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: Intended uses of Dibrom\'s Presets (Read 3614 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Intended uses of Dibrom\'s Presets

Originally posted by Dibrom:

With MP3 you need vbr bitrates near 256kbps to really acheive transparency across the board in most situations I think and even then this is not always possible, but with AAC this is much more attainable at bitrates near 180kbps.

When I read this I reflected on your new presets:

(1) --alt-preset normal
(2) --alt-preset high (old standard)
(3) --alt-preset extreme
(4) --alt-preset insane

Since your comments and my testing agree that --alt normal gives bitrate ranges of about 150-200 kbps (220s for metal, etc.) then your comments quoted above should mean that --alt-preset normal is not a transparent setting and thus not suitable for mp3 archiving.

If I am correct about that last point, then I think these are your intended uses for the presets (correct me if I am wrong):

(1) --alt-preset normal
USE: best tradeoff between size and quality without any major quality concessions.

(2) --alt-preset high
USE: Higher quality than normal; average bitrate around 256 kbps? Bare minimum for mp3 archival?

(3) --alt-preset extreme
USE: Very High quality; for people with excellent hearing; good choice for mp3 archival...

(4) --alt-preset insane
USE: Tries to achieve highest quality possible in Lame; for people who must, for some reason, have 320 cbr; for people who need to store Fatboy in mp3  generally overkill and wasteful.

Did I get it right? Or am I underestimating the quality of --alt-preset normal and taking the above quote out of context?

Intended uses of Dibrom\'s Presets

Reply #1 –
Quote
Originally posted by RD
When I read this I reflected on your new presets:
[/b]

Well.. for one thing that statement was made awhile ago and was based on the current technology that was used within LAME.  I have been able to improve many of the areas which I found problems with before so I don't think it is quite so much the case now.

That being said, I'm talking about a relative level of transparency.  MP3 at any bitrate is not absolutely transparent if you factor in the issue that there are many clips (usually impulse heavy) which are still fairly artifacted even at 320kbps.  What I'm trying to achieve is a reasonable level of transparency on the majority of music for the majority of users, with this "normal" preset.

Quote
Since your comments and my testing agree that --alt normal gives bitrate ranges of about 150-200 kbps (220s for metal, etc.) then your comments quoted above should mean that --alt-preset normal is not a transparent setting and thus not suitable for mp3 archiving.


This very much depends.  Considering the fact that normal actually outperforms high (standard) on many of the more difficult clips, and that for the most part in Roel's AQ test dm-standard was shown to be AQ quality, it's reasonable to say that for the most part normal should also be.  Again, this is for the most part, it is not necessarily an absolute.

Quote
If I am correct about that last point, then I think these are your intended uses for the presets (correct me if I am wrong):

[...]

Did I get it right? Or am I underestimating the quality of --alt-preset normal and taking the above quote out of context?


I think maybe you are underestimating the quality some.  Those statements are pretty much on target though, but I think it should be emphasized a bit more than "normal" isn't your standard "tradeoff" like something like --r3mix is.  It attempts to achieve simply the best quality possible first and then bring down size second.  It's design philosophy is very similar to that of the old standard, it is just taken much more to the threshold and uses much more advanced techniques to keep bitrates lower but without harming quality much.