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 3.97 beta recommendation (Read 109073 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

LAME 3.97 beta recommendation

Reply #75 –
Quote
Quote
I just added LAME 3.97b compiles for several esoteric platforms to RareWares.

Hohoho
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=331956"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Any chance of putting up new 3.97b versions of the special packages, i.e.
"lame_enc.dll modified to use INI File Setup"

thx.

jb
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=332044"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes.  Actually, I was wondering when someone was going to ask!!  I'll post them later.

LAME 3.97 beta recommendation

Reply #76 –
Quote
Any chance of putting up new 3.97b versions of the special packages, i.e.
"lame_enc.dll modified to use INI File Setup"

thx.

jb
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=332044"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

3.97b1 compiles of the dll and the exe now at Rarewares mp3 section.

LAME 3.97 beta recommendation

Reply #77 –
Nice to have a new recommended version, thanks for the effort, guys! I personally belong to the camp who find the beta term here odd but enough has been said regarding it.

Two questions:

- Does the fact that this version now has the recommended status mean in practice that there will be no more 3.97.* versions?

- How do the old presets translate to V commands and how is their quality supposed to be? I know we should use the Vs from now on, but the Frontah frontend that I use to transcode from FLAC to MP3 has the old preset commands built-in and I wouldn't want to start using a new frontend at the moment.

LAME 3.97 beta recommendation

Reply #78 –
Quote
- How do the old presets translate to V commands and how is their quality supposed to be?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


[a href="http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=18091]http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=18091[/url]

LAME 3.97 beta recommendation

Reply #79 –
There's no need for people to become paranoid about the settings. The use of the old presets may be deprecated, but they still continue to work as they have throughout the life of the 3.97 branch.

LAME 3.97 beta recommendation

Reply #80 –
Quote
Quote
I am also intrigues by the big variations in file sizes and bit rates with the new -V settings. It's a paradigm shift from the old -alt preset regime.

Are you complaining that -V is a vbr setting, and thus produces variable bitrate?
Old vbr alt-presets were also variable in bitrate, there is no shift there (even less "paradigm shift"). If you do not want the result to be variable in bitrate, then why are you using vbr?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=332064"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


No, i am not complaining. I said i was intrigued. But, paradigm shift is true strong a word, i suppose.
1. My point was that the variation in file sizes and bit rates are much larger than with the older lame version.
2. With the classical samples i use, i rarely get above 220 kbps VBR with V0 Not so with other genres.
As a corollary to this, isn't there room for a higher than V0 vbr setting because 320 kbps is so much farther away.
The older vbr alt-presets didn't produce this much of a disparity between the highest quality vbr settings which would yield bitrates in the range of 270, 280 kbps for most classical music.
I could add some examples, if you'd like to, but i'm sure you already know this. Again i should stress that i am not complaining

LAME 3.97 beta recommendation

Reply #81 –
Quote
No, i am not complaining. I said i was intrigued. But, paradigm shift is true strong a word, i suppose.
1. My point was that the variation in file sizes and bit rates are much larger than with the older lame version.
2. With the classical samples i use, i rarely get above 220 kbps VBR with V0 Not so with other genres.
As a corollary to this, isn't there room for a higher than V0 vbr setting because 320 kbps is so much farther away.
The older vbr alt-presets didn't produce this much of a disparity between the highest quality vbr settings which would yield bitrates in the range of 270, 280 kbps for most classical music.
I could add some examples, if you'd like to, but i'm sure you already know this. Again i should stress that i am not complaining :)
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=332199"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

In all those cases you are only pointing out varying bitrates. Bitrates are irrelevant in VBR (at least in terms of the "target") - only quality matters. Do you have any evidence, that the different bitrate-behaviour has a bad influence on quality? Do you have any evidence, that V0 in 3.97 is worse than --preset extreme in earlier versions?

So, if the quality of V0 has not degraded, but the bitrate went down..... then do you know what that is? An *improvement*.

- Lyx
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.

LAME 3.97 beta recommendation

Reply #82 –
Quote
- Does the fact that this version now has the recommended status mean in practice that there will be no more 3.97.* versions?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=332128"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


This is a very good question, one that I hope can be adressed by LAME devs.

About your second question: maybe you could try foobar2000?
(Although I think Frontah allows you to input your own command lines)
I'm the one in the picture, sitting on a giant cabbage in Mexico, circa 1978.
Reseñas de Rock en Español: www.estadogeneral.com

LAME 3.97 beta recommendation

Reply #83 –
Quote
Quote

1. My point was that the variation in file sizes and bit rates are much larger than with the older lame version.
2. With the classical samples i use, i rarely get above 220 kbps VBR with V0 Not so with other genres.
As a corollary to this, isn't there room for a higher than V0 vbr setting because 320 kbps is so much farther away.
The older vbr alt-presets didn't produce this much of a disparity between the highest quality vbr settings which would yield bitrates in the range of 270, 280 kbps for most classical music.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=332199"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

So, if the quality of V0 has not degraded, but the bitrate went down..... then do you know what that is? An *improvement*.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=332202"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I do not dispute the fact that the quality has really improved and that quality is what vbr targets. But i think you missed my point. Ah well, forget it

LAME 3.97 beta recommendation

Reply #84 –
--abr 270 and you will be happy.

LAME 3.97 beta recommendation

Reply #85 –
Quote
--abr 270 and you will be happy.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=332314"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

thank you, gabriel. i guess that is one solution

LAME 3.97 beta recommendation

Reply #87 –
Feel free to have a go at me..
But WHY can the NEW settings not be edited to match the existing ones?
To keep it SIMPLE..
EG LINK -V2 to --preset standard in Lame...
That way we can have the new stuff with the old setting..
Cheers

P.S is the -V2 --vbr-new the NEW --alt-present standard?
P.P.S What about updating the Wiki?

LAME 3.97 beta recommendation

Reply #88 –
Quote
But WHY can the NEW settings not be edited to match the existing ones?
To keep it SIMPLE..
EG LINK -V2 to --preset standard in Lame...

That's the way it is

LAME 3.97 beta recommendation

Reply #89 –
Quote
P.P.S What about updating the Wiki?[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=332366"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


What is still missing there?

I updated most of it based on the recommended settings thread.

LAME 3.97 beta recommendation

Reply #90 –
@Gabriel, So for instance --alt-preset standard links to the NEW one ie -V2?
(Actually -V2 is better..can the documentation be put in a way, so it just says that -V2 is the recommended "transparent" setting?)
@rjamorim, I was refering to this
http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?ti...ecommended_LAME

LAME 3.97 beta recommendation

Reply #91 –
Quote
@rjamorim, I was refering to this
http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?ti...ecommended_LAME
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=332377"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Egad! A redundant page!

Thanks for pointing that out. I just updated it. Later I'll talk to Jan about merging it with the LAME page.

LAME 3.97 beta recommendation

Reply #92 –
Quote
Use -V0 and pretend you're using --abr 270, and you'll probably be just as happy .
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=332341"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

i have no problems with V0 per se, of course.
but i think i'll use --abr 256, instead of --abr 270.. don't want to waste too many bits

LAME 3.97 beta recommendation

Reply #93 –
yeah those 14 kbps really make the difference... 
"We cannot win against obsession. They care, we don't. They win."

LAME 3.97 beta recommendation

Reply #95 –
@ guruboolez

Quote
It's not exactly what I'm asking for. There's a problem with -V0 minimal bitrate, not the average one. For all other -V setting, the min. value on the current tables seems OK. But 230 kbps as minimal bitrate for -V0 seems to be wrong. The bitrate doesn't jump that high with musical stuff having few informations (or noise) in the highest SFB.


I'm just playing around with the new 3.97b1 (I preferred 3.90.3 up to date). I agree (but of course classical music is a large field); some types of classical (e.g. piano solo which compresses almost transparent at bitrates ~ 175 kbit/s) don't need such a high minimal bitrate by far. But try aggressive contemporaries (Xenakis!) or baroque with cembalo you'll see that bitrates won't fall <192 kbit/s often. But 230 kbps seems to be a little bit too high...

In my opinion it would be a better idea to implement a simpler way to change the transition band for the polyphase lowpass filter used (only classical recordings are using today DDD in general - the actual transition band of -V 0 seems to be o.k. for this purpose; for older ADD or AAD recordings I would prefer a setting with a transition band ~ 18 kHz and thus using more compressing bandwidth for additional transparency below 18kHz instead for reproducing perfect noise).

LAME 3.97 beta recommendation

Reply #96 –
Quote
Just curious how any why it suddenly became recommended, was there a disscussion between the mods in the background. Just wondering as it seemed to leap out of nowhere that it became recommended.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=331489"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Hardly. I got flamed by guru (quite deservedly) for being unaware of the quality tuning going on behind the scenes by the LAME crew. The new version's really great. I'm really content with it myself. Never less than completely transparent to my ears. I've tried it, tried ABXing, etc, and have failed consistently. I think I got castanets down to under 1% chance of guessing after like an hour of work, but I can't be bothered to do that again to train my ears to the artifacting.  I'd prefer to be content with transparency.

LAME 3.97 beta recommendation

Reply #97 –
In my opinion it's irritating to recommend -V 2 --vbr-new and -V 2 vbr-default at the same time, especially while comparing them with --alt-preset standard and --alt-preset standard fast.

In the past --alt-preset standard was the main recommended switch and should be better than --alt-preset standard fast.

In "Remarks" we can read: --vbr-new is faster and has equal or better quality -> "though the general impression is, that --vbr-new should be recommended over vbr-default".

I think if the generell impression is, that --vbr-new should be recommended over vbr-default and it's faster, there's no need to recommend vbr-default anymore. It would be better to put the vbr-default to the remark, not to the "Recommended encoder settings".

We had faith to change the recommended lame version, now we should have faith to recommend one/the new vbr method, to minimize confusion and to make a standard.

LAME 3.97 beta recommendation

Reply #98 –
If everyone thinks that vbr-new is generally better, it shouldn't take much to take the L.A.M.E source code, change default behaviour to include vbr-new, and have a vbr-old switch instead, and then host this binary on Rarewares, along with the modified source code, and call it the HA branch. This could be kept until such a time, that people think the defualt behaviour is better again, and then just host the origional source.

To aviod confusion, perhaps a different encode string could be added, statingit was made with the HA compile??


Just  a few random thoughts.

Kristian

LAME 3.97 beta recommendation

Reply #99 –
Quote
If everyone thinks that vbr-new is generally better, it shouldn't take much to take the L.A.M.E source code, change default behaviour to include vbr-new, and have a vbr-old switch instead, and then host this binary on Rarewares, along with the modified source code, and call it the HA branch.


That would be the consequential next step.