Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: List of recommended LAME settings (Read 655418 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

List of recommended LAME settings

Reply #375 –
i am looking for a lame setting using 3.93.1 to compress aiff wild tracks and ambiance (stereo image and details are very important= matriced(M/S) recordings)

List of recommended LAME settings

Reply #376 –
Why the new "-V x" settings are not in the Recommended settings list?

EDIT: Now I get it. But I think altho the Lame 3.96.1 isn't recommended version those settings could be mentioned also.

List of recommended LAME settings

Reply #377 –
Hi!

I have a simple question. What is better?
The 3.90.3 lame, or the 3.96.1?

I use 320kbit - cbr ONLY. (No vbr) with -b 320 -m s -h --lowpass 19.5
(becouse the alt preset insane use joint stereo encoding,and I prefer stereo.)
I want the highest possible quality,space no problem.

P.s: is this good setting? I use q2 (default) The q0 better than q2?

Thanks all..

Cyb

List of recommended LAME settings

Reply #378 –
Quote
I want the highest possible quality,space no problem.


If you truly want the best possible quality, then this board recommends 3.90.3, --alt-preset insane for CBR 320 MP3.

As has been stated ad nauseum here, LAME joint stereo offers better quality than mere stereo encoding.

List of recommended LAME settings

Reply #379 –
Quote
Why the new "-V x" settings are not in the Recommended settings list?

EDIT: Now I get it. But I think altho the Lame 3.96.1 isn't recommended version those settings could be mentioned also.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


The new -V presets are explained in [a href="http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=18091]another thread[/url], which is linked from the this one.
"To understand me, you'll have to swallow a world." Or maybe your words.

List of recommended LAME settings

Reply #380 –
Thanks

List of recommended LAME settings

Reply #381 –
I DJ with MP3s (using Serato Scratch Live ), and have up to now been encoding my MP3s using the iTunes-LAME plugin (using LAME 3.90.3) and the setting --alt-preset extreme

The quality seems pretty good, though I think I'm losing some sub-bass in club systems compared with CDs - is there any way to modify the --alt-preset extreme setting so that it covers the lower-end of the bass spectrum? Sorry if this is an obvious question, I'm a newbie as far as tweaking the encoding settings goes...

thanks

Paul

List of recommended LAME settings

Reply #382 –
Quote
I think I'm losing some sub-bass in club systems compared with CDs - is there any way to modify the --alt-preset extreme setting so that it covers the lower-end of the bass spectrum?

That is most likely placebo. If you're a DJ, just use your equipment to modify the sound (e.g. fiddle with the equalizer)
//From the barren lands of the Northsmen

List of recommended LAME settings

Reply #383 –
Quote
Quote
I think I'm losing some sub-bass in club systems compared with CDs - is there any way to modify the --alt-preset extreme setting so that it covers the lower-end of the bass spectrum?

That is most likely placebo. If you're a DJ, just use your equipment to modify the sound (e.g. fiddle with the equalizer)
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=250178"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Okay, so there isn't any low frequency cut-off (or at least not one lower than on CDs) in --alt-preset extreme then?

Paul

List of recommended LAME settings

Reply #384 –
No.
"To understand me, you'll have to swallow a world." Or maybe your words.

List of recommended LAME settings

Reply #385 –
Quote
No.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=250184"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Thanks for the clarification

Paul

List of recommended LAME settings

Reply #386 –
Perhaps preset medium could be added to the recommended settings...
I do not remember when I added it, but it must be at least two years ago. It could probably be considered to be "tested enough" now.

List of recommended LAME settings

Reply #387 –
It's not supported by the 'vanilla' 3.90.3 compile, that's why it isn't mentioned in the thread.
"To understand me, you'll have to swallow a world." Or maybe your words.

List of recommended LAME settings

Reply #388 –
Well, yet another reason to ditch 3.90.3 at last and move on.

List of recommended LAME settings

Reply #389 –
Quote
Well, yet another reason to ditch 3.90.3 at last and move on.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=252872"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


3.96.1 should really be tested and proved as well as 3.90.3 has first.
 

List of recommended LAME settings

Reply #390 –
Quote
3.96.1 should really be tested and proved as well as 3.90.3 has first.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=252885"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Ooooo-kay. Now please stop parroting others and come up with your own ideas.


I personally believe that 3.96.1 (or any version that comes after this) is never going to have the same amount of testing as 3.90. Times have changed, and HA has changed.

Back then (late 2001), nearly everybody was into MP3. It was the only decent format with hardware support, Napster/Audiogalaxy/Kazaa was all the rave, and Vorbis and AAC were at their infancy.

Now, MP3 is not longer generating much interest (specially here at HA). Vorbis and AAC are being much better supported (don't start me about MPC). Also, many people are now no longer interested about audio coding, since video coding is progressing at a much faster pace and there seems to be lots of room for improvement still. Modern audio codecs have nearly reached the limit for compression, and these days novelties only appear at ultra-low bitrates - a field most people around here don't care about. I digress.


Another detail to point out is that 3.90 wasn't being tested to detect regressions against some older version - a very boring and fatiguing job. It was being tested to tweak the dm presets to their best. That's quite easier and more enjoyable - since you just need to find samples that break the preset, and not compare one version against the others, in presets that are most of the time transparent, for most people.


You should be able to notice that yourself. Compare the response to the several threads asking for listening tests on 3.90, 3 years ago, and response to the handful of threads asking for tests on 3.96.1.


So that means 3.90.3 will be the recommended version for ever (even though it's slow and lacks important features that were added later) just because newer versions won't be tested to the same amount? Heh.

List of recommended LAME settings

Reply #391 –
Hi there!

I've been playing around with mp3 encoding at 96kbps, and using the latest(?) Lame 3.96.1, I am unable to duplicate the quality I get from Lame 3.91 --alt-preset cbr 96!

I read somewhere a while back that the alt-presets were now standard, but I don't know for sure.

In any case, the quality difference is obvious to me - while 3.91 was miles ahead of any other MP3 encoder for 96 - 128kbps, 3.96.1 is definitely behind.

After browsing through the 3.91 source code, noticing that someone named Dibrom originally made the --alt-presets, and noticing that this Dibrom posts here, I figured this might be a good place to ask .

Anyone care to take a crack at it?
Here's my audio examples:

http://leif.cx/lame/tigerchunk.mp3 -- 54 seconds of Eye of the tiger, 320kbps mp3 "original"
http://leif.cx/lame/tigerchunk-lame391.mp3 -- lame391 --alt-preset cbr 96 --resample 44100
http://leif.cx/lame/tigerchunk-lame396.mp3 -- lame396 -h -b 96 --resample 44100

I'm trying to squeeze the last possible bit out of a 96kbps shoutcast stream, so the fact that i'm starting with a 320kbps MP3 is a real-word scenario.

Can anyone match (or surpass) the quality of my 3.91 mp3 in Lame 3.96, re-encoded from the 320kbps "original", to 96kbps 44khz j-stereo?


Would love to hear from ya .

///Leif

List of recommended LAME settings

Reply #392 –
LAME 3.96.1 is known to have some problems in its CBR/ABR modes.
Gabriel is working on fixing those.
"To understand me, you'll have to swallow a world." Or maybe your words.

List of recommended LAME settings

Reply #393 –
Does anybody know how to get LAME to tag the genre too (ID3v1 + ID3v2)?

I'm currently using the proposed setting in the LAME settings thread, but it doesn't tag genre:
Code: [Select]
--alt-preset standard --add-id3v2 --pad-id3v2 --ta "%a" --tt "%t" --tl "%g" --ty "%y" --tn "%n" %s %d
</signature>

List of recommended LAME settings

Reply #394 –
Genre tagging is problematic, since it will only work if you use a genre, which is featured in LAME's genre list.
If you keep that in mind just use this commandline:

Code: [Select]
--alt-preset standard --add-id3v2 --pad-id3v2 --ta "%a" --tt "%t" --tl "%g" --ty "%y" --tn "%n" --tg "%m" %s %d
"To understand me, you'll have to swallow a world." Or maybe your words.

List of recommended LAME settings

Reply #395 –
Quote
Genre tagging is problematic, since it will only work if you use a genre, which is featured in LAME's genre list.
If you keep that in mind just use this commandline:

Code: [Select]
--alt-preset standard --add-id3v2 --pad-id3v2 --ta "%a" --tt "%t" --tl "%g" --ty "%y" --tn "%n" --tg "%m" %s %d

[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=254273"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Works like a charm. Thanks.
</signature>

List of recommended LAME settings

Reply #396 –
That was a very dry post rjamorim. I can see your point, but no one will change unless something compelling forces them to (i.e. A jump in inherent quality of output).

Most tests to date have been rather inconclusive, and as dev0 pointed out, theres some trouble with CBR/ABR modes in 3.96.1 (Personally I still use 3.90.3, so I'm not sure what the extent of this "trouble" is)

Unfortunately most people seem to use CBR/ABR over VBR. Most people seem to go for max CBR (320) or Kazaa CBR (128). As I used to do, before I somehow became more interested in lossy codecs and the audio "scene".

To me, slightly slower speeds is a small sacrifice for a more "reliable"/tested encoder (though I'm surprised at the versions' age, it's doing very well).

Obviously there were other recommended compiles before 3.90.3 was arround, so if something better comes along, it will be knocked off its perch. We'll just have to wait and see I suppose.

Cheers/Good work Gabriel and the LAME team for making a seasoned encoder (after many years of development obviously). The fact that the comparison here is between 2 different versions of the same encoder (as opposed to a "competing" encoder) says a great deal about it 
<==== Hydrogen Audio Bomb

List of recommended LAME settings

Reply #397 –
Hi there,

I confused about the -q setting.  Using -q 0 takes about twice as long and takes off 10 -
100kb. I wondering if the q setting does anything more the better Huffman coding. I do
understand that the preset have gone through a lot of testing. But if I were to use
--preset standard -q 0 would this setting just change that qval to 0 and give a very small
improvement in size ?

I look searched the forum and google but there does not seem to be answers. It is
maybe a stupid question but for paranoid people a little extra waiting is worth an
improvement however small.

Thanks in advance


edit: spelling
Death is the one thing we all face

List of recommended LAME settings

Reply #398 –
easy as pie...don't use it! stick with --preset standard

from LAME's changelog:
Quote
best huffman divide in the inner loop. This should improve the quality, but PAINFULLY slow. So it is not enabled by default. Use -q0 to use it.
--alt-presets are there for a reason! These other switches DO NOT work better than it, trust me on this.
LAME + Joint Stereo doesn't destroy 'Stereo'

List of recommended LAME settings

Reply #399 –
Quote
easy as pie...don't use it! stick with --preset standard

from LAME's changelog:
Quote
best huffman divide in the inner loop. This should improve the quality, but PAINFULLY slow. So it is not enabled by default. Use -q0 to use it.

[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=262019"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]



Thanks Jojo, I see I'm getting into some mojo that I do not understand correctly.
The FHG's website says..

Quote
Inner iteration loop (rate loop)

The Huffman code tables assign shorter code words to (more frequent) smaller quantized values. If the number of bits resulting from the coding operation exceeds the number of bits available to code a given block of data, this can be corrected by adjusting the global gain to result in a larger quantization step size, leading to smaller quantized values. This operation is repeated with different quantization step sizes until the resulting bit demand for Huffman coding is small enough. The loop is called rate loop because it modifies the overall coder rate until it is small enough


What the differance between q 0 and q 3 ?  I will use just the preset as you
recommended.  It's just a burning curiosity.   

I'm sorry to persist. 
Death is the one thing we all face