Please recommend LAME settings, Was: Some advice i'm somehow .. confused Options

[Bogdann]

Hi. I have some possibly general questions about encoding ... but i need some deep answers

Ok .. here is the thing. I like to do the encoding myself because, in general, all the mp3s [L.E. legal music] i've downloaded form the p2p networks are encoded badly. They have 200 Kb/s + and they sound horrible.
So ... now i'm encoding from some lossless format to some lossy one (like mp3).

Hm ... i need to know if i can improve the sound quality in my encoded mp3s. I'm using this setting >> -b 128 -m j -h -V 2 -B 320 -q 0 . This means that i'm using a rage from 128 Kb/s to 320 Kb/s , encoding based on quality ... variably bitrate ... (quality 0) V 2 ... This gives me, in general, about 205 Kb/s mp3 files.
I'm using RazorLame to set the encoding. It doesn't have many options ... so i'm wondering >> what i can do to increase quality for ...let's say 210 Kb/s average ?

What program do you recommend for encoding ... with options for ... let's say advanced users ?

One more q ... doesn't ogg produce a better sound for about 200 Kb/s ? I was reading this topic... i realy don't know if it is subjective or professional ... but....what do you say ? >> http://www.digit-life.com/articles/oggvslame/

This post has been edited by Bogdann: Apr 11 2007, 21:32

[giopiar]

Hi,

first of all there is something I must say about downloaded files: if you download from p2p you can't be sure about the source of the files. ~200Kbit/s is a high bitrate, which is trasparent to almost everybody (please see hydrogenaudio Wiki or FAQs for clarifications), the files you've downloaded may have been transcoded, who knows?

Today, the best encoder available is LAME. Current version is 3.97 and you can download the executable from rarewares.org. One interesting thing about LAME is that it uses presets: these are pre-configured modes that give the best quality in a given bitrate range. If you use --preset standard (now called also -V 2) you'll get the best settigns for the 170-210kbit/s range. If you're worried about quality you can use -V 0, but please notice that for almost everybody it will be exactly the same as -V 0

So I reccomend you to use lame in this way:

Lame.exe -V 2 --vbr-new in.wav out.mp3

please see this post for more details

Remember that you can always use a fronted for lame, to rip your CD's and convert them directly, in this case I reccomend you Exact Audio Copy

This post has been edited by giopiar: Apr 11 2007, 20:52

[Axon]

IIRC, almost everybody here uses -V0, -V1, -V2 or -V3. Including the experts. The other options are believed to override what the -V settings use, and have a high risk of making the sound quality worse, or increasing the bitrate without improving quality.

So I'd say just use whatever -V setting gives you the bitrate you want.

[Nick E]

What program do you recommend for encoding ... with options for ... let's say advanced users ?

For MP3 most people here use LAME. The notes on it are here:

http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=LAME

I think what is pretty much the standard setting now is:

-V 2 --vbr-new --preset fast standard

which, as it says, generally gives bitrates something around 170--210.

Many windows users seem to be ripping with EAC. Here's a page on using the two together:

http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=EAC_and_Lame

One more q ... doesn't ogg produce a better sound for about 200 Kb/s

Not by enough to be noticeable - or not by almost all listeners. If you were talking about bitrates of 48kbps, perhaps. By 128kbps most modern codecs are more-or-less tied.

[Junon]

Hi. I have some possibly general questions about encoding ... but i need some deep answers

Ok .. here is the thing. I like to do the encoding myself because, in general, all the mp3s i've downloaded form the p2p networks are encoded badly. They have 200 Kb/s + and they sound horrible.
So ... now i'm encoding from some lossless format to some lossy one (like mp3).

Is there really any need to discuss about illegally gained material from P2P networks here? To me "some" lossless format sounds like you actually didn't encode these source files by yourself.

[giopiar]

There is a last thing you must remember: if you use iPod you could have some skipping problems with -V 2. With iPod I suggest you to use fixed bitrate, I use 192kbit/s which is more than good for portable use

Lame.exe -b 192 in.wav out.mp3

[Raiden]

One more q ... doesn't ogg produce a better sound for about 200 Kb/s ? I was reading this topic... i realy don't know if it is subjective or professional ... but....what do you say ? >> http://www.digit-life.com/articles/oggvslame/

Please don't draw conclusions about sound quality from reading this article. Not only it's horribly outdated but additionally uses non-scientific methods to assess the quality of the codecs, therefore it's practically useless. If you want to know what codec performs better, ABX yourself or rely on various listening tests performed here on the forums.

[CiTay]

Is there really any need to discuss about illegally gained material from P2P networks here?

I'm sure they talk about legal music here (which you can - surprisingly - also get on P2P networks)... right, guys? You wouldn't risk a warning or anything, would you.

[Bogdann]

Raiden i know i can find all i want on this forum. It is simply amazing how much i can learn from it ... but i really can't read in a small amount of time ... ALL this. Hm... i probably need a couple of days to analyze and understand the majority of the topics. After that ... i can say that i'm a PRO

Junon

Is there really any need to discuss about illegally

This was an example. Of course ... if you want i can give you some radio stations (and not mention the word "p2p") that stream at 192 Kb/s in mp3 format ... encoded very bad. They are perfectly legal you know ...

giopiar I have a mp3 player but it is not ipod. Ipod ... not my style.

Nick E, Axon, giopiar i will remember this. So ... it is good after all to use the default presets. I thought that are only ... for noobs . Sorry

10x all for reply. I will check this topic, maybe something new appears.

P.S. CiTay P2p networks can and are used to transfer legal content. It can be video, audio or text. For example ... video > trailers < ... music > free mp3's to promote some singers or albums < . Of course we are talking about free mp3s encoded bad

This post has been edited by Bogdann: Apr 11 2007, 21:23

[Jebus]

There is a last thing you must remember: if you use iPod you could have some skipping problems with -V 2. With iPod I suggest you to use fixed bitrate, I use 192kbit/s which is more than good for portable use

Lame.exe -b 192 in.wav out.mp3

Only on older models... Lame VBR works great on 5th gen for sure, 4th as well i believe...

[Rio]

@ bogdann

OGG Vorbis is indeed a format to check out. most OGG users in HA agree transparency is achieved at -q5 (around ~160 kbps). for MP3, most LAME users in HA agree transparency is achieved at -V2 (around ~190 kbps)... please see HA wiki for both LAME and OGG Vorbis in HA

you be the judge.

[kanak]

@ bogdann

OGG Vorbis is indeed a format to check out. most OGG users in HA agree transparency is achieved at -q5 (around ~160 kbps). for MP3, most LAME users in HA agree transparency is achieved at -V2 (around ~190 kbps)... please see HA wiki for both LAME and OGG Vorbis in HA

you be the judge.

I know the wiki recommends V2 but i think you should try ABXing the different settings on your portable. I tried it, and i couldn't even ABX -V6. So I use V5 just to be safe. You could save a lot of space by doing a simple ABX test.

[Nick E]

I know the wiki recommends V2 but i think you should try ABXing the different settings on your portable. I tried it, and i couldn't even ABX -V6. So I use V5 just to be safe. You could save a lot of space by doing a simple ABX test.

This is just it, isn't it? My understanding, possibly wrong, is that that setting

-V 2 --vbr-new --preset fast standard

is the LAME people's recommendation rather than just the wiki's. But, of couse, that doesn't mean that just because they consider that to be satisfactory many, even most, listeners will find not lower bitrates just as acceptable.

As it happens, I don't use LAME any more myself. I use the Core Audio AAC encoder in Mac OS X. But here's one of the most widely seen listening tests around. It's at 128kbps:

http://www.listening-tests.info/mf-128-1/results.htm

One encoder is significantly worse. There is no significant difference between the performance of any of the others, and the conclusion is that "with the current encoders, the quality at 128 kbps is very good" and it's mostly no longer worth doing tests at that bitrate.

[Spikey]

Ogg's still better in that test

Seriously though, is it really satisfactory for all the people in this topic to say basically "I don't think there's much difference, therefore let's use lower bitrates', or 'I did a couple of listening tests therefore X..'. Doesn't sound very scientific (almost against TOS, even!).


There's a good comparison at 160 kbps on this forum from around the same time as that test.

Also, isn't that test also out of date (Dec 2005)? I thought LAME got a lot better since, and presumably aoTuv's got better also.


The former 'codec wars' seems to pretty much died off, indeed. But my problem with all this is, there seems very little scientific evidence showing well, anything, and the majority of 'research' seems to have been done by people at home with out telling us much except they gave a casual listen or casual ABX.


I just wrote a post at my forusm explaining why I use Ogg Vorbis, and the reasons are probably out of date. I'll give thought to including LAME MP3 as well. But I wonder if we will see any more good quality tests, or if we'll be relegated to 'whatever, it all sounds the same' thinking that I thought would have been gotten rid of, at least at these forums.

BTW: What's wrong with this article?
http://www.digit-life.com/articles/oggvslame

I'm not suggesting I have a problem with what's been said, I'm just curious as to the science/logic that's outdated (I'm a bit out of the loop).


- Spike

[Synthetic Soul]

-V 2 --vbr-new --preset fast standard

Just use -V2 --vbr-new.

-V2 --vbr-new and --preset fast standard are the same thing (--preset fast standard is outdated).

In 3.98 my understanding is that you will just need -V2, as the newer VBR routines will be used by default.

This post has been edited by Synthetic Soul: Apr 12 2007, 07:21

[kanak]

Seriously though, is it really satisfactory for all the people in this topic to say basically "I don't think there's much difference, therefore let's use lower bitrates', or 'I did a couple of listening tests therefore X..'. Doesn't sound very scientific (almost against TOS, even!).

When i did the test to get a rough estimate of what bitrate to use, i tested on music that i listen to-- not problem samples; because the point of the test was not to see if i can hear the artifacts, but to check how low i can go before i can notice a difference.

Since the scope of the tests are so different, i don't think personal tests are less valid.

[sizetwo]

Wow im impressed that people took time to answer a question like this (asked 10.000 times before) violating the rules regarding claims of compressed files sound quality without proof and implying download of illegal files. (come on guys, you think he is going to Jamendo?)

[Bogdann]

sizetwo My primary question was if i can improve those settings for Lame. Be sure that i've spend a little time searching the forum and i saw only settings like V 2 ... i was wondering if all the people use those settings or are written there only to keep things simple.
Second q was about the mp3 and ogg encoding. I know that ogg is better at low rates but i didn't know for sure how high you must go with the bitrate for transparency.

violating the rules regarding claims of compressed files sound quality without proof

Lame has options for the quality of encoding. Very fast encoding ... poor quality of sound. Slow encoding ... processing the file deeply ... you get a high quality file. This is a thing that all users know about it ... it needs no proof.

implying download of illegal files

Pff... nobody said anything about this. Here ... let me search the google for you ... here you go: the first result was this > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer-to-peer . You probably know about wikipedia ... it is not illegal.
This is a quote from the site mentioned above >>

Such networks are useful for many purposes. Sharing content files (see file sharing) containing audio, video, data or anything in digital format is very common, and realtime data, such as telephony traffic, is also passed using P2P technology.

So i repeat ... i'm talking about legal content.

L.E. >> I've set the --vbr-new method for this setting >> -b 128 -m j -h -V 2 -B 320 -q 0 and it has huge improvements for speed. It is about 3 to 4 times faster to encode in vbr-new rather than the old algorithm

This post has been edited by Bogdann: Apr 12 2007, 10:06

[Mister Yull]

L.E. >> I've set the --vbr-new method for this setting >> -b 128 -m j -h -V 2 -B 320 -q 0 and it has huge improvements for speed. It is about 3 to 4 times faster to encode in vbr-new rather than the old algorithm

Well "-h" and "-q2" are the same ... So don't use "-q0" which is useless in this case ...

This post has been edited by Mister Yull: Apr 12 2007, 11:06

[odyssey]

L.E. >> I've set the --vbr-new method for this setting >> -b 128 -m j -h -V 2 -B 320 -q 0 and it has huge improvements for speed. It is about 3 to 4 times faster to encode in vbr-new rather than the old algorithm

Did you bother to read this thread? FORGET SWITCHES! Presets are already tuned for the best quality, and you risk to reduce it!

[Mister Yull]

L.E. >> I've set the --vbr-new method for this setting >> -b 128 -m j -h -V 2 -B 320 -q 0 and it has huge improvements for speed. It is about 3 to 4 times faster to encode in vbr-new rather than the old algorithm

Did you bother to read this thread? FORGET SWITCHES! Presets are already tuned for the best quality, and you risk to reduce it!

Yes, presets have been improved along the years, and it is safe to use it. LAME has the ability to use preset in order to ensure that the user won't be bored about complicated switchs related to quality. Switches should be used in extremely rare cases, for exemple for compatibility. Juste use "-V2 --vbr-new" instead of this non-sense switch...

[twostar]

even after several years after the presets have been developed, people still think adding custom switches will improve quality. i hope future lame versions will disable them altogether, or at least have a message saying something like: your switches will only degrade quality, continue? (Y/N)

[sld]

Lame has options for the quality of encoding. Very fast encoding ... poor quality of sound. Slow encoding ... processing the file deeply ... you get a high quality file. This is a thing that all users know about it ... it needs no proof.

There is no proof because it is completely wrong.

Ogg Vorbis is better than mp3 at the same bitrate but the Lancer builds encode 3 times faster than the fastest LAME 3.97 builds (on my com).

Just use -V2 --vbr-new. Unless you're a LAME developer or codec tester, you'll be deemed a noob if you use custom switches.

This post has been edited by sld: Apr 12 2007, 14:51

[pepoluan]

Second q was about the mp3 and ogg encoding. I know that ogg is better at low rates but i didn't know for sure how high you must go with the bitrate for transparency.

Vorbis (Ogg is the name of the container format) is better than MP3 at low bitrates and high bitrates. It is better than MP3 at any equal bitrate.

See this page: http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?ti...nded_Ogg_Vorbis

Scroll down, see the -q table and note number 4 under the table:

Most users agree -q 5 achieves transparency, if the source is the original or lossless.

Add one more (i.e. -q 6), and 99.9% of the population will, I believe, say that transparency is achieved. Even some die-hard paranoids in HA don't go higher than -q 7, which roughly corresponds to 224 kbps.

Most of us mere mortals already find -q 4 to be transparent, i.e. approx. 128 kbps.

Please, before doubting anything, or even opinionating, do check HA's wiki.

[Spikey]

Lol at this post:

even after several years after the presets have been developed, people still think adding custom switches will improve quality. i hope future lame versions will disable them altogether, or at least have a message saying something like: your switches will only degrade quality, continue? (Y/N)

Quote of the week, I love it.


Why make things more complicated than they have to be.

Kanak, I don't consider your tests invalid, I'm just saying, for something so contentious (in my view) it seems a little risky to make bold claims you can't back up.
Although I'm guilty of that myself sometimes.



Question: Is "-V2 --vbr-new" going to give me VBR MP3 at the highest quality, varying between 128 and 320 kbps where necessary, with minimal artifact?

That seems to be kind of missed, with all this talk of using some standard version, noone's actually talking about the quality/desirability of options, just that they're 'standards'. I still feel slightly confused about which preset to use!

Regards,
- Spike