all in the third post 

>[Bug?]< LAME 3.97 Beta 1

Reply #9 –
Quote
I never did it  

[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=330015"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Yes, in the first post you did... the mono encoded file is 44.1. khz, and the stereo file is 24 khz. My bet is that the low frequency trembling / warbling will disappear when you lower the lowpass or increase the bitrate (= spend more bits on the low frequency part of the spectrum).

Btw, you really should make the original available so we can know what it should sound like.

>[Bug?]< LAME 3.97 Beta 1

Reply #10 –
Quote
Quote
[X,Sep 27 2005, 08:36 PM]
I never did it  

[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Yes, in the first post you did... the mono encoded file is 44.1. khz, and the stereo file is 24 khz. My bet is that the low frequency trembling / warbling will disappear when you lower the lowpass or increase the bitrate (= spend more bits on the low frequency part of the spectrum).

Btw, you really should make the original available so we can know what it should sound like.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=330019"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Misunderstood 

For "clear" i mean "less artifacts" 
I know myself the 64kbps mono file sounds with more artifacts cos it has higher freqs 

My question is why the lowpass is at 44.1 khz when encoding in mono,the quality is not very good.
And however,in the stereo encoding is still present that "trembling" (You can listen it also in the Lame 4 encoding).A little less,but it's there,so i guess it's not only a frequency problem.

The original wav:

[a href="http://www.mcbryan.com/test.rar]http://www.mcbryan.com/test.rar[/url]  [9.35mb]

Compressed with winrar 3.50,if i'm wrong and i have to upload it in another format,correct me and i'll do it 

>[Bug?]< LAME 3.97 Beta 1

Reply #11 –
Quote
[X,Sep 27 2005, 09:08 PM]Misunderstood  

For "clear" i mean "less artifacts"  
I know myself the 64kbps mono file sounds with more artifacts cos it has higher freqs  

My question is why the lowpass is at 44.1 khz when encoding in mono,the quality is not very good.
And however,in the stereo encoding is still present that "trembling" (You can listen it also in the Lame 4 encoding).A little less,but it's there,so i guess it's not only a frequency problem.

The original wav:

http://www.mcbryan.com/test.rar   [9.35mb]

Compressed with winrar 3.50,if i'm wrong and i have to upload it in another format,correct me and i'll do it 
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=330023"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I think I start to understand what you mean now

Just out of curiosity, can you try --ns-bass -5 (or perhaps even a bit lower) and see if it helps? (it did for me)

>[Bug?]< LAME 3.97 Beta 1

Reply #12 –
Quote
Quote
[X,Sep 27 2005, 09:08 PM]Misunderstood  

For "clear" i mean "less artifacts"  
I know myself the 64kbps mono file sounds with more artifacts cos it has higher freqs  

My question is why the lowpass is at 44.1 khz when encoding in mono,the quality is not very good.
And however,in the stereo encoding is still present that "trembling" (You can listen it also in the Lame 4 encoding).A little less,but it's there,so i guess it's not only a frequency problem.

The original wav:

http://www.mcbryan.com/test.rar   [9.35mb]

Compressed with winrar 3.50,if i'm wrong and i have to upload it in another format,correct me and i'll do it 
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I think I start to understand what you mean now

Just out of curiosity, can you try --ns-bass -5 (or perhaps even a bit lower) and see if it helps? (it did for me)
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=330024"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Yeah it helps a bit,the artifact is less evident

[a href="http://www.mcbryan.com/64mm-bass5.mp3]http://www.mcbryan.com/64mm-bass5.mp3[/url]
(--alt-preset 64 -mm --ns-bass -5)

With --ns-bass -4 and lower,the result is the same

>[Bug?]< LAME 3.97 Beta 1

Reply #13 –
The lowpass in mono abr/cbr might be a little too high. What about "--preset 64 -mm --lowpass 15400" ?

>[Bug?]< LAME 3.97 Beta 1

Reply #14 –
Quote
The lowpass in mono abr/cbr might be a little too high. What about "--preset 64 -mm --lowpass 15400" ?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]



(--preset 64 -mm --lowpass 15400)

[a href="http://www.mcbryan.com/gabriel_line.mp3]http://www.mcbryan.com/gabriel_line.mp3[/url]

The result seems to be identical/worse,not better