-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]

Do you have foobar2000 installed on your system with the ABX component?

No, I downloaded foobar2000, but didn't find any ABX component for it (using search on its site). Is abchr I downloaded a little earlier worse for some reason?

By the way, using abchr, I couldn't hear those artifacts I see... It was only one test as now, but maybe the sample I used wasn't suitable. I'll try another samples and/or another sound system (and/or someone else's ears ).

I also tried to mix paste (thanx Pepoluan and Greynol for that idea ) samples using Adobe Audition, but it was too difficult to guess how great is the "lossy offset", mentioned by Greynol. Simple comparison of files' lenght did not help me. Is there any bright idea how to find out that lossy offset?

As I see, EAC can determine the offset generated by specific codec, but this operation returns an error for some reason (I tried to determine offset for GoGo and two different LAMEs). What can be a reason? I didn't find anything about it at EAC website's FAQ.

And some more questions about notorious spectral analysis. )

1) for two same-sounding (for me ) samples, is the one with "nicer" spectre (i.e. most bordering upon original) a better one (concerning quality)? Or it is no judge of quality even for same-sounding samples?

2) For two samples encoded using the same original, do same-looking graphs signify the same quality? (of course, accurate within my eyes )

And more questions... (It would be great grateful (edited ) if the LAME developer will answer )
1) Why qval=3 is now default (at least, when using -V2 --vbr-new)? As I remember it was qval=2 in older LAME versions...
2) What is --vbr-new?
3) Are there any differences between two spellings: -V 2 (readme file provided with LAME 3.97) and -V2 (found here, on hydrogenaudio.org)?
4) Please tell me, does -k really "destroy the quality of files" (like Firon said)? Almost any LAMEs mp3 graph remains same-looking when using this key, and the only difference is lowpass-filter-collapse dissapperance. Or that means nothing again?..

Also, M/S stereo will make things sound WORSE. Leave it as joint stereo (it is NOT lossy in LAME).

But isn't JS (when using at LAME, on high bitrates) mostly M/S stereo? Or your mean forced M/S, without using L/R Stereo when it's needed?

This post has been edited by ThyBzi: Dec 1 2006, 19:43

[greynol]

I downloaded foobar2000, but didn't find any ABX component for it (using search on its site).

It is included as part of the installation. I don't remember if it gets selected by default.

Is abchr I downloaded a little earlier worse for some reason?

From what I understand, this test is designed so that people could rank different files rather than determine whether they could tell the difference between two files.

By the way, using abchr, I couldn't hear those artifacts I see... It was only one test as now, but maybe the sample I used wasn't suitable.

It sounds like abchr was able to accomplish the same thing as abx from the point of view that you realized that you couldn't tell the difference.

I also tried to mix paste (thanx Pepoluan and Greynol for that idea ) samples using Adobe Audition, but it was too difficult to guess how great is the "lossy offset", mentioned by Greynol. Simple comparison of files' lenght did not help me. Is there any bright idea how to find out that lossy offset?

You need to switch to Multitrack View and load the two files one under the other, zoom in to a portion of the audio that you can easily distinguish. Drag one of the files so they line up to the precise sample and then lock them. Right click on one file and choose edit. Then select the entire track. Switch back to multitrack view again. Right click on the other file and choose edit. Copy what is currently selected. Switch back to multitrack view. Right click on the first file again. Use the mix-paste function and check that you want to invert both channels.

As I see, EAC can determine the offset generated by specific codec, but this operation returns an error for some reason (I tried to determine offset for GoGo and two different LAMEs). What can be a reason?

It's a pretty outdated and IMO useless feature. Anyway, I wouldn't bother with this at the moment.

1) for two same-sounding (for me ) samples, is the one with "nicer" spectre (i.e. most bordering upon original) a better one (concerning quality)? Or it is no judge of quality even for same-sounding samples?

What you hear is all that matters. It is nice to see what lossy codecs throw out but please give up on this method of determining quality.

2) For two samples encoded using the same original, do same-looking graphs signify the same quality? (of course, accurate within my eyes )

Please give up on this method of determing quality.