-V n (in 3.95.1), Presets, bitrates and lowpass of V value Options

[Vietwoojagig]

Hi,

CODE

Switch            equals               target  Y  b  lowpass resample
-V 0            = --preset extreme       240     128  19500
-V 0 --vbr-new  = --preset fast extreme  240     128  19500
-V 1                                     210     128  19000
-V 1 --vbr-new                           210     128  19000
-V 2            = --preset standard      190     128  19000
-V 2 --vbr-new  = --preset fast standard    190     128  19000
-V 3                                     175   1      18000
-V 3 --vbr-new                           175   1      18000
-V 4            = --preset medium        165   1      18000
-V 4 --vbr-new  = --preset fast medium   165   1      18000
-V 5                                     130   1      17000
-V 5 --vbr-new                           130   1      17000
-V 6                                     115   1      16000
-V 6 --vbr-new                           115   1      16000
-V 7                                     100   1      14900   32000
-V 7 --vbr-new                           100   1      14900   32000
-V 8                                      85   1      12500   32000
-V 8 - vbr-new                            85   1      12500   32000
-V 9                                      65   1      10000   24000
-V 9 - vbr-new                            65   1      10000   24000

Questions:
1. Is it save to use the -V switches, with no corresponding preset (especially V 1 / V3)?
2. When is it more usefull, to use abr rather than -V n (e.g. --preset 120 better than -V 5)?
3. Are the displayed target average bitrates ok (+/- 10 kbps)?

Thanks

Edit: changed with Gabriel's suggestions. Added:-Y, -b, --lowpass, --resample
Edit: modified -b to fit with 3.96

[ThyBzi]

Sorry for possible offtopic. I just found this topic as closest to my problem, but it can equally well be a new topic.

So, what's the reason for me to be confused. When I've changed my SB Live! 5.1 to Audigy 2 ZS, I just started to hear some higher frequencies of sound (including my huge collection of self-grabbed mp3s). And I used (and use LAME to encode them.

I started with YAMP encoder which was using LAME 3.80, then I moved to EAC & LAME 3.92 (newest release for that time). I've been hearing and analyzing the sound spectre of output mp3s, and arrived at a conclusion that the best (in size/quality) variant for me is:

CODE

-b 32 -m j -h -V 2 -B 320

Then there was 3.93 and 3.93.1. I've been grabbing and compressing and expanding my mp3 collection. Grabbing, and compressing, and extending...

Then here came the 3.95.
Right away I noticed that mp3s I'm getting with it (using same parameters) are oftenly slightly smaller. That was the reason to REGRAB and RECOMPRESS all my collection (about 40 or 50 GB for that time).

Then there were 3.95.1, 3.96 and 3.96.1... Regrabbing, recompressing, extending collection...

And then "here came a new challenger" (© Toshiden Battle Arena . I've bought Audigy 2 ZS.

First time there was some kind of euphoria - I started to hear HIGHER sounds on my computer! All that hi-hats' and cymbals' high harmonies, and so on...

Then it turned to some kind of depression. I started to hear mp3-specific distortions in MY MP3s! Which were made with my LAME parameters (I also recommended using them to all my friends... and so on). It was a real shock for me, because I used to consider my mp3s ideal.

So, I started to re-examine various mp3 codecs, incl. FhG, GoGo, SCMPX, Blade, Xing and recently appeared LAME 3.97.

The results I got for LAME shocked my once more. Awful, just AWFUL distortions all above 16-17 KHz. Even 320 at Stereo (not Joint Stereo) mode, and even with filter disabling (-k). I tried lot of different options and their combinations, all of them resulted much worse quality then trivial 3.93.1 at 320, Stereo mode (with -k), or at VBR2 Stereo (with -k also), and even worse then LAME 3.93.1 of GoGo gives me at 224 kbps or even 192 kbps (no matter Stereo or Joint Stereo mode)!

I tried using q0, and V0, and so on - it didn't improve anything enough.

I also tried various mp3 decoders: Winamp 5.1, Adobe Audition (in which I analyze sound frequency spectre) and LAME by itself. In Audiotion results were even more awful, then in Winamp and LAME, but in them both spectre was still too bad at look (at freqs above), and I heared that all in Winamp.

Even more - those distortions (looking like some kind of collapse of frequency spectre graph) grew more and more for 3.95.1 -> 3.96.1 -> 3.97. I just did't beleive my eyes that LAME produced that collapse.

So I temporary turned back to 3.93.1, which produces an ideal graph allover the sound spectre (even on freqs above 20 KHz!) when using the following parameters:

CODE

-b 128 -m s -h -V 2 -B 320 -k

The resulting mp3 freq graph doesn't drift in any significant way from the from original WAV graph. 320 kbps' graph (@3.93.1) also doesn't differ from the original in any way, but average filesize increases significantly.

Could your please explain, what happened with LAME starting from 3.95? (or 3.94, which I didn't test)
Could it be some problem of my decoder (even despite I used LAME to decode mp3s)? Or what?

Thank your in advance.

P.S. I can post, or send, or attach here (if it's allowed), or put at your disposal in any other way the graphical results of spectral analysis I carried out.

This post has been edited by ThyBzi: Nov 29 2006, 20:55