IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Lame 3.99.5 outputs smaller files than 3.97 ?
gourdo
post Sep 2 2012, 04:57
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 6
Joined: 19-March 06
Member No.: 28576



I ripped most of my CD collection about six years ago with LAME 3.97b with the V2 preset. I recently had a hard drive crash and had to re-rip pretty much everything. Fortunately, i still had all the physical discs stored and in excellent condition, so I lucked out this time. I downloaded the latest version of LAME 3.99.5 to re-rip.

As it turns out, a few albums of the original 3.97 rips survived the crash (saved to an external SD card), so I was able to compare a number of tracks. I noticed that pretty much every newly ripped song had a lower bitrate (5-10kpbs) and file size than the ones ripped with 3.97. Is this to be expected due to the improvements in compression techniques made to LAME over the past several years? I suppose I would have expected the V2 preset to hover around the same average bitrate as the encoder improves, and that it would use the extra headroom to improve quality in difficult passages...
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
A_Man_Eating_Duc...
post Sep 2 2012, 07:13
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 913
Joined: 21-December 01
From: New Zealand
Member No.: 705



A lot of changes have happened since v3.97.

http://lame.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/lam...l?revision=HEAD

As long the rips sound transparent there is nothing for you to worry about.


--------------------
Who are you and how did you get in here ?
I'm a locksmith, I'm a locksmith.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Aleron Ives
post Sep 2 2012, 17:16
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 167
Joined: 22-March 10
From: California
Member No.: 79208



Remember that the goal of VBR lossy compression is to achieve a target quality at the lowest bitrate possible, so you are witnessing the improvements made by the LAME developers since 3.97. The new VBR mode is also much faster than the old one in 3.97, so continue your encoding process and enjoy the smaller files and the saved time. wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Sep 2 2012, 17:30
Post #4





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



I know we're talking about 3.97 and not 3.98 but let's not be naieve...
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=96681


--------------------
Your eyes cannot hear.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
halb27
post Sep 2 2012, 19:38
Post #5





Group: Members
Posts: 2414
Joined: 9-October 05
From: Dormagen, Germany
Member No.: 25015



IMO a 5-10 kbps difference at -V2 isn't much of a concern, especially as it's about the difference between 3.99 and 3.97b here. There have always been minor differences in average bitrate when Lame versions changed.
As far as I can see with a quality level around -V2 average bitrate didn't change much when going from 3.98 to 3.99. At -V5 or similar as well as -V0 or similar it's another story.


--------------------
lame3100m --bCVBR 300
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
john33
post Sep 3 2012, 08:36
Post #6


xcLame and OggDropXPd Developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 3726
Joined: 30-September 01
From: Bracknell, UK
Member No.: 111



If memory serves me, that difference will likely be largely due to the improvement in the handling of 'silence'.


--------------------
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
My compiles and utilities are at http://www.rarewares.org/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
shadowking
post Sep 3 2012, 09:44
Post #7





Group: Members
Posts: 1523
Joined: 31-January 04
Member No.: 11664



Its the 'fix' for sfb21 bloating. Forcing -Y on both 3.98 and 3.99 will show very similar bitrate.


--------------------
Wavpack -b450x1
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
axemred
post Dec 6 2012, 05:54
Post #8





Group: Members
Posts: 1
Joined: 6-December 12
Member No.: 104997



I recently re-ripped a CD (can't remember which one now. I think it was an Ozzy album) to test a new EAC install, and I setup 3.99.5 to encode it with V2. I had originally encoded it years ago with 3.90.3 aps. It's amazing how much smaller the files are. Some are 30kbps smaller. At first I thought I did something wrong, but after some reading, it looks like everything is ok. I didn't do any ABXing, but I ripped a few more albums and listened and didn't notice any artifacts. LAME has come a long way.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
shadowking
post Dec 6 2012, 10:20
Post #9





Group: Members
Posts: 1523
Joined: 31-January 04
Member No.: 11664



If one encodes aps -Y and V2 -Y you see a similar bitrate. It is a new handling of the sfb21 and it looks like a big improvement for lame. I checked the a standard V2 encode and the spectrum analysis (above 16khz) looked fine just like old versions.


--------------------
Wavpack -b450x1
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
IgorC
post Dec 6 2012, 13:36
Post #10





Group: Members
Posts: 1506
Joined: 3-January 05
From: Argentina, Bs As
Member No.: 18803



QUOTE (shadowking @ Dec 6 2012, 06:20) *
It is a new handling of the sfb21 and it looks like a big improvement for lame.

Not sure about big improvements.
http://d.hatena.ne.jp/kamedo2/20111214/1323849399


I have performed my test also and could't find an imrpovement.
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=96800

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
halb27
post Dec 6 2012, 17:45
Post #11





Group: Members
Posts: 2414
Joined: 9-October 05
From: Dormagen, Germany
Member No.: 25015



What sample is the blue circle which is encoded significantly worse with 3.99.5 compared to 3.98 and 3.97?


--------------------
lame3100m --bCVBR 300
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lvqcl
post Dec 6 2012, 18:31
Post #12





Group: Developer
Posts: 3212
Joined: 2-December 07
Member No.: 49183



QUOTE
What sample is the blue circle

Reunion blues aka Jazz.flac -- http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....st&p=347102

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dynamic
post Dec 6 2012, 20:02
Post #13





Group: Members
Posts: 793
Joined: 17-September 06
Member No.: 35307



QUOTE (IgorC @ Dec 6 2012, 12:36) *
QUOTE (shadowking @ Dec 6 2012, 06:20) *
It is a new handling of the sfb21 and it looks like a big improvement for lame.

Not sure about big improvements.


I think shadowking was referring not to sound quality changes but to bitrate improvements at roughly constant quality (and it's constant quality that VBR such as -V2 is trying to achieve), that have been achieved with some clever sfb21 handling (but largely disappear when using -Y, as that switch over-rides sfb21 bloat by ignoring accuracy requirements of the psymodel in that 16kHz+ band - though the frequencies are still present)

The error bars appear to support a Null Hypothesis that "there is no difference in average quality between -V2.5new and -V2.3old" over Kamedo2's test corpus to Kamedo2's ears, though specific samples vary noticeably. This doesn't speak to comparisons versus 3.90.3 --alt-preset standard, which is what shadowking referred to.

Thanks for pointing that out, by the way, shadowking. I hadn't realised that such improvements had been made in sfb21 handling over the years and thus in bitrate when -Y is not used.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
halb27
post Dec 6 2012, 20:27
Post #14





Group: Members
Posts: 2414
Joined: 9-October 05
From: Dormagen, Germany
Member No.: 25015



QUOTE (lvqcl @ Dec 6 2012, 18:31) *
Reunion blues aka Jazz.flac ...

Thanks a lot.


--------------------
lame3100m --bCVBR 300
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 20th April 2014 - 04:37