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: Does adding -q0 to -b320 improve quality in LAME 3.99.5? (Read 41710 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Does adding -q0 to -b320 improve quality in LAME 3.99.5?

Reply #50
My encoder disagrees:

Did you take the time to read the thread and follow the links that were given before posting?

Specifically, you should have seen this:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....st&p=850682

Does adding -q0 to -b320 improve quality in LAME 3.99.5?

Reply #51
Did you take the time to read the thread and follow the links that were given before posting?

Yes, I did.

I've read your comment but we are of different opinion. You say it doesn't worth improving quality beyond transparency, I say it actually does. That is why many people use lossless formats, or ogg and aac with average bitrates above 320kbps.

I've also read the -q document linked earlier and it's a little bit unclear, it's inadequate to settle the question of this topic. In my opinion LAME developers should write a lot more detailed documentation than this to bust every myths and prevent topics like this.

Does adding -q0 to -b320 improve quality in LAME 3.99.5?

Reply #52
(...)You say it doesn't worth improving quality beyond transparency, I say it actually does. That is why many people use lossless formats, or ogg and aac with average bitrates above 320kbps.


Congratulations! That's by far the most literal definition of placebo effect I've ever seen.

Quote
(...)In my opinion LAME developers should write a lot more detailed documentation than this to bust every myths and prevent topics like this.


Shouldn't we, first of all, be thanking Lame developers (and for that matter most other format's) for a great piece of software that's been adequately serving us non golden-eared mortals for more than a decade, before starting to slag them off?
Listen to the music, not the media it's on.
União e reconstrução

Does adding -q0 to -b320 improve quality in LAME 3.99.5?

Reply #53
I never said (nor would I ever say) it isn't worth improving quality beyond transparency because that would imply that I believed such a phenomenon exists.

With lossy encoders you cannot improve sound quality beyond the point of transparency by any objective means.  To argue that this is opinion misses the point of perceptual encoding.  Divining "better than transparent sound quality" as the reason for using lossless or overkill settings doesn't change the landscape. Even if it is the reason many people do what they do, it doesn't mean they are right or even justified in doing so.

Regarding the q switch as it relates to VBR vs. CBR, if you do a little more research you will find they use different algorithms. As such, there is no point in equating a specific q value in one to that in the other.

I apologize for throwing that link out like I did since it doesn't address the point I thought it was going to address. I am the one guilty of not reading thoroughly enough.

Does adding -q0 to -b320 improve quality in LAME 3.99.5?

Reply #54
Congratulations! That's by far the most literal definition of placebo effect I've ever seen.

This is not black or white. If it were, record companies would provide only mp3 discs and lossless audio and placebo formats would become extinct. What about editing and transcoding?

Shouldn't we, first of all, be thanking Lame developers (and for that matter most other format's) for a great piece of software that's been adequately serving us non golden-eared mortals for more than a decade, before starting to slag them off?

Yes, we should be and actually we are, but objectively more detailed documents are still needed. I didn't intend to slag them off or something like that.

Does adding -q0 to -b320 improve quality in LAME 3.99.5?

Reply #55
transcoding

Transcoding mp3 has been fairly well documented as being a very bad idea.

Regardless (and assuming this is still on-topic), saying that q0 improves sound quality when transcoding requires objective evidence.  Do you have any?

Does adding -q0 to -b320 improve quality in LAME 3.99.5?

Reply #56
This is not black or white.


I'm sorry you've lost me here.

Quote
If it were, record companies would provide only mp3 discs and lossless audio and placebo formats would become extinct.


Since transparency does not apply to lossless encoding whatsoever, why bringing that up? To compare oranges and apples!?


Quote
What about editing and transcoding?


Eew! Editing what? Lossy files!? That's definitely a no-no!! And again, if you by any rate, meant lossless encoding, please refer to my reply above.

Listen to the music, not the media it's on.
União e reconstrução

Does adding -q0 to -b320 improve quality in LAME 3.99.5?

Reply #57
Transcoding mp3 has been fairly well documented as being a very bad idea.

I know.

Regardless (and assuming this is still on-topic), saying that q0 improves sound quality when transcoding requires objective evidence.  Do you have any?

I didn't claim q0 does inevitably improve transcoding. I'm just saying inaudible quality improvement could be useful in general, for example in the case of transcoding. There are situations when you have to transcode mp3, for example you don't have the original source still you are providing low bitrate mp3 stream from lossy source having higher bitrate.

Does adding -q0 to -b320 improve quality in LAME 3.99.5?

Reply #58
I'm just saying inaudible quality improvement could be useful in general

"Could be useful in general" doesn't cut it in a discussion that was created for the sole purpose of obtaining a definitive answer.  Furthermore (and again!), there is no such thing as inaudible quality improvement. Improvement necessarily implies audible difference, which requires objective evidence in the way of double-blind test results.

There are situations when you have to transcode mp3, for example you don't have the original source still you are providing low bitrate mp3 stream from lossy source having higher bitrate.

You have the lossless source to create a bloated mp3 and then you don't? Please explain why this is a worthwhile scenario.

If you know of any professional service that archives to 320kbit mp3 or employs other such stupid practices, please share so that we know what to avoid.

Does adding -q0 to -b320 improve quality in LAME 3.99.5?

Reply #59
Did some tests recently using 3.99.5 on this sample:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....mp;#entry853181

File sizes are the same:
1 200 586 bytes / -b320
1 200 586 bytes / -b320 -q0

But after using mp3packer (without the -z):
1 199 024 bytes / -b320
1 198 463 bytes / -b320 -q0

File with -q0 seems to be smaller here, probably because a better psychoacoustic model removes more information. It is completely the opposite of "inaudible quality improvement" since -q option is to increase perceived quality only, and will not reduce mathematical difference.


Does adding -q0 to -b320 improve quality in LAME 3.99.5?

Reply #60
I'm not sure how to make out the opposite of what is an imaginary concept.

Did you perform a double-blind test and determine the difference was audible?

Does adding -q0 to -b320 improve quality in LAME 3.99.5?

Reply #61
Is anyone able to ask the developers if q0 is still in an experimental stage of development or if it is now stable / 'safe'?

Does adding -q0 to -b320 improve quality in LAME 3.99.5?

Reply #62
using q0 will create some error in playback? the only reason why q0 is not suggested is that is not tested too much?

Does adding -q0 to -b320 improve quality in LAME 3.99.5?

Reply #63
This thread is not for general questions about -q. The last 2 questions are off-topic.

A quick answer for both of them: if the developers decide the code path enabled by -q 0 is something they want to recommend, they will make it the default.

Does adding -q0 to -b320 improve quality in LAME 3.99.5?

Reply #64
This thread is not for general questions about -q. The last 2 questions are off-topic.

A quick answer for both of them: if the developers decide the code path enabled by -q 0 is something they want to recommend, they will make it the default.


this will mean that -q0 will be as default in the next realease? i remember many discussion about the fact that is no much tested and the inner loop problem that could not chose the right quality

Does adding -q0 to -b320 improve quality in LAME 3.99.5?

Reply #65
Well if it is true that there's not much testing, inner loop problem, etc., what do you think the answer is?

Does adding -q0 to -b320 improve quality in LAME 3.99.5?

Reply #66
This thread is not for general questions about -q. The last 2 questions are off-topic.

A quick answer for both of them: if the developers decide the code path enabled by -q 0 is something they want to recommend, they will make it the default.


this will mean that -q0 will be as default in the next realease? i remember many discussion about the fact that is no much tested and the inner loop problem that could not chose the right quality


but you said that developers decide to set -q0 as default and reccomended it

Does adding -q0 to -b320 improve quality in LAME 3.99.5?

Reply #67
Well if it is true that there's not much testing, inner loop problem, etc., what do you think the answer is?


but you said that developers decide to set -q0 as default and reccomended it

Does adding -q0 to -b320 improve quality in LAME 3.99.5?

Reply #68
@webpower:  I assume English is not your native language, as you failed to get the correct meaning of the sentence.

if  _something_is_true_ then that_thing_happens

You read " they will do it".  You didn't read "If the developers decide".


And about this thread:  It simply tried to say from the beginning, that -"q0" is not "necessarily better" than, for example q2. This, and only this. The different posts try to explain why.

Does adding -q0 to -b320 improve quality in LAME 3.99.5?

Reply #69

@webpower:  I assume English is not your native language, as you failed to get the correct meaning of the sentence.

if  _something_is_true_ then that_thing_happens

You read " they will do it".  You didn't read "If the developers decide".


And about this thread:  It simply tried to say from the beginning, that -"q0" is not "necessarily better" than, for example q2. This, and only this. The different posts try to explain why.


yes, you're right, english is not my native speaking language, but passing throught this fact: can you please explain to me or give me a link to something that explains clarefully why -q0 "should not" be the best possibility and is better to use -q3?  and what about q1? you just said "is not necessarily better" this means that could be worse?

i tried to read some other post, the most clarifying anwser i've red is that "q0 did not received much testing to be considered as the best quality value" somewhere else I also red that maybe developers considered to set is as a default behaviour in the next release of LAME.

those are contraddicting answers. why should not use q0? because could produce a worse output? or only because at least it could be the same quality as q3? and - I repeat - what about the middle range values? like q1 and q2? looks like that inner loop algorithm affects only q0, theorically q1 and q2 should be avoiding this problem. PS: i don't care about the encoding process time to spend.

Thank you.

Does adding -q0 to -b320 improve quality in LAME 3.99.5?

Reply #70
Naturally, we might be able to measure, for a given piece of audio, some objective differences with the different -q settings. Maybe one always has slightly less of a certain type of noise. But if the noise is masked or is just so minor that no one can judge the quality as better through blind testing, then the quality is by definition the same! In other words, in order for a quality difference to exist, it must be audible. This was one of greynol's last points in this thread.

If you are talking about -b 320 like the original poster, then IMHO it's quite unlikely that your choice of -q will make any difference. The files will sound the same to everyone.

Does adding -q0 to -b320 improve quality in LAME 3.99.5?

Reply #71
-q0 is noticeably slower than -q3, but not necessarily better. IMHO that's also the reason why -q0 is not default.

Does adding -q0 to -b320 improve quality in LAME 3.99.5?

Reply #72
a question about i would like to get an answer is about q1 and q2, i heard that q0 is not good because is not much tested and because it uses inner loop algorithm that should get the best compression but is not guaranteed. So, is better to use q3. and what about q1 and q2? they don't use inner loop algorithm, why they are not reccomendend the same?

Does adding -q0 to -b320 improve quality in LAME 3.99.5?

Reply #73
a question about i would like to get an answer is about q1 and q2, i heard that q0 is not good because is not much tested and because it uses inner loop algorithm that should get the best compression but is not guaranteed. So, is better to use q3. and what about q1 and q2? they don't use inner loop algorithm, why they are not reccomendend the same?


Probably because they are slower and less well tested.