LAME VBR Settings Options

[daniel.ok]

Hello guys. I'm newbie in audio ripping, and I have a issue here:

I use Easy CD-DA Extractor, as software for ripping and converting my MP3s, because it uses latest LAME 0.99.5. But when I set my MP3 settings at VBR, I have only preset option (Quality Level 0, Quality Level 1, ......Quality Level 9). Until now I had used Switch Sound Converter (with LAME 0.82) and with it i was able to put a custom range at VBR (192kbps - 320kbps), and what I want now is to put the same custom setting on Easy CD-DA Extractor.
So my question is: It is LAME related (in this case version 0.99.5) or strictly to the software that uses LAME encoder.
And one more thing: with Easy CD-DA Extractor CBR encoding it's much slower than VBR encoding? It it normal? I thought that VBR uses more resources.

Thank you in advance,
Daniel.

This post has been edited by daniel.ok: Sep 18 2012, 22:42

[pdq]

First, 0.99.5 and 0.82 are not valid LAME version numbers.

Second, the way you are used to referring to VBR settings (by kbps) is not recommended. LAME does not target a bps range, it targets a quality. You need to get used to specifying quality levels (actually -V settings) 0 to 9.

Third, get yourself a decent ripper, like EAC or dBpoweramp.

[daniel.ok]

First, 0.99.5 and 0.82 are not valid LAME version numbers.

Second, the way you are used to referring to VBR settings (by kbps) is not recommended. LAME does not target a bps range, it targets a quality. You need to get used to specifying quality levels (actually -V settings) 0 to 9.

Third, get yourself a decent ripper, like EAC or dBpoweramp.

yes you are right!! dBpoweramp is awsome!! just one thing, I've downloaded latest dBpoweramp from official site, and I've notice it uses lame 3.98r. is there any way to integrate in it latest lame version? (3.99.5)

thanks for you advices!!!

[eahm]

If you like to always use the latest codec/encoder/decoder you should take a look at foobar2000. It's the only one I use to do everything, even burn CDs. Once configured for what you want it's the best IMO.

This post has been edited by eahm: Sep 18 2012, 23:36

[EagleScout1998]

yes you are right!! dBpoweramp is awsome!! just one thing, I've downloaded latest dBpoweramp from official site, and I've notice it uses lame 3.98r. is there any way to integrate in it latest lame version? (3.99.5)

Go to this folder:

C:\Program Files (x86)\Illustrate\dBpoweramp\encoder\mp3 (Lame)

Replace the existing .exe file with the new version.

[eahm]

I've downloaded latest dBpoweramp from official site, and I've notice it uses lame 3.98r. is there any way to integrate in it latest lame version? (3.99.5)

Well, you didn't. The latest version of dBpoweramp (14.3) comes with LAME 3.99.5.

This post has been edited by eahm: Sep 19 2012, 04:12

[Mix3dmessagez]

First, 0.99.5 and 0.82 are not valid LAME version numbers.

Second, the way you are used to referring to VBR settings (by kbps) is not recommended. LAME does not target a bps range, it targets a quality. You need to get used to specifying quality levels (actually -V settings) 0 to 9.

Third, get yourself a decent ripper, like EAC or dBpoweramp.

yes you are right!! dBpoweramp is awsome!! just one thing, I've downloaded latest dBpoweramp from official site, and I've notice it uses lame 3.98r. is there any way to integrate in it latest lame version? (3.99.5)

thanks for you advices!!!

Using foobar would be allot more convenient, it can rip straight from there and convert to mp3 at any quality setting and keep the tags perfect.

I've used both and I recommend foobar for easy convenience

[goa pride]

if you your windows is 64 bit:
use XRECODE, put lame.exe and lame_enc.dll (64 bit version allowed) in the c:\program files (x86)\xrecode ii\external folder
use preset V0 option
if your windows is 32 bit:
use XRECODE, put lame.exe and lame_enc.dll (32 bit version) in the c:\program files\xrecode ii\external folder


download latest lame at www.rarewares.org


This post has been edited by goa pride: Sep 20 2012, 11:09

[kornchild2002]

Feel free to correct me if I am wrong but I thought it was advised to just use the 32-bit edition of Lame across all platforms and that the 64-bit edition didn't really pose any benefit (especially on modern hardware).

[eahm]

Well, no benefits other than three times faster to encode.

This post has been edited by eahm: Sep 20 2012, 17:18

[pdq]

Well, no benefits other than three times faster to encode.

Do you have a link to a comparison of 32- vs. 64-bit? I had thought that with modern processors you would be pretty much I/O limited.

[eahm]

Led Zeppelin - Physical Graffiti (WPCR-13135-6) (SHM-CD) (1975) - Processor Intel i7-2700K - LAME 3.99.5 -V2

32bit: Total encoding time: 0:21.590, 229.95x realtime

64bit: Total encoding time: 0:19.141, 259.37x realtime

12.8% increase

Apologize for the "three times" statement, I swear last time I tested LAME it was 100x vs 300x, maybe I've used the older processor.

This post has been edited by eahm: Sep 20 2012, 18:49

[lvqcl]

Intel Core2 (2.5GHz) and LAME 3.99.5 -V4 --noreplaygain, encoding time:

32bit: 93.4 seconds
64bit: 81.2 seconds

=> 15% speed increase.


//oops...//

This post has been edited by lvqcl: Sep 20 2012, 19:00

[pdq]

Intel Core2 (2.5GHz) and LAME 3.99.5 -V4, encoding time:

32bit: 81.2 seconds
64bit: 93.4 seconds

=> 15% speed increase.

Increase or decrease?

[daniel.ok]

I don't want to start a new thread for this so I ask here:

I want to re-encode my whole music collection from 320CBR to some V(versions), I don't know which one, I'm still studying, but one issue is clear: with what version of LAME ! Personally, after I read many post on this forum, I think using latest version (3.99.5), but also I've read about some artifacts produced by this new-VBR option, so I ask you guys, from your experience, 3.99.5 is good? Do you guys experienced some problems with it (artifacts, etc ...)
Thank you very much, the more answers the better!

Thank you so much!
Daniel

This post has been edited by daniel.ok: Sep 21 2012, 12:49

[pdq]

What is your main purpose for reencoding? Are you short of space and need to replace your cbr 320 encodes with something smaller with some loss in quality? Are you reencoding to create a much smaller file for portable use while retaining the original cbr 320 files to listen on your computer? Or are under the misimpression that you can convert cbr to vbr to save space with little or no loss in quality?

I think it is odd that you would quibble over which version of lame is best to use when you are using it for lossy to lossy reencoding.

Edit: Note too that when it comes to lossy-to-lossy reencoding, mp3 to mp3 may very well be the worst combination.

This post has been edited by pdq: Sep 21 2012, 14:49

[Manlord]

daniel.ok, I recommend you to read again the replies of your other post.

It just doesn't make sense to look for the optimal V Setting, Stereo Mode and Lame Version for transcoding from mp3 to mp3. Just keep your files as they are.

[daniel.ok]

Well, the purpose I re-encode from 320CBR to V2 is just because I don't want to waste more than what I use, it's not that 100 or 200GB makes a difference for me! I think it is a bad idea to keep music using 200GB for example when I can keep it only on 110GB with the same quality (for my ears I mean). But because I am a practical guy I try to avoid some error before I start, even I re-encode lossy to lossy. So, I have just few more questions, and I end this debate, so if you guys can give me some advice I'm glad to hear them:

1. How does the NEW VBR algorithm choose when to drop the bitrate (by moments of silence in the song, or what?). I give a situation here: In a chillout song there are many moments of almost silence, but even so, you need a good quality of encoding to enjoy the details (ex: Sound of a whale in the abyss )

2. With what program I can see which is the smaller value of bitrate in a VBR MP3!

thanks again, and please excuse my funny questions!

[dhromed]

Well, the purpose I re-encode from 320CBR to V2 is just because I don't want to waste more than what I use, it's not that 100 or 200GB makes a difference for me! I think it is a bad idea to keep music using 200GB for example when I can keep it only on 110GB with the same quality (for my ears I mean).

Transcoding has a high chance of causing audible quality loss, but you will have to test a few tracks for yourself. Your music, your ears.

My advice is to not bother. It's a lot of work for no gain. In one or two years you might grab a huge hard drive and then you're stuck with VBR MP3 that can't possibly be better than their 320 originals.

[daniel.ok]

Well, the purpose I re-encode from 320CBR to V2 is just because I don't want to waste more than what I use, it's not that 100 or 200GB makes a difference for me! I think it is a bad idea to keep music using 200GB for example when I can keep it only on 110GB with the same quality (for my ears I mean).

Transcoding has a high chance of causing audible quality loss, but you will have to test a few tracks for yourself. Your music, your ears.

My advice is to not bother. It's a lot of work for no gain. In one or two years you might grab a huge hard drive and then you're stuck with VBR MP3 that can't possibly be better than their 320 originals.

mate, if you have in front of you 3 burgers. and after you eat 2 you are full. after that you eat the third burger just because it's yours and you can? same situation with me I guess

This post has been edited by daniel.ok: Sep 21 2012, 15:42

[dhromed]

I'll have that third burger, thanks.

[eahm]

Just to give you even more to think about, I've reconverted four albums in different formats just to show you how low you can go still maintaining transparency. If you need space then AAC you should go:

Pink Floyd (The Dark Side of the Moon, Wish You Were Here, Animals, The Wall)

PCM Uncompressed (WAV/AIFF): 2.07GB

FLAC: 1.41GB

MP3 (LAME 3.99.5) CBR 320 (320kbps): 481MB

MP3 (LAME 3.99.5) VBR V0 (~245kbps): 388MB

MP3 (LAME 3.99.5) VBR V2 (~190kbps): 282MB

OGG Vorbis (Oggenc2.87 using aoTuVb6.03 (Lancer Builds) SSE3 Optimized)) q5.0 (~160kbps): 241MB

AAC (MP4) (Apple 7.9.8.1) ABR 128 quality 1 (-a128 -q1) (iTunes High Quality settings) (~128kbps): 196MB

AAC (MP4) (Apple 7.9.8.1) VBR 128 (-v128) (~128kbps): 205MB

AAC (MP4) (Apple 7.9.8.1) True VBR/TVBR V63 (-V63) (~135kbps): 200MB

Opus VBR 128 (~128kbps): 190MB

This post has been edited by eahm: Sep 21 2012, 17:06

[greynol]

Did we miss the part about test results being personal to the individual?

[eahm]

He can even keep PCM for what I care, I just wanted to help him understand "how low he can go still maintaining transparency" (still weird saying this because he's coming from MP3 CBR320 but...if he does have some FLAC...), since I have a faster processor these test don't really bother me.

This post has been edited by eahm: Sep 21 2012, 17:22

[greynol]

Where's the part where you didn't tell him how low he can go? (sarcasm)

Anyway, I'm gals glad to see your intention was not to speak for someone else (even though you in fact did speak for someone else ).

Since we're on the subject of testing, how low can you go transcoding 320 mp3 to VBR mp3 before it is no longer transparent?

This post has been edited by greynol: Sep 21 2012, 18:19

Reason for edit: typo