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 problem samples - discussion (Read 46621 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

LAME problem samples - discussion

Reply #25 –
I just tried

harp40_1
aps_killer_sample
angelic

@3.97b -V 2 --vbr-new

I didn't ABX them but i just couldn't hear anything annoying, different, or anything else. Guess my ears are just bad

LAME problem samples - discussion

Reply #26 –
Quote
Harp40_1

The problem is still clearly audible at - b 160 and -V3 --vbr-new.

[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=362261"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


The artefact you mentioned is still quite audible at -V2 --vbr-new.
I just ABXed it with -V2 --vbr-new (LAME 397b2): 10/10

Edit:
Additionially there is easily audible distortion on the second last note played (at aprox. 4s) at -V2 --vbr-new.
The idea of achieving security through national armament is, at the present state of military technique, a disastrous illusion. -- A. Einstein

LAME problem samples - discussion

Reply #27 –
@ the Lame devs:

Within a non-problem sample context I tried an extreme lowpass method used by ChiGung together with 3.98a3:
        Lame 3.98a3 -V6 --vbr-new --lowpass-width 4.5 --lowpass 13.5

I also tried this lowpassing on problem samples like trumpet.flac.
I found artefacts are significantly reduced by using such a lowpass.

Maybe this information can help further improve problem sample behavior (perhaps using a lowpass within internal quality control mechanisms?).
lame3995o -Q1.7 --lowpass 17

LAME problem samples - discussion

Reply #28 –
So far 3.98a3 is better than 3.97 on every one of my problem samples. The warbling and gurgling seems to be gone. Bitrate seems to be +10% at times  but I haven't tested that many samples yet.

LAME problem samples - discussion

Reply #29 –
I just tested hapischord with 398a3 and tremolo on first note and distortion (or tremolo, hard to say) on second last note is still there (with -V2 --vbr-new).

Also the sample thunder I posted in the problem sample thread is still ABXable with 398a3 -V2 --vbr-new.
The idea of achieving security through national armament is, at the present state of military technique, a disastrous illusion. -- A. Einstein

LAME problem samples - discussion

Reply #30 –
Hiya

After reading this I decided to do some extreme tests (v0) on some old problem samples (which can be obtained on the gpsycho page linked in the pinned post at the top of the forum). The results were somewhat surprising.

Test conditions where ABX using WinABX, test card audigy2 output to my amp (old rotel and boston cr7 speakers). I believe the last part to be important as most people here tend to ABX with headphones. version of lame is 397b2 and then 298a3

First file was blackbird.wav where it should be abxable (new word) when the synthdrums start instead I heard a definite difference in the lenght of the piano note (also sounded a bit smeared) the results for 397b2 settings are "-V0 --vbr-new"

WinABX v0.42 test report
02/19/2006 20:58:49

A file: C:\Documents and Settings\Andrew\My Documents\My Music\ABX\problem samples\ABX\blackbird.wav
B file: C:\Documents and Settings\Andrew\My Documents\My Music\ABX\problem samples\ABX\blackbird397.wav

Start position 00:03.0, end position 00:04.2
21:00:28    1/1  p=50.0%
21:01:09    2/2  p=25.0%
21:01:15    3/3  p=12.5%
21:01:23    4/4  p=6.2%
21:01:31    5/5  p=3.1%
21:01:43    6/6  p=1.6%
21:02:03    7/7  p=0.8%
21:02:18    8/8  p=0.4%
21:02:33    9/9  p=0.2%
21:02:37  10/10  p< 0.1%
21:02:43  11/11  p< 0.1%
21:02:50  12/12  p< 0.1%
21:02:54  13/13  p< 0.1%
21:02:58  14/14  p< 0.1%
21:03:02  15/15  p< 0.1%
21:03:58  test finished

As you can see from the speed this wasn't difficult (and this was with v0). With 398a3 I could not ABX at all showing there's been some remarkable improvements.

Next I tried fools.wav (the intro to Lemon Tree by Fools Garden a favourite of mine). The results for 397b2 -V0 --vbr-new

WinABX v0.42 test report
02/21/2006 21:35:47

A file: C:\Documents and Settings\Andrew\My Documents\My Music\ABX\problem samples\ABX\fools.wav
B file: C:\Documents and Settings\Andrew\My Documents\My Music\ABX\problem samples\ABX\fools397.wav

Start position 00:00.0, end position 00:30.9
21:38:12    1/1  p=50.0%
21:41:07    2/2  p=25.0%
21:43:05    3/3  p=12.5%
21:43:55    4/4  p=6.2%
21:46:16    5/5  p=3.1%
21:48:05    6/6  p=1.6%
21:48:41    7/7  p=0.8%
21:49:05    7/8  p=3.5%
21:49:33    8/9  p=2.0%
21:51:05  9/10  p=1.1%
21:51:53  10/11  p=0.6%
21:52:25  11/12  p=0.3%
21:52:34  12/13  p=0.2%
21:52:45  13/14  p< 0.1%
21:53:27  14/15  p< 0.1%
21:54:02  test finished

Took me a lot longer and gave me a headache and I was overconfidednt on test 8. The interesting thing is that again I was able to ABX for a different reason than expected (smearing an pre-echo). I noticed that right from the first two notes the stero seperation for the plucking sound was wide on the original on the first two notes and then centered for the next two. The mp3 was less wide on the first two and actually seemed to go wider on the next two. Believe it or not this is very hard to hear repeatedly as it requires a great deal of concentration (for me) but I think almost anyone with normal hearing should be able to pick this up. However it's very hard to hear with headphones and this is why it worries me that most people ABX with headphones as this is not my standard listing conditions (and I suspect others too) so keep it in mind when doing the next set of tests.

As a side note I read that there had been some sucess improving encoding by using the the --athaa-sensitivity 1 (although I think this reduced ringing). However in this case it made it even easier to pick up (I won't lenghthen the mail with the test but it took less than 5 min) so beware when using non advised settings as they can make things worse.

Once again I could not ABX on 398a3 which puts a big fat smile on my face (well done guys).

As a final note I tried to test the old favourite 390.3 with fools I got to 18/23 then 34/49 before getting too tired to go on (1h13 is too much for me) I know it's not conclusive but with time I'm sure I could show that this difference existed then too which puts 398a3 miles ahead in this case. Hope some of you can replicate results and get some use out of this

Zster

LAME problem samples - discussion

Reply #31 –
Hi,
I did manage to ABX that harp40_1 aps_killer_sample, but the artifacts were barely noticeable. I wouldn't have noticed anything unless, like in this case, I knew that this sample had a problem.
Oh, and I was with the following settings :

@3.97b -V 2 --vbr-new

LAME problem samples - discussion

Reply #32 –
I've found something extraordinary with the sample "scooter.flac" I've posted in the Samples thread. When encoded with lame with ANY setting (tested --preset standard, --preset insane, ABR 170kbps), the bass is positioned in the center while in the original it is just slightly to the left channel. Even more strange is that when encoded with latest FhG codec (found in Audioactive), it also alters the stereo image (only tested at 128 and 160k CBR).

 

Is it possible it has something to do with decoder used (Winamp) ???


J.M.

LAME problem samples - discussion

Reply #33 –
Quote from: jmartis on
I've found something extraordinary with the sample "scooter.flac" I've posted in the Samples thread. When encoded with lame with ANY setting (tested --preset standard, --preset insane, ABR 170kbps), the bass is positioned in the center while in the original it is just slightly to the left channel. Even more strange is that when encoded with latest FhG codec (found in Audioactive), it also alters the stereo image (only tested at 128 and 160k CBR).

 

Is it possible it has something to do with decoder used (Winamp) ???


J.M.

This really sounds like a joint stereo problem.

Do you mind trying good old lame 3.90.3 with --abr 270 -h or whatever you like (but no --alt-presets)?

--abr x or -bx uses plain stereo mode and GPSYCHO as the psy model which I consider to be very robust towards problematic cases when using bitrates >= 224 kbps.
lame3995o -Q1.7 --lowpass 17

LAME problem samples - discussion

Reply #34 –
hmm.. strange, just tried 3.90.3 -b 320 -m s, and it is still here  apart from the altered stereo image the bass apears to be just very slightly lower in frequency (about 1/10th of a tone), and has also slightly different sound. Also the hihats appears a bit altered and wrongly positioned. I'm starting to believe Winamp has some lo-fi mpeg decoder.

Just tried WMA CBR 192kbps... sounds exactly like the original  isn't it possible that there is some flaw in the mpeg format that inhibits the encoder from encoding it properly ? 

LAME problem samples - discussion

Reply #35 –
Just tried to abx scooter.flac in foobar using Lame 3.97b2 --preset standard and Lame 3.90.3 -b 320 -m s.

I cannot hear a problem with bass positioning even when directly switching from original to encoding and vice versa. But when switching I also 'felt' most of the time bass is slightly different when encoded with 3.90.3 (sounds a tiny amount fatter to me). Tried to abx but did not succeed.

As you have a suspicion that winamp decoding is faulty I tried this too (v5.2). Couldn't hear a problem but this may be due to the fact that direct comparison is impossible and my musical memory isn't good enough for such a comparison.

BTW to me bass is positioned close to the middle but slightly to the right.
lame3995o -Q1.7 --lowpass 17

LAME problem samples - discussion

Reply #36 –
I've encoded it again and to be honest I can't hear any difference anymore! This is really confusing me, I was able to clearly hear the difference before. Maybe just listening condidions changed or maybe I've encoded the mp3 from a wrong (already encoded) file. Forget it. (but just until I will be able to hear it again!  )



J.M.

LAME problem samples - discussion

Reply #37 –
Quote from: jmartis on
I've encoded it again and to be honest I can't hear any difference anymore! This is really confusing me, I was able to clearly hear the difference before. Maybe just listening condidions changed or maybe I've encoded the mp3 from a wrong (already encoded) file. Forget it. (but just until I will be able to hear it again!  )



J.M.


Could well be the listining conditions or possibly your state of alertness. I noticed that stereo effects are easier to hear when playing through speakers rather than headphones (although it really shouldn't be the case). I also noticed that I was able to ABX such effects better in the evening than the morning. Odd huh? I'll try you sample out this weekend.

LAME problem samples - discussion

Reply #38 –
Hey, I've found the problem! It is the Winamp decoder as I thought. When the mp3 is played in Winamp, it sounds different, but when the mp3 is decoded to wav (using dbPowerAmp), it sounds the same as the original (except the beginning where lame adds slight pre-echo "bonus")

J.M.

LAME problem samples - discussion

Reply #39 –
Sorry for doublepost, but I think this is interesting:
The scooter sample is easily ABXable even with 3.98a3 --preset extreme
(and even with crappy headphones; focus on pre-echo on claps):

WinABX:

Code: [Select]
WinABX v0.42 test report
04/22/2006 13:55:01

A file: E:\AUDIO\scooter.wav
B file: E:\AUDIO\scooter.mp3.wav

Start position 00:00.0, end position 05:08.7
14:09:59    1/1  p=50.0%
14:10:05    2/2  p=25.0%
14:10:10    3/3  p=12.5%
14:10:15    4/4  p=6.2%
14:10:20    5/5  p=3.1%
14:10:25    6/6  p=1.6%
14:10:30    7/7  p=0.8%
14:10:35    8/8  p=0.4%
14:10:41    9/9  p=0.2%
14:10:46  10/10  p< 0.1%


Edit: Fastenc at 128k has less pre-echo than Lame3.98a3 --preset extreme

LAME problem samples - discussion

Reply #40 –
Quote from: jmartis on
Sorry for doublepost, but I think this is interesting:
The scooter sample is easily ABXable even with 3.98a3 --preset extreme
(and even with crappy headphones; focus on pre-echo on claps):
...
Edit: Fastenc at 128k has less pre-echo than Lame3.98a3 --preset extreme

Do you mind trying 3.90.3 --abr 270 -h? (Sorry, can't do it myself as I'm not sensitive to pre-echo).
lame3995o -Q1.7 --lowpass 17

LAME problem samples - discussion

Reply #41 –
Quote from: halb27 on
Do you mind trying 3.90.3 --abr 270 -h? (Sorry, can't do it myself as I'm not sensitive to pre-echo).


  man that is nasty! the pre-echo is MUCH worse than with 3.98a3 extreme! ABX test is quite useless here, but anyways here you go:

Code: [Select]
WinABX v0.42 test report
04/22/2006 15:53:25

A file: E:\AUDIO\scooter.wav
B file: E:\AUDIO\scooter.abr270.wav

Start position 00:00.0, end position 05:08.7
15:54:21    1/1  p=50.0%
15:54:24    2/2  p=25.0%
15:54:26    3/3  p=12.5%
15:54:28    4/4  p=6.2%
15:54:30    5/5  p=3.1%
15:54:32    6/6  p=1.6%
15:54:34    7/7  p=0.8%
15:54:36    8/8  p=0.4%
15:54:38    9/9  p=0.2%
15:54:41  10/10  p< 0.1%


BTW, 3.90.3 ape sounds a whole lot better that 3.90.3 abr270 and the bitrate is lower.

LAME problem samples - discussion

Reply #42 –
Quote from: jmartis on
man that is nasty! the pre-echo is MUCH worse than with 3.98a3 extreme!
...
BTW, 3.90.3 ape sounds a whole lot better that 3.90.3 abr270 and the bitrate is lower.

Thanks a lot. Very interesting.
lame3995o -Q1.7 --lowpass 17

LAME problem samples - discussion

Reply #43 –
Quote from: jmartis on
Hey, I've found the problem! It is the Winamp decoder as I thought. When the mp3 is played in Winamp, it sounds different, but when the mp3 is decoded to wav (using dbPowerAmp), it sounds the same as the original (except the beginning where lame adds slight pre-echo "bonus")

J.M.


Damn.. I had assumed that their decoder worked fine. I remember that it didn't for a while some 3-4 years ago, but then it was supposed to be fine again. I guess not....

LAME problem samples - discussion

Reply #44 –
Even 3.97b2 --preset insane IS NOT TRANSPARENT on this (scooter) sample!  (pre-echo!!!)

Here's a WinABX report:
Code: [Select]
WinABX v0.42 test report
04/22/2006 22:16:12

A file: E:\AUDIO\scooter.wav
B file: E:\AUDIO\scooter.insane.wav

Start position 00:00.0, end position 05:08.7
22:16:39    1/1  p=50.0%
22:16:44    2/2  p=25.0%
22:16:49    3/3  p=12.5%
22:16:58    4/4  p=6.2%
22:17:03    5/5  p=3.1%
22:17:08    6/6  p=1.6%
22:17:14    7/7  p=0.8%
22:17:19    7/8  p=3.5%
22:17:25    8/9  p=2.0%
22:17:30   9/10  p=1.1%


well, I did miss one because I wasnt enough concentrated.

J.M.

LAME problem samples - discussion

Reply #45 –
Though pre-echo problems aren't much of concern to me your sample is as I've been so long holding up 3.90.3 GPSYCHO usage here (for other reasons).

I don't want to bother you but if it matches your interests too and as you have arrived at cbr320:
do you mind also trying a selection from these candidates: 3.90.3 api, 3.98a3 -b320, and may be also current Fraunhofer codec within WMP10, Helix -B160 -X2 -SBT450 -TX0 -HF2 (this is cbr320) and (though probably useless) 3.90.3 -b320 -h, and tell about the different quality of the outcomes.

It would give some insight towards pre-echo behavior of encoders at higherst quality setting on this previously unknown pre-echo problem sample.
lame3995o -Q1.7 --lowpass 17

LAME problem samples - discussion

Reply #46 –
ok, here's the comparsion: all Lames -b 320, fastenc VBR ~200kbps
sample: scooter.flac
3.90.3: easily noticeable pre-echo
3.93.1: same as above, probably even worse
3.96.1: probably the best, usual abx result 7/10 to 8/10 (can't reliably abx)
3.97b2: little worse than above, but much better than 3.90.3 (abx in previous post)
9.98a3: same as above
Fastenc: can't abx

Fastenc sounds perfect on all my samples, I'm starting to prefer it over Lame  . And it is fast as a bonus. I've yet to find a sample where fastenc does worse than Lame.  The surround encoder also handles pre-echo well but it rings (192k cbr). FHG 1.0/1.2 build 63i - sound ok on this sample but not on others (watery sound, stereo collapse).


J.M.

LAME problem samples - discussion

Reply #47 –
Thank you very much for your test.

Lame 3.90.3 -b320 uses gpsycho, --alt-preset insane uses nspsytune so if you like to I'd welcome very much if you could give api a try too.
With Fraunhofer Pro 3.3.2 (build 44) available in WMP10 I guess result is pretty much like that of the surround encoder.

fastenc sounds really interesting, I just have always prefered Lame. What version of fastenc do you use? One of those available at ReallyRarewares (called fastencc there, and v1.01 and v1.02 are available)?
lame3995o -Q1.7 --lowpass 17

LAME problem samples - discussion

Reply #48 –
I've tried 3.90.3 api, and I must say the pre-echo is gone. Sounds exactly like orig. sample.
The Fastenc encoder I've used is the one included in EasyMP3 v1.1. I use VBR because CBR sounds nasty@192kbps (probably some bug) on this sample. Fastencc102.exe CBR sounds ok with -hq switch (though slow); its VBR seems to be about the same quality as easymp3 VBR; just dont forget to add also -br switch with value at least 160 to the -vbr switch, otherwise it will lowpass at ~15.5khz (eg. fastencc102.exe <input> <output> -vbr 90 -br 160 results in ~200kbps w/ lowpass around 20khz)

Edit- fastencc102 cbr without -hq (default quality) produces the same crap as easymp3 cbr

J.M.

LAME problem samples - discussion

Reply #49 –
Thank you very much.
Glad to hear such good news about Lame (I'm a Lame fan).
But looks like I shoud give up my preference for GPSYCHO.

Can you do me a final favor and try 3.90.3 --alt-preset 270? I'd like to use that for future productive purposes.
lame3995o -Q1.7 --lowpass 17