so when to work on new presets?, hold old is 3.90.3? 3 years? Options

[adlai]

When will new presets be worked on? I know that a bunch of people will probably say something like "when 4.0 comes out" to which I respond, "it's just a version number"

so how about starting on some new presets for 3.96.1?

[rjamorim]

What new preset do you want?
--alt-preset-iamveryboredgivemeanewpreset -Y ?

This post has been edited by rjamorim: Dec 14 2004, 04:14

[Gabriel]

so how about starting on some new presets for 3.96.1?

And according to you, what is inside 3.96.1?

[Digga]

When will new presets be worked on?

a look at the LAME changelog would probably answer your question adlai.

besides, why do you 'need' new presets? are you not happy with the current state in 3.96.1? then feel free to post problem samples etc, you know the routine, don't you?

"when 4.0 comes out" to which I respond, "it's just a version number"

AFAIK, it's not just a version number but is considered to be a major step in structure and quality, most likely breaking backwards compatibility.

[DigitalDictator]

What new preset do you want?
--alt-preset-iamveryboredgivemeanewpreset -Y ?

I think he's talking about the --alt-preset transparent at 96 kbps preset.

[rjamorim]

What new preset do you want?
--alt-preset-iamveryboredgivemeanewpreset -Y ?

I think he's talking about the --alt-preset transparent at 96 kbps preset.

Ahhh, there you go!

[rjamorim]

AFAIK, it's not just a version number but is considered to be a major step in structure and quality, most likely breaking backwards compatibility.

I hope they break backwards compatibility with the DLL interface too. Enough of Faber's outdated and limited interface.

[dev0]

The presets are still being tuned/worked on. Gabriel did a major overhaul in 3.95.

LAME4 will need completely new presets/tunings:

LAME4 is now in the late-alpha stage. One of its final goal is to define the goal smile.gif
Current LAME4's Main goal is "destory all the obstacles to improve the quality/speed, which is made by OLD code".
"Improving quality" itself is not current goal, but "to lay the foundations for it" is the goal.
Maybe after archiving this goal, I will do the next goal (improving quality by tuning the parameters). That will be beta stages' work, after Christmas or the new year.

[indybrett]

You might want to subscribe to the lamedev mailing list, if you haven't already.

[JeanLuc]

I think he's talking about the --alt-preset transparent at 96 kbps preset.

M$ already achieved this with 64 kbps WMA 9 Standard

[LoFiYo]

It seems that (alt-)presets are accepted by the recent versions only for backward compatibility. The developers are trying to stay away from presets, and are going back to the good old simple options like -V and -b.

With Lame4, this attitude/tendency is even more obvious. Here is the "--preset help" of lame4a11:

The --preset switches are obsoleted and discouraged to use.
All the presets are only alias to the simple VBR/ABR/CBR mode

[Jojo]

It seems that (alt-)presets are accepted by the recent versions only for backward compatibility. The developers are trying to stay away from presets, and are going back to the good old simple options like -V and -b.

With Lame4, this attitude/tendency is even more obvious. Here is the "--preset help" of lame4a11:

The --preset switches are obsoleted and discouraged to use.
All the presets are only alias to the simple VBR/ABR/CBR mode

hmm, I'm not sure if this is a good idea...why should people bother with switches if they can just type --preset standard ? I know, it will still work, but why is it deprecated

[Gabriel]

Hmm, why should people bother with --preset standard when they can just type -V2 ?

[Faelix]

hmm, I'm not sure if this is a good idea...why should people bother with switches if they can just type --preset standard ? I know, it will still work, but why is it deprecated

Hmm, why should people bother with --preset standard when they can just type -V2 ?

As far as I have understood it, the latest version of Lame implements Dibrom's famous code tweaks on all CBR/ABR/VBR switches. Until recently, these code tweaks were available on only two VBR modes (standard and extreme). The good point is that now you can use them on all the VBR scale, and Roberto's very quoted listening test has showed the potential around 128kbps.

[flipik]

Adlai: make yourself a script file, you won't be dissapointed

[Jojo]

Hmm, why should people bother with --preset standard when they can just type -V2 ?

I've never bothered too much with all that -V stuff...so what would -V1 be? --preset extreme? Is there a -V0 ? I rather find it confusing...since there is also a -q2 switch etc...anyway, please get rid of the -k switch. I still can't figure our when this could become useful...it will rather hurt quality...just imagine CBR 128 combined with it

Edit: I found the answer for the -V switches and find it even more confusing
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=18091
...one has to remember what those switches do...like fast preset or just the regular preset...I'd just keep ---preset standard or --fast preset standard etc.

This post has been edited by Jojo: Dec 17 2004, 17:06

[dev0]

It actually makes sense.
You don't have to use presets anymore. Just specify a quality level as you do with Vorbis/Musepack.
I agree that the meaning of the -q switch is confusing, but if you want to play safe just don't use it.
Rather than seeing -V n has the end of the presets see it as their 'natural' evolution.

[Gabriel]

IMO remembering numbers is easier than to remember preset names. Also if you only use the named presets, then you have no way to use the low bitrates vbr modes...

[w00b3r]

haha, there goes the purpose of ubernet (maybe).. they use alt-preset standard as if their life kinda depends on it you know.. so they are going to have to change the "uberstandard" and all that..

while we are at the topic of switches.. what is the best non-preset switch to use that will compare very well with cd quality, for the highest percentage of CD's? someone recommended this:

-V 2 --vbr-new -q 0 --lowpass 19.7 --cwlimit 10.7 --scale 0.99 -b 96 --athaa-sensitivity 1

any other suggestions would be appreciated. =)

btw im using 3.96.1 stable right now

This post has been edited by w00b3r: Dec 18 2004, 00:29

[echo]

haha, there goes the purpose of ubernet (maybe).. they use alt-preset standard as if their life kinda depends on it you know.. so they are going to have to change the "uberstandard" and all that..

while we are at the topic of switches.. what is the best non-preset switch to use that will compare very well with cd quality, for the highest percentage of CD's? someone recommended this:

-V 2 --vbr-new -q 0 --lowpass 19.7 --cwlimit 10.7 --scale 0.99 -b 96 --athaa-sensitivity 1

any other suggestions would be appreciated. =)

btw im using 3.96.1 stable right now

Read the FAQ's and don't mess with the presets. Quality will most likely degrade if you do.

[Gabriel]

while we are at the topic of switches.. what is the best non-preset switch to use that will compare very well with cd quality, for the highest percentage of CD's? someone recommended this:

-V 2 --vbr-new -q 0 --lowpass 19.7 --cwlimit 10.7 --scale 0.99 -b 96 --athaa-sensitivity 1

The best vbr mode would be:
-V0
The best vbr tradeoff would be:
-V2

Why do you feel the need to add switches that you do not even understand?

[k.eight.a]

The best vbr mode would be:
-V0
The best vbr tradeoff would be:
-V2

Why do you feel the need to add switches that you do not even understand?

Gabriel, why you've used conditional... You should have written:
"The best vbr mode/tradeoff IS" - Don't you think so?

This post has been edited by k.eight.a: Dec 18 2004, 10:52

[Gabriel]

Gabriel, why you've used conditional

Simply because I can only state my own opinion. Audio encoders quality is not something that can be mathematically proven. It can only be estimated, so there is no definitive answer, only recommendations.

[Jojo]

IMO remembering numbers is easier than to remember preset names. Also if you only use the named presets, then you have no way to use the low bitrates vbr modes...

this is true when --preset standard was called --fsdfmsdfmds, instead. However, with the preset names I simply write what LAME should do. You are right about the other presets though...they can't all have names.

As I've said before, -V something is confusing since there is also a -q something, both switches have something to do with quality. Maybe the v switch should be called preset instead. So for --preset standard you'd type --preset2

This post has been edited by Jojo: Dec 18 2004, 17:55

[mithrandir]

IMO remembering numbers is easier than to remember preset names. Also if you only use the named presets, then you have no way to use the low bitrates vbr modes...

Absolutely agree. Numbers make particular sense for MP3 because you have format-dictated top (320kbps) and bottom limits (32kbps), whereas Vorbis -q 10 is 500kbps nominal though the container could support 1411.2kbps like a WAV file.

However, I would prefer the -V presets to follow in Vorbis and Musepacks' footsteps, i.e. higher numbers = better quality. But the current system is well-entrenched in people's minds.