LAME 3.96 FINAL vs. 3.90.3 Test, Test/Result Thread Options

[[proxima]]

but no matter if someone can verify your results: Do you have some numbers about how much adding --athaa-sensitivity 1 increases bitrate - maybe it's so much that we would have to use -V 6 with it instead of -V 5 to get 128kbps on average...

Apart the -V5 setting 128 Kbps target, i've posted my subjective impression about HF problems. Adding --athaa-sensitivity 1, bitrate increase seems very small and some problems are noticeably reduced. Nevertheless, bitrate should not be the main problem because even plain -V4 (--preset medium) has more HF problems than -V5 --athaa-sensitivity 1 (see bayle sample)... maybe this switch could be useful for mid-low bitrate VBR tuning, not only for a setting around 128 kbps.

This post has been edited by [proxima]: Apr 21 2004, 23:40

[freakngoat]

CORRECTION:

For drone_short, 3.96 -V1 is not better overall than 3.96 pe--it just hides one particular artifact better. I did not mean to imply that it is better overall, as it suffers from louder "air rush" artifacts than pe...

Also, I have verified fatboy at --preset standard...

[Jebus]

CORRECTION:

For drone_short, 3.96 -V1 is not better overall than 3.96 pe--it just hides one particular artifact better. I did not mean to imply that it is better overall, as it suffers from louder "air rush" artifacts than pe...

Also, I have verified fatboy at --preset standard...

uhm, --preset extreme and -V1 are exactly the same thing using 3.96. Am I missing something?

Did you ABX?

[freakngoat]

CORRECTION:

For drone_short, 3.96 -V1 is not better overall than 3.96 pe--it just hides one particular artifact better. I did not mean to imply that it is better overall, as it suffers from louder "air rush" artifacts than pe...

Also, I have verified fatboy at --preset standard...

uhm, --preset extreme and -V1 are exactly the same thing using 3.96. Am I missing something?

You are indeed.

--preset extreme is the same as -V0, --preset standard is the same as -V2.

I haven't ABXed it, but I suppose I could if somebody thinks it important.

Edit: wording

This post has been edited by freakngoat: Apr 22 2004, 04:13

[Jebus]

ah, forgot there was a -V0

[ff123]

[proxima]:

How does 3.96 -V5 --athaa-sensitivity 1 compare in a direct comparison with 3.90.2/3 ap 128 for the 12 samples?

ff123

This post has been edited by ff123: Apr 22 2004, 15:28

[[proxima]]

How does 3.96 -V5 --athaa-sensitivity 1 compare in a direct comparison with 3.90.2/3 ap 128 for the 12 samples?

I never compared the two directly. Regarding -V5 vs. 3.90.2 --ap 128 tests i've done, i think that the VBR setting is very good for some samples (i.e. preecho) but quite worse in others (mainly low volume samples) because of HF problems. But the point is that i think "--athaa-sensitivity 1" could help with ringing related problems.

I have to do a direct comparison but i'm quite hopeful that the new VBR setting will perform closest or even better than --ap 128 with 3.90.2

[ff123]

,Apr 22 2004, 01:33 PM]

How does 3.96 -V5 --athaa-sensitivity 1 compare in a direct comparison with 3.90.2/3 ap 128 for the 12 samples?

I never compared the two directly. Regarding -V5 vs. 3.90.2 --ap 128 tests i've done, i think that the VBR setting is very good for some samples (i.e. preecho) but quite worse in others (mainly low volume samples) because of HF problems. But the point is that i think "--athaa-sensitivity 1" could help with ringing related problems.

I have to do a direct comparison but i'm quite hopeful that the new VBR setting will perform closest or even better than --ap 128 with 3.90.2

That's why I asked. If it turns out that -V5 --athaa-sensitivity 1 beats out 3.90.2 --ap 128 in a side by side comparison over many samples, then that setting should be used in Roberto's test, assuming the bitrate is ok

ff123

[tigre]

Posts discussing technical details about --athaa-sensitivity 1 switch split to this thread. Posts related to testing or mixed ones stay here.

[Gabriel]

For those sensitive to high freq problems in preset cbr 128, there is a little test here:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....howtopic=21052&

[Gabriel]

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....ndpost&p=207452

[cuan]

so were there any conclusions drawn from this test.. Which one won 3.96 or good old 3.90.3. In particular with the -aps preset.

[freakngoat]

so were there any conclusions drawn from this test.. Which one won 3.96 or good old 3.90.3. In particular with the -aps preset.

I don't think there were enough responses for a valid answer, either way. Personally, I would like to test some more, but I've been caught up with trying to graduate from school...

3.96 definitely improved some samples over 3.90.3, but also regressed in others. That's about all we know.

[Jojo]

3.96 definitely improved some samples over 3.90.3, but also regressed in others. That's about all we know.

and it does that at a much lower bitrate!

[Karlosak]

3.96 definitely improved some samples over 3.90.3, but also regressed in others. That's about all we know.

and it does that at a much lower bitrate!

I have encoded a lot of albums (e.g. older Pink Floyd) where actually LAME 3.96 produces higher bitrate than LAME 3.90.3

[Jebus]

I'm slowly reencoding my ~300CD collection right now in 3.96... once i get an acceptible sample size i'll let you people know what the average bitrate cost or savings is with the newer version.

[indybrett]

I've encoded a few hundred CD's now with 3.96. Overall I would say the filesize is bigger on about 50% of the material, and smaller on about 50% of the material.

In other words, it's the same when doing a large collection that consists of varying types of music.

[Sunhillow]

I have encoded a lot of albums (e.g. older Pink Floyd) where actually LAME 3.96 produces higher bitrate than LAME 3.90.3

well, I noticed a bitrate increase on tracks with mainly ss frames, like Beatles or Pink Floyd.
Sometimes 3.96 --preset medium produces higher bitrates than 3.90 APS

[Matyas]

So i won't loose anything by switching to 3.96, right? Only that the encoding will be considerable faster on my P233MMX!

[Jojo]

So i won't loose anything by switching to 3.96, right? Only that the encoding will be considerable faster on my P233MMX!

that's right!

[xmixahlx]

right. faster
+better on some samples
+worse on others

(refer to "Recommended Encoder" sticky...)


later

[LordofStars]

The only think I have against 3.96. is that I don't have the same switch capability I had before. If you make it idiot proof your going to take away the options tweakers like. I'll quit bitching if I like to tweak so i'll stick with 3.90.3 until 4.0

[bluddnok]

Okay, I have a hard-drive full of .wav files just waiting to be compressed: which LAME version should I use?

I have read most of this thread, and I see that there are many arguments for both 3.90 and for 3.96, however most of the technical details have gone over my head, and I was hoping for a few generalised recommendations.

I am not too bothered with file size, and would like to compress these files at a quality which I will not decide is too low in a few years time (when I can afford a good-quality hi-fi system, for example)

I am presently using CDex to rip and RazorLAME to compress.

Thanks for any suggestions

[LordofStars]

Tried and true is all I have to say.

[Lyx]

The only think I have against 3.96. is that I don't have the same switch capability I had before. If you make it idiot proof your going to take away the options tweakers like. I'll quit bitching if I like to tweak so i'll stick with 3.90.3 until 4.0

actually, if i understood gabriel in another thread correctly, then 4.0 will have even more switches removed - for a good reason.

However, could be that i misunderstood him - but i think i didn't.

For further explanations on the "why" a longer commandline not necessarily improves quality, refer to the ha.org mp3 FAQ.
- Lyx