IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

> Hydrogenaudio Forum Rules

- No Warez. This includes warez links, cracks and/or requests for help in getting illegal software or copyrighted music tracks!


- No Spamming or Trolling on the boards, this includes useless posts, trying to only increase post count or trying to deliberately create a flame war.


- No Hateful or Disrespectful posts. This includes: bashing, name-calling or insults directed at a board member.


- Click here for complete Hydrogenaudio Terms of Service

4 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Closed TopicStart new topic
Which LAME VBR settings do you use?, Poll regarding LAME VBR preferences
LAME VBR Preferences
What VBR setting do you use?
-V0 (.XXX) (--[alt-]preset [fast] extreme) [ 125 ] ** [28.28%]
-V1 (.XXX) [ 17 ] ** [3.85%]
-V2 (.XXX) (--[alt-]preset [fast] standard) [ 171 ] ** [38.69%]
-V3 (.XXX) [ 43 ] ** [9.73%]
-V4 (.XXX) (--[alt-]preset [fast] medium) [ 23 ] ** [5.20%]
-V5 (.XXX) [ 52 ] ** [11.76%]
-V6 (.XXX) [ 7 ] ** [1.58%]
-V7 (.XXX) [ 0 ] ** [0.00%]
-V8 (.XXX) or -V9 (.XXX) [ 1 ] ** [0.23%]
Other [ 3 ] ** [0.68%]
What LAME version do you use?
3.98 (.2) [ 385 ] ** [87.10%]
3.97 [ 39 ] ** [8.82%]
3.90.3 [ 12 ] ** [2.71%]
Other [ 6 ] ** [1.36%]
If using 3.98, do you use floating point values?
Yes [ 57 ] ** [12.90%]
No [ 333 ] ** [75.34%]
I don't use 3.98 [ 52 ] ** [11.76%]
Total Votes: 603
  
Synthetic Soul
post Oct 20 2008, 18:23
Post #1





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 4887
Joined: 12-August 04
From: Exeter, UK
Member No.: 16217



Following memomai's thread on the subject, a poll regarding your LAME VBR habits.

NB: If you use -V5.5, choose the "-V5 (.XXX)" option.

If you don't use VBR, don't bother contributing; this poll is for LAME VBR users only.

This post has been edited by Synthetic Soul: Oct 21 2008, 19:15


--------------------
I'm on a horse.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Bodhi
post Oct 20 2008, 18:30
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 261
Joined: 10-June 06
Member No.: 31712



V5
3.98.2
No floating point

(Since today...)

This post has been edited by Bodhi: Oct 20 2008, 18:42
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
memomai
post Oct 20 2008, 18:37
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 264
Joined: 13-February 05
From: Germany, Kempten
Member No.: 19808



thanks Synthetic_Soul, perfect poll! smile.gif


--------------------
FB2K,APE&LAME
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
zipr
post Oct 20 2008, 18:40
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 176
Joined: 13-September 05
From: Baltimore
Member No.: 24445



I use 3.98.2 with V2. I probably could get by with a higher setting, but don't have the time to ABX and find out what the best setting would be for me...
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
xmixahlx
post Oct 20 2008, 18:54
Post #5





Group: Members
Posts: 1394
Joined: 20-December 01
From: seattle
Member No.: 693



3.98.2 + -V2


--------------------
RareWares/Debian :: http://www.rarewares.org/debian.html
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Neasden
post Oct 20 2008, 19:25
Post #6





Group: Banned
Posts: 185
Joined: 1-July 08
Member No.: 55148



-V 0 (excessive but this is my comfort zone)
LAME 3.98.2 (higher bitrates, longer changelog against 3.97)
No floating point (too complicated)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
skelly831
post Oct 20 2008, 19:41
Post #7





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 782
Joined: 11-April 05
From: México
Member No.: 21361



3.98.2, -V 5, no floating point values, keep it simple amigos smile.gif


--------------------
we was young an' full of beans
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
/mnt
post Oct 20 2008, 19:56
Post #8





Group: Members
Posts: 697
Joined: 22-April 06
Member No.: 29877



Am still using V2, since V0 sometimes only does some minor improvements; but most of time V0 does solve my problems though. Also still using LAME 3.97, since i find regression issues are more common with 3.98.2 at V2. I even had to encode a box set with 3.90.3, since I found about 2 tracks on the first disc that was not transparent with 3.97 (even at V0) and a track was not transparent with 3.98.2, but sound fine to me with 3.90.3 at APS.

Anyway if I have to move to higher bitrate, I would use V1 over V0 since V1 is effective with only a 30kbps increase, IMO theres no difference between those settings most of the time. I have even been thinking of using V3, since on some of my personal test I find to only sound only a tad worse on tracks that are not transparent at V2.


--------------------
"I never thought I'd see this much candy in one mission!"
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Slipstreem
post Oct 20 2008, 20:11
Post #9





Group: Members
Posts: 966
Joined: 7-July 06
Member No.: 32660



Voted! 3.98.2 at -V3 with no floating point usage here. I do appreciate good encodings, but I'm not mega-fussy to be honest so integer values suit me fine.

Thanks to memomai for kicking this off and to Synthetic Soul for setting up the poll. Good job! smile.gif

Cheers, Slipstreem. cool.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Alexxander
post Oct 20 2008, 21:00
Post #10





Group: Members
Posts: 457
Joined: 15-November 04
Member No.: 18143



I use v3.98.2, -V2 for my "mobile music" (in car deck and on my Sandisk Sansa with rockbox) but most probably will switch to -V3 (I have to do some more abx-tests). For my family I encode to -V4 because they don't know about artifacts and don't identify them.

Edit: I voted -V2 and I don't using floating point, I like things to be as simple as possible. For more bitrate control we have ABR.

This post has been edited by Alexxander: Oct 20 2008, 21:02
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mr budzone
post Oct 20 2008, 21:18
Post #11





Group: Members
Posts: 39
Joined: 18-January 07
From: swe, uppsala
Member No.: 39792



I actually went from -V5 to V5.7 on my portable, I dont really believe I hear any difference in the enviroments i listen in =)

This post has been edited by mr budzone: Oct 20 2008, 21:20
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lvqcl
post Oct 20 2008, 21:40
Post #12





Group: Developer
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2-December 07
Member No.: 49183



3.98.2, -V 2.

Winamp, foobar2000, CDex... They all allow to use floating-point values with, say, Vorbis but not with LAME. whistling.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
houyhnhnm
post Oct 20 2008, 22:22
Post #13





Group: Members
Posts: 14
Joined: 24-November 07
Member No.: 49012



V2, 3.98.2, no floating point values.

Standard is standard...

QUOTE (memomai @ Oct 21 2008, 01:12) *
QUOTE
I think you'd need to start a new topic. If you do, bear in mind that the value is now floating point, so you may need to use options like "-V2(.X)", rather than "-V2". or maybe ask people to round their value to the nearest integer. A separate question asking if anyone is actually using a floating point value may be interesting...
I've got no rights to start a poll.

I think anyone can make a poll. smile.gif

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
twostar
post Oct 20 2008, 23:32
Post #14





Group: Members
Posts: 487
Joined: 5-August 02
From: Manila
Member No.: 2939



I voted 3.98.2 and -V2.

Just a sidenote, the last time there was a similar poll, -V2 was the leading choice.

This post has been edited by twostar: Oct 20 2008, 23:32
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kornchild2002
post Oct 21 2008, 00:49
Post #15





Group: Members
Posts: 2047
Joined: 8-April 05
From: Cincinnati, OH
Member No.: 21277



I chose -V 3 with Lame 3.98.2 and no floating point values. I have since migrated down from -V 2 with 3.97 and can now fit about 25 extra songs on a 700MB CD-RW disc and about 500 extra songs on a 16GB device. All-in-all, I have been please with 3.98's (and 3.98.2's) encoding results and now see no need in using a high bitrate setting like -V 2.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
memomai
post Oct 21 2008, 07:46
Post #16





Group: Members
Posts: 264
Joined: 13-February 05
From: Germany, Kempten
Member No.: 19808



QUOTE
I voted 3.98.2 and -V2.

Just a sidenote, the last time there was a similar poll, -V2 was the leading choice.


This poll was for lame 3.97 not 3.98(.2)


--------------------
FB2K,APE&LAME
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Synthetic Soul
post Oct 21 2008, 10:09
Post #17





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 4887
Joined: 12-August 04
From: Exeter, UK
Member No.: 16217



Thanks for the links to other polls, it will be interesting to compare the results. I did have a quick look, but couldn't find them.

I voted early on, but I guess I should post my preferences:
  • -V5
  • 3.98.2
  • No
I've been using -V5 for quite a while now, since guruboolez posted some favourable results (with the 3.97 betas I think). At the time many members were using -V2/--alt-preset standard or -V0/--alt-preset extreme, and I felt quite inadequate. Since then we have had listening tests proving that the setting is transparent to many people, which makes me feel a little better about my hearing. I'm just happy that I can squeeze more on my pathetic 1GB Nano.

NB: I have tried testing the first three samples in the current ~128kbps listening test and I just cannot tell any difference. I'm not sure I even found the low anchor on one.


--------------------
I'm on a horse.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
melomaniac
post Oct 21 2008, 10:20
Post #18





Group: Members
Posts: 43
Joined: 1-August 08
From: Brussels
Member No.: 56565



QUOTE (houyhnhnm @ Oct 20 2008, 23:22) *
V2, 3.98.2, no floating point values.Standard is standard...


At the moment (210 votes), you can see that more and more people are using other presets than V2. I'm not sure if we can still call it a "standard" in 2008.

QUOTE (Synthetic Soul @ Oct 21 2008, 11:09) *
I've been using -V5 for quite a while now, since guruboolez posted some favourable results (with the 3.97 betas I think). At the time many members were using -V2/--alt-preset standard or -V0/--alt-preset extreme, and I felt quite inadequate. Since then we have had listening tests proving that the setting is transparent to many people, which makes me feel a little better about my hearing.


You exactly summarize my thinking Synthetic Soul.
I've followed Guru's listening tests for years (also en français) with great interest too.

This post has been edited by melomaniac: Nov 2 2008, 12:31
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
david.lisb
post Oct 21 2008, 10:53
Post #19





Group: Members
Posts: 4
Joined: 6-January 08
Member No.: 50226



-V0 -b224

best quality !!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
PHOYO
post Oct 21 2008, 11:10
Post #20





Group: Members
Posts: 128
Joined: 20-May 04
Member No.: 14212



QUOTE (david.lisb @ Oct 21 2008, 12:53) *
-V0 -b224

best quality !!


No, the best quality setting is -b 320.

Your command line just breaks VBR.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
.halverhahn
post Oct 21 2008, 11:21
Post #21





Group: Members
Posts: 254
Joined: 4-August 03
Member No.: 8168



Version: Lame 3.98.2
Music: V0
Audio Book, Radio Play, Comedy: V2
Portable: V5
Floating Point: Sometimes

This post has been edited by .halverhahn: Oct 21 2008, 11:38


--------------------
.halverhahn
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
david.lisb
post Oct 21 2008, 11:28
Post #22





Group: Members
Posts: 4
Joined: 6-January 08
Member No.: 50226



ABR 270 was my favorite, but now: -V0 -b224: the quality of preset extreme without the problem of VBR
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
bug80
post Oct 21 2008, 11:28
Post #23





Group: Members
Posts: 397
Joined: 23-January 05
From: The Netherlands
Member No.: 19254



version: 3.98.2
portable: V4
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Lyx
post Oct 21 2008, 11:38
Post #24





Group: Members
Posts: 3353
Joined: 6-July 03
From: Sachsen (DE)
Member No.: 7609



Using V3, because i don't keep a lossless backup, yet i consider the V2 overkill and being affected by SFB21 bloat. I do not expect my music to be "perfect" - i just want any issues to be rare and non-annoying in severity.

This post has been edited by Lyx: Oct 21 2008, 11:41
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kornchild2002
post Oct 21 2008, 12:08
Post #25





Group: Members
Posts: 2047
Joined: 8-April 05
From: Cincinnati, OH
Member No.: 21277



QUOTE (david.lisb @ Oct 21 2008, 04:28) *
ABR 270 was my favorite, but now: -V0 -b224: the quality of preset extreme without the problem of VBR


Don't want to go off-topic but why would VBR be a problem? Lame was tuned for VBR encoding and forcing a minimum bitrate like you have only limits the encoder and can cause decreased quality.

I wonder who voted for 3.90.3 as that is rather old and I thought it was no longer recommended after 3.97b1 came out.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

4 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Closed 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: 25th April 2014 - 04:30