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: LAME VBR? (Read 18303 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

LAME VBR?

Hello all,

I am a mac user and I'm using iTunes-Lame to rip my songs, I need help with the setting or commands please.......

This is my ?

I am using this VBR right now -V 0 --vbr-new now Do you guys think that this is a good setting?

I folowed the process from Guide: alpharuin "iTunes-LAME, the correct way". and the speed it's 5.3 or 5.6x something how can speed it up a little more.?

In the forum I saw a post thay the guys said that he use this setting for lame "--noreplaygain --vbr-new -V 0 -q 0 -T --add-id3v2 --multi" I tried yesterday and the speed went up now it's 6.3 or 6.5x varies.

Can you guys recomend a good setting that contains volume normalize, and audio enhance to add in the command box?

if I write "--noreplaygain --vbr-new -V 0 -q 0 -T --add-id3v2 --multi" the order of each setting has to be left to right or opposite whe you type those command?

I when to iTunes-Lame ? option and I saw that it has a lot of option that you add when you type the command before you rip a song(s).

What you guys think about these settings?

-h -b 256
--alt-present extreme
-V 0 -q

Well Thank you all in advanced.

K'

LAME VBR?

Reply #1 –
I'm no expert but I'll take a stab:

Quote from: KOF on
I am using this VBR right now -V 0 --vbr-new now Do you guys think that this is a good setting?


-V 0 is excessive in my opinion.  I use -V 2, which still may be excessive.  --vbr-new is good.

Quote from: KOF on
I folowed the process from Guide: alpharuin "iTunes-LAME, the correct way". and the speed it's 5.3 or 5.6x something how can speed it up a little more.?


Are you talking about speeding up the actual encoding?  I really wouldn't worry about that too much.

Quote from: KOF on
Can you guys recomend a good setting that contains volume normalize, and audio enhance to add in the command box?


I wouldn't recommend normalizing the volume.  Use ReplayGain instead.  Calculating ReplayGain will add a minimal amount of time to the encoding process.  What is this "audio enhance" you speak of?  Sounds like a gimmick to me.

Quote from: KOF on
if I write "--noreplaygain --vbr-new -V 0 -q 0 -T --add-id3v2 --multi" the order of each setting has to be left to right or opposite whe you type those command?


In general, the order of the command line parameters does not matter.  The condition here is that, for instance, "-V 0" and "-q 0" are single parameters, so the number must be with the command line switch.

Quote from: KOF on
-h -b 256
--alt-present extreme
-V 0 -q


No.

LAME VBR?

Reply #3 –
Thank you for your reply?

BTW you guys recomend using any other setting. I want to use a top quality setting so I will use:

-V 0 -q 0 or --cbr 270 What you think?

I listen my music in my car stereo What you suggest? for quality. I heard the -V 0 --vbr-new is lower quality than -V 0 that's true?

What different are between -q 0 or -h?

How can I use MP3gain for mac. Do you guys have a very weel setting for db?

I read the post for LAME RECOMMENDED SETTING before posting. However, I'm still bit confuse with settings I want a very well done encode? help me please...

I'm using iTunes-Lame 2.0.8 /LAME 3.97 MAC OS X 10.4.9 TIGER/ POWERBOOK G4

Thank you,

K'

LAME VBR?

Reply #4 –
Quote from: KOF on
-V 0 -q 0 or --cbr 270 What you think?


--cbr 270 is not valid. If you want CBR in this bitrate range then use -b 256 or -b 320.

LAME VBR?

Reply #5 –
KOF, can't you just read the FAQ? There you will find everything regarding the best settings for different purposes.
//From the barren lands of the Northsmen

LAME VBR?

Reply #6 –
OK,

and what about the MP3GAIN FOR MAC...  AND MY OTHER QUESTIONS PLEASE WOULD YOU HELP ME..

LAME VBR?

Reply #7 –
Quote from: KOF on
I listen my music in my car stereo What you suggest? for quality. I heard the -V 0 --vbr-new is lower quality than -V 0 that's true?
I read the post for LAME RECOMMENDED SETTING before posting. However, I'm still bit confuse with settings I want a very well done encode? help me please...

It's an ancient rumour that --vbr-new was of lower quality than the old VBR mode, however I haven't ever seen or heard of any proof for this claim. Most HA users, including myself, consider it as untrue.

The recommended settings clearly state which options can safely be called transparent for most if not all users, hence I don't really understand why you keep fiddling about the command line. There's no need for modifying the presets at all, especially not if you choose using the overkill -V 0 one.

Quote
BTW you guys recomend using any other setting. I want to use a top quality setting so I will use:

-V 0 -q 0 or --cbr 270 What you think?

Do you think the many audiophiles here on HA don't use top quality settings at all? This discussion is pretty pointless since you're obviously not interested in giving any thought to the advice given to you. So, why the heck do you keep asking us?

Quote
AND MY OTHER QUESTIONS PLEASE WOULD YOU HELP ME

I DON'T WANNA!

LAME VBR?

Reply #8 –
Your question is covered by a recent thread, and this was my contribution.
lame3995o -Q1.7 --lowpass 17
 

LAME VBR?

Reply #9 –
Removing the -q switch will speed things up.  The appropriate q will be selected automatically based on the -V preset you choose, so there is no need for it in the commandline.  From the LAME switches.html:
Quote
-q 0..9    algorithm quality selection
Bitrate is of course the main influence on quality. The higher the bitrate, the higher the quality. But for a given bitrate, we have a choice of algorithms to determine the best scalefactors and Huffman encoding (noise shaping).

-q 0: use slowest & best possible version of all algorithms. -q 0 and -q 1 are slow and may not produce significantly higher quality.

-q 2: recommended. Same as -h.

-q 5: default value. Good speed, reasonable quality.

-q 7: same as -f. Very fast, ok quality. (psycho acoustics are used for pre-echo & M/S, but no noise shaping is done.

-q 9: disables almost all algorithms including psy-model. poor quality.


The -q switch is a constant source of confusion amongst new users.  Using -q 0 isn't going to yield any noticeable improvement in quality, just slow down encoding time.

If you're using iTunes, the Soundcheck feature does a fairly good job of normalizing audio for playback.

LAME VBR?

Reply #10 –
-qx does absolutely nothing when using --vbr-new.

LAME VBR?

Reply #11 –
Quote
Removing the -q switch will speed things up. The appropriate q will be selected automatically based on the -V preset you choose, so there is no need for it in the commandline. From the LAME switches.html:

QUOTE
-q 0..9 algorithm quality selection
Bitrate is of course the main influence on quality. The higher the bitrate, the higher the quality. But for a given bitrate, we have a choice of algorithms to determine the best scalefactors and Huffman encoding (noise shaping).

-q 0: use slowest & best possible version of all algorithms. -q 0 and -q 1 are slow and may not produce significantly higher quality.

-q 2: recommended. Same as -h.

-q 5: default value. Good speed, reasonable quality.

-q 7: same as -f. Very fast, ok quality. (psycho acoustics are used for pre-echo & M/S, but no noise shaping is done.

-q 9: disables almost all algorithms including psy-model. poor quality.


and I thought this one is old... isn't the q switch in lame 3.97 at value 3 by default? think new alphas of 3.98 have changed value 3 to 0 and use that by default.

Quote
-V 0 -q 0 or --cbr 270 What you think?


  i wish you happy encoding in a cbr 270 mode. in cbr mode you could choose 192, 224 or 256 for example. -V 0 -q 0 is overkill and includes more bugs (I've got this from other discussions) than using only -V 0. Trust the recommendations of HA.org and HA wiki and all will be fine using lame.
Quote
QUOTE(KOF @ Mar 7 2007, 09:11)

-h -b 256
--alt-present extreme
-V 0 -q


--alt-preset extreme = -V 0
the -h switch is not neccessary.
FB2K,APE&LAME

LAME VBR?

Reply #12 –
Thank you for all your help!!!

Well for now I will use :
  --alt-preset extreme = -V 0
&
Joint Stereo

K'

LAME VBR?

Reply #13 –
Quote from: KOF on
Thank you for all your help!!!

Well for now I will use :
  --alt-preset extreme = -V 0
&
Joint Stereo

K'

--alt-presets (and therefore also -V0...-V9) all use joint stereo by default
--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 VBR?

Reply #14 –
Quote from: memomai on
-V 0 -q 0 is overkill and includes more bugs (I've got this from other discussions) than using only -V 0. Trust the recommendations of HA.org and HA wiki and all will be fine using lame.


1) There's no more bugs with -q0.
2) The -q option does nothing with --vbr-new. While it will work for the old VBR mode, the old mode isn't recommended anymore.

And yes, joint stereo is always used by default. Just stick to -Vx and do nothing else.

LAME VBR?

Reply #15 –
so yo saying that I can't use

--alt-preset extreme anymore
so
I have to use

-V 0

it's not the same.. or migth be the --alt-preset extreme is too old..

LAME VBR?

Reply #16 –
All the info you need is here.  Read and follow the recommendations, and you won't need second-hand info anymore.

http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=LAME

A little reading goes a long way.  In short,

-V 0 --vbr-new = --preset fast extreme

and that's all you need.

LAME VBR?

Reply #17 –
Quote
The -q option does nothing with --vbr-new. While it will work for the old VBR mode, the old mode isn't recommended anymore.


I don't think so - I have compared the encoding times for -q0 and -q5 with --vbr-new and they are quite different (also for -h/-f). It seems it works...

So, what is the default method for VBR (For example for -V2)?

LAME VBR?

Reply #18 –
Quote
I don't think so - I have compared the encoding times for -q0 and -q5 with --vbr-new and they are quite different

You probably use old version of LAME.

LAME VBR?

Reply #19 –
This is a three-year-old thread.  The recent questions being raised have been answered elsewhere.

Without specifying versions this whole exercise is rather pointless.

With the current version of Lame, 3.98, --vbr-new is redundant since the new method is now the default.  At this point in time there is now a third vbr method being developed.

With VBR in 3.98:
q0 - q4 (-h means -q2) all provide the same output (the default).
q5 - q9 (-f means -q7) are all the same as well, but different from q0 - q4.

LAME VBR?

Reply #20 –
Thank you for the answer, this is what I wanted to know...
I have tested the encoding times with 3.98 and I was just wondering that there is a difference between -h and -f, but I couldn't see a difference between -q0 and -q2.
So, it is clear now...

LAME VBR?

Reply #21 –
Quote from: greynol on
With VBR in 3.98:
q0 - q4 (-h means -q2) all provide the same output (the default).
q5 - q9 (-f means -q7) are all the same as well, but different from q0 - q4.

Thanks for the clarification. I've stated that 0-3, 4-6 and 7-9 are equivalent a few times recently. Was this true for a previous version or have I been spreading misinformation?

Another thing I've stated, and hope is correct, is that the default -q value is 3 (previously 2); is this right?

LAME VBR?

Reply #22 –
I was unable to find differences between 4-6 and 7-9 through encoding samples, but by no means claim to have the definitive word on the subject.  My sincere and humble apologies for sounding authoritative on the matter earlier.

From a pragmatic point of view, I don't consider the default -q value as having a specific numeral when it comes to VBR.  There seems to be an answer based on Lame's history, however:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=42401

It sure would be nice if Lame's -q system be scrapped for VBR in favor of something more concrete and easily documented in the Full command line switch reference.

LAME VBR?

Reply #23 –
There's no need to apologise; you're certainly more likely to know than me!

I agree the parameters could use some refinement, though at least the devs have been progressively removing more 'tweaky' features to stop people tinkering with them.  And certainly the documentation is a bit behind and could do with being updated and/or added to, though of course it's probably a low priority.

As for the VBR modes, implementing a new one may have created (and in 3.99 create again) confusion regarding presets and other cases where no mode parameter is specified (e.g. presets still use VBR-old), though I presume this is intentional for purposes of backward compatibility.

I saw Robert's name on the list of readers; I think you guys do great work, honestly!  (Even if for quite some time now my [now rare] CD rips have been in iTunes AAC, for no fantastic reason.)

LAME VBR?

Reply #24 –
Quote from: dv1989 on
There's no need to apologise; you're certainly more likely to know than me!

I agree the parameters could use some refinement, though at least the devs have been progressively removing more 'tweaky' features to stop people tinkering with them.  And certainly the documentation is a bit behind and could do with being updated and/or added to, though of course it's probably a low priority.

As for the VBR modes, implementing a new one may have created (and in 3.99 create again) confusion regarding presets and other cases where no mode parameter is specified (e.g. presets still use VBR-old), though I presume this is intentional for purposes of backward compatibility.

I saw Robert's name on the list of readers; I think you guys do great work, honestly!  (Even if for quite some time now my [now rare] CD rips have been in iTunes AAC, for no fantastic reason.)

Using LAME's newer VBR mode, the switch -f (like -q5 and above too) disables the full search for the most efficient huffman coding of data. You get a little faster coding at the expense of larger file sizes.

Version 3.99 will not result in a new VBR mode, it uses the same as in 3.98. While I'm working on it, I'm just using the "--vbr-new" switch to select my tweaks of the day. The final version  will just contain the resulting tweaks in normal default VBR mode.