IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Some unusual results in lame 3.99.5
ThomasG3rd
post Apr 30 2013, 21:29
Post #1





Group: Validating
Posts: 30
Joined: 26-April 13
Member No.: 107852



Hello All: Back once again for some more questions and I thank all that gave me a better understanding of VBR's and Bitrate. I have installed Foobar and its a great listening tool. I still prefer Media Monkey as its more user friendly, at least more friendly to me. I found it didn't have the latest version of lame installed since I was getting different bitrates in vbr mode when using mediamonkey vs foobar. I believe that the latest version of lame is is 3.99.5 I installed this into media monkey and have some strange results when encoding mp3's in vbr 0 mode. I understand that Bit Rate isn't always a means of measuring quality but I have seen some strange jumps in Bit Rate using the lastest version. I have no idea what the last version that was installed on Media Monkey, but I compared it to some songs that had the old encoder. I found what I thought were some unusual results. Here are some results of my bit rates and I will explain after I list them...

1. In VBR0 with old version of lame: Steely Dan's Black Cow=230kbps
2. Same setting with version 3.99.5 = 254kbps

1.VBRO old Version of lame-Cattle Decapatations "Testcular Manslaugther" = 298kbps
2.New 3.99.5 version=284kbps

I understand that bitrate doesnt always mean what it should when in vbr mode, but aren't these some strange jumps. Steely Dan gained 14bits. Cattle Decapatation lost 14 bits. Doesnt that seem odd? Is my version of lame good (i checked its not a beta) and if it isnt what version do people reccomend. I want the version that is going to be the most rock solid in VBR mode for me, since lame is choosing the quality for me. And a bonus question so to say: Does anyone have any scientific proof that a higher or lower average BR by lets say 15-20bits will make a difference. I understand BR isnt everything but the average does mean something. I was cruising along encoding, I know I am confused about this behavior.
PS---I reseached this version of lame, couldnt find anything about its reliability or anyone that had any problems, so if it was posted already in a previous forum, i applogize, I couldnt find anything on that particular version.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
db1989
post May 1 2013, 13:13
Post #2





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 5159
Joined: 23-June 06
Member No.: 32180



QUOTE (ThomasG3rd @ Apr 30 2013, 21:29) *
I understand that bitrate doesnt always mean what it should when in vbr mode, but aren't these some strange jumps. Steely Dan gained 14bits. Cattle Decapatation lost 14 bits. Doesnt that seem odd?
Not in the slightest. Why should one expect that changes to the algorithm will result simply in a uniform gain or decrease in the mean bitrate for every possible input? Also, it’s kbps, kilobits per second.

QUOTE
Is my version of lame good (i checked its not a beta) and if it isnt what version do people reccomend.
I mentioned in your other thread that default settings are usually default for a reason, and analogously, the latest version of any given program has usually been released for a reason, specifically the fact that the developers are confident that it represents an improvement over the last. Otherwise there’d be no need to ever update anything, and everyone would still be using certain (in)famous versions from years ago… something that some people don’t seem to want to let go of.

QUOTE
Does anyone have any scientific proof that a higher or lower average BR by lets say 15-20bits will make a difference.
How can someone ‘prove’ this? An altered bitrate on which song(s)? To which listener(s)? How many of each do we need to sample before the summarised results will be representative of you or any other potential listener(s)? If previous references to proper methods of testing haven’t made it clear yet, the performance of a lossy codec ends up mattering only in terms of whether or not it encodes a given signal transparently to the specific person who is listening to it. We simply cannot answer questions this vague with any confidence. Unfortunately the world does not always work easily enough that people can provide you with one-shot answers for things. Again, it comes down either to performing your own tests and trusting their conclusions, or to trusting the conclusions of other people’s tests (N.B.: tests, not evidence-free subjective ramblings) and that they will be applicable to you.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ThomasG3rd
post May 1 2013, 16:43
Post #3





Group: Validating
Posts: 30
Joined: 26-April 13
Member No.: 107852



Im sorry to have not been more specific. I was looking to see when developers are programming lame, do they have a target bitrates in mind when they are writing the code for VBR mode? My feeling from what I am reading from others is that it looks like they are trying to make lame produce the best of both worlds. Smaller file sizes with less transparency. Im not sure if the following statement is true but if the bitrate is larger, wouldnt the file size also be larger?? I am not stating this as a fact or opinion, but as a question. I can only think that with this newer version of lame it seems like they increased bit-rate on songs that would previously use less bits, and the songs that used more bits, they decreased, almost like a happy medium. ONce again, I have no idea if this is true, I am only taking a educated guess and have no way of backing this up, it just seems logical. I also see from foobar that when I play my songs, the bit-rate doesnt usually go over 300. Im I to assume that lame developers are finding that music is hardly using those bits in the high range. Its really cool stuff, and I love how the technology has grown. Sorry, its a long statement, but I am hoping I am getting a better idea of lame is doing as it advances to a newer version.

This post has been edited by greynol: May 1 2013, 17:45
Reason for edit: Removed formatting
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
halb27
post May 1 2013, 21:31
Post #4





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



QUOTE (ThomasG3rd @ May 1 2013, 17:43) *
... I can only think that with this newer version of lame it seems like they increased bit-rate on songs that would previously use less bits, and the songs that used more bits, they decreased, almost like a happy medium. ...

Bullshit. I explained you all that's necessary here for those tracks you think have an unusual behavior when encoded with 3.99.5.
You have a totally insane imagination about what is going on only because of your primary love for bitrate as a quality criterion while disregarding everything you're told here.

But I'll try to explain what the devs do with the VBR encoding process when they develop a new Lame version.
Point 1: They definitely don't think about bitrate the way you do. period.
Point 2: What they do in a nutshell is: they change the parameters which control the psychoacoustic model (for example the sensitivity with which the ATH curve is taken into account, or the way sfb21 is treated), they make changes to the various decision processes which happen during the encoding process (for instance whether the left/right or mid/side representation of the music should be used or whether long or short blocks should be used), and other things like that. You don't have to know about them, just trust the devs. These things are changed for good reasons, for instance because a certain audible issue is tackled.
Changes in bitrate are consequences of this, not the motivation for it. And of course it's trivial that the net result of all these changes can bring bitrate up for trackA and bring it down for trackB, depending on the musical content of these tracks.

You really shouldn't care about bitrate.
If you still do despite everything you are told you are probably not the person to use VBR. If you're so inclined to see a correspondance between bitrate and quality (and you even do on a single-track-basis which is insane+ for VBR encodings) you may find better peace of mind by using ABR.

This post has been edited by halb27: May 1 2013, 21:45


--------------------
lame3100m --bCVBR 300
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ThomasG3rd
post May 1 2013, 22:14
Post #5





Group: Validating
Posts: 30
Joined: 26-April 13
Member No.: 107852



No, this is totally the information I was looking for. Hey, unfortuanally the average users who use rip music, use media players that have the such settings such as CD quality at 128, or 320Best Quality. Thats how I looked at it for years, and until this week I'm learning and moving myself in directions of vbrs. I cannot comment on them since I havent done ABX testing on them, but lets just say Im satisfied, even though you all think I am insane with bitrate. I only figured that Bitrate had something to do with the development, only because its been jammed down average users throats for years, including myself. I love when people get into comments such as "well screw joint stereo" im going stereo man." But I cant blame them because there had been so much trash littered over the web about MP3's and lossy music. Another factor is bad experience with MP3's at low bitrates. I remember when my buddy first got his MP3 player and MP3 was still new technology. Might have been the first version of lame it was so long ago, but lets just say that they didn't impress me then, and when I found out the BR he was using, I was like, Man when I get my player, its 320 dude, the heck will those little BR's...LOL..For all i know they could have been fine, but with quick research I was persuaded to use high bit rates, and yes with no evidence of test studies, just word of mouth from all those that said 128 is garbage. It takes me some time to get a feel for new things, espically when you are breaking my so called routine of ripping in high bit rate mode for years, LOL. I have been doing some sound testing, not ABX testing, and since its not ABX I cannot give you my results, but lets say Im glad I took everyones advice here. Enough Said. Lets just try to pass great info on to other users, so maybe they will save some space, and not have sleepless nights cause something came out at 197. LOL. I did like you part b of your results the best, because that really answeared my question that I have been looking for. So for all the moderaters and programmers that have just been put through hell, thank you. I am one stingy SOB. Dont worry though, others will come crawling looking for information and might not even make it as far as I did. Thanks again, even though I am a bit insane..LOL

This post has been edited by db1989: May 2 2013, 07:59
Reason for edit: Please take a hint and stop pointlessly quoting posts directly above yours.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic
- ThomasG3rd   Some unusual results in lame 3.99.5   Apr 30 2013, 21:29
- - greynol   Different versions can give different results, so ...   Apr 30 2013, 22:05
|- - ThomasG3rd   QUOTE (greynol @ Apr 30 2013, 14:05) Diff...   Apr 30 2013, 22:22
- - DVDdoug   I believe it's been several years since the L...   Apr 30 2013, 22:30
|- - ThomasG3rd   The settings in Media Monkey are pretty basic: You...   Apr 30 2013, 22:38
- - DVDdoug   QUOTE The settings in Media Monkey are pretty basi...   Apr 30 2013, 22:51
|- - ThomasG3rd   QUOTE (DVDdoug @ Apr 30 2013, 14:51) QUOT...   Apr 30 2013, 23:27
- - halb27   Behavior is normal. With version 3.99 (maybe it wa...   Apr 30 2013, 23:24
|- - ThomasG3rd   QUOTE (halb27 @ Apr 30 2013, 15:24) Behav...   Apr 30 2013, 23:40
|- - greynol   QUOTE (ThomasG3rd @ Apr 30 2013, 15:40) I...   May 1 2013, 00:21
- - greynol   The codec receives -V0 from the player when encodi...   Apr 30 2013, 23:50
|- - ThomasG3rd   QUOTE (greynol @ Apr 30 2013, 15:50) The ...   May 1 2013, 00:02
- - greynol   Please read my edit. In case it is still not clea...   May 1 2013, 00:06
|- - ThomasG3rd   QUOTE (greynol @ Apr 30 2013, 16:06) Plea...   May 1 2013, 00:13
- - halb27   QUOTE (ThomasG3rd @ Apr 30 2013, 16:26) Q...   May 1 2013, 00:27
|- - ThomasG3rd   Yes, and brainless me did a test on the wrong song...   May 1 2013, 00:46
|- - greynol   QUOTE (ThomasG3rd @ Apr 30 2013, 16:46) Y...   May 1 2013, 01:14
|- - ThomasG3rd   QUOTE (greynol @ Apr 30 2013, 16:14) QUOT...   May 1 2013, 01:35
|- - mobyduck   QUOTE (ThomasG3rd @ Apr 30 2013, 16:35) w...   May 1 2013, 09:11
- - db1989   QUOTE (ThomasG3rd @ Apr 30 2013, 21:29) I...   May 1 2013, 13:13
|- - ThomasG3rd   Im sorry to have not been more specific. I was loo...   May 1 2013, 16:43
|- - Dynamic   QUOTE (ThomasG3rd @ May 1 2013, 15:43) Im...   May 1 2013, 21:27
|- - halb27   QUOTE (ThomasG3rd @ May 1 2013, 17:43) .....   May 1 2013, 21:31
||- - ThomasG3rd   No, this is totally the information I was looking ...   May 1 2013, 22:14
||- - greynol   QUOTE (ThomasG3rd @ May 1 2013, 14:14) I ...   May 1 2013, 22:22
|- - halb27   QUOTE (ThomasG3rd @ May 1 2013, 17:43) .....   May 1 2013, 22:17
- - mjb2006   The frame sizes have to be 320, 256, 224, 192, 160...   May 1 2013, 18:24


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: 21st April 2014 - 14:14