I think we should get some order to the LAME presets and format them in the MPC-style, getting rid of the --dm-preset and --r3mix.

-insane (dm insane or xtreme?)
-xtreme (dm standard)
-standard (--r3mix or similar bitrate producing MTRH variant - I think speed is also required for the standard. Bitrates should be competitive with 192kbps CBR)
-radio and/or -divx (abr 128kbps stuff?)
-thumb? (something small)

All these personalized presets are just confusing for the newbies I think.

Well I strongly agree that the current preset situation is not optimal at all, and is need of a restructuring. I'm not exactly sure what would be best though. I don't think I would mind what you proposed above (except for the issue below), but I think it may be hard to get other certain people to agree, expecially given the order you proposed. It would imply that certain presets are better quality than others, but a few people still seem to disagree with/deny this, even with all the evidence pointing to this.

Also.. in a situation like this, and given the fact that all of this AQ stuff is likely to make it into LAME, I think it is important to keep the "standard" mode still within the AQ category. As you see in this thread:

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/showth...st&threadid=108

(last page especially)

--r3mix is NOT AQ since it can be shown with 95% certainty that the reference sample (MPC) is perceptually better.

So I'm not sure the solution would be quite as simple as what you proposed..

I don't think -standard needs to be such a high bitrate or quality as --dm-preset standard.

Is MPC -standard transparent? Or Psytel AAC -standard?

After standard is supposed to be "in the middle of the pack" solution. Also, I would definitely make the standard MTRH based, since COMMON users may give a damn about the speed too.

If --r3mix is transparent to some people, I can assure you that both of those are very much more transparent at those settings. If you want the truth, I would take mpc -standard over --dm-preset standard anyday. So yes, I would say they usually are to most people.

However, that wasn't my point. My point was that --r3mix which you proposed as "standard" was not AQ, and since AQ is being pushed very heavily by some, it doesn't seem to make sense to me that the default setting wouldn't even conform to that.

QUOTE

After standard is supposed to be "in the middle of the pack" solution. Also, I would definitely make the standard MTRH based, since COMMON users may give a damn about the speed too.

Well I can promise you right now that Roel will [b]NEVER agree to --r3mix being labeled as a "middle of the pack" solution. If you don't believe me, just go ask him what he thinks of this. Heh.. I can assure you he won't like it. He'll tell you something to the effect that --r3mix is transparent to most people on most equipment (despite the results from the AQ test) and marginalize the difference that --dm-preset standard provides, saying that to most people it doesn't matter. Either that or he will say "well no lossy solution is 100% perfect, --r3mix is good enough, etc, etc". So talking to me about all of this is kind of pointless if you can't even get the other party to agree to any of it first anyway. Perhaps you should go talk to him.

Anyway, my point was that the "standard" mode should be transparent to a certain degree to most people. As I understand it, this was the point behind Roel's AQ test, to determine which settings can be considered "Archive Quality" for most. --r3mix fails here. Considering that mpc's -standard mode is probably more transparent than --dm-preset standard even, and you made the comparison, this is important.

That being said, I do agree that the standard mode should be relatively quick. However, I gather that you think I have no interest in speed at all. This is not true, and infact many of the modifications I am working on I originally was going to try and implement with vbr-mtrh, but right now it is still not ready. It also still does not work with nspsytune optimally or correctly. This will change once Robert implements the new -X modes completely, but right now they aren't done yet.

I totally agree with cd-rw.

Simplicity is key here.

And obviously it shouldn't a problem of person (once again, Roel vs. Dibrom, etc...)?

If this relative quality issue cannot be solved, why don't we try it with speed?

- fastest
- fast (abr 128 stuff)
- normal (--r3mix)
- slow (--dm standard)
- slowest (--dm insane)

that could work, no?

I never said I disagreed with him.



I agree.



Umm, the problem isn't Roel vs. Dibrom, the problem is getting someone to be willing to agree to this. That means agreeing to have their setting ranked lower than another setting. If someone is obviously unwilling to make this concession (and I go on past experience here), than how can this possibly work?



In this case, faster speed implies lower quality, so that will obviously not work. To add to that, none of the dm-presets are really going to be very different in speed. The exception may be that "insane" is actually faster than standard or xtreme, so again that won't work.

Just a pointer that I once did a blind test which included MPC -standard as well and it was considered far from transparent. In fact I think --r3mix (v.3.88) was rated higher, but the this was some time ago so I am not 100% sure and the test was a very limited test.

About the transparency...

I think if you take a player and headphones on the street and start asking people, you'll find out that more than 90% of the people will say that 192CBR is transparent.

Actually, one local hifi magazine (respected one) blind tested audiophiles, and they couldn hear the difference in between 192cbr Blade and the original.

I am not going to start arguing about this, but I have found that if you don't know what to look for in the signal (most of the people don't) then lossy compression defects are very hard to hear.

No offense, but I don't think the test was performed under the best circumstances, and the results may not have even been interpreted correctly. I don't think any of the group tests performed by the community up to the AQ test (except for ff123's test) were very accurate or even performed correctly. In any case, mpc -standard will outperform MP3 and LAME just about every single time on critical samples. But that aside, MPC's quality here is not the point. You want decent quality for standard but I think that if this AQ stuff makes it through, the standard mode should actually still be categorized as AQ.



Maybe. But supposedly a large portion of people participating in this test didn't think they could hear the difference either, and they did. Considering all of this, speculation about what people should is useless in my opinion. It makes much more sense to actually work with the data that we do have.



Heh.. if someone is an "audiophile" and they can't hear the difference between an original and blade at 192kbps, then they aren't really an audiophile. But in any case, I am not familiar with that test and don't know any of the details about how it was performed.



This is probably true but I don't think the quality presets of a psychoacoustic encoder should be tailored with this in mind. They should be tailored to provide quality based on real information gathered from real tests. Not just on speculation.

This AQ thing is killing this idea. If 90% of the public think 192CBR is transparent that should be good enough for the standard tag. Anything that sounds better than that and is comparable in size would be a bonus (--r3mix). Just make it clear in the documentation that there are better settings if your ears need them.

Hmm, I have totally missed this test. Which magazine and when was it?

Personally I believe there's something wrong with the test settings or something, if audiophiles truely couldn't distinguish 192cbr blade from the orginal. Or, those people can't be called audiophiles. (It doesn't help if you have 1M$ audiophile equipments, you need at least decent ears too...)

Hmm, I don't think --r3mix quality is or ever has been near MPC standard quality. It's easy to hear distortions and transient smear with --r3mix. Actually --r3mix is more closer to --dm-preset standard quality, but dm standard has better overall quality less ringing, has better transient handling which can be easily heard for example with castanets.wav etc..

Hmm, didn't check the very latest specualtion about r3mix AQ test statistical analysis, but recently the result were (If I'm not mistaken) that with over 95% confidence a group of people found both 192cbr and --r3mix worse than the MPC reference sample. It would be better if a group couldn't distinguish an AQ-setting with so high confidence... That's why I don't think --r3mix should be called archival quality by any means.

As I've been trying to emphasize, it hasn't been proven that 90% of the public think 192kbps CBR is transparent. All I've seen so far is just speculation about what should be [b]good enough, let alone anything which shows 192kbps is actually even remotely transparent.

For that matter though, this whole AQ thing was never actually my idea at all. I still don't agree with or like the idea behind it, and think it has no place in the LAME encoder itself, but at this point it is looking like we have no choice. So if it is actually going to make its way into the encoder, then the presets need to actually line up with the definition of what IS AQ. We know for a fact that 192kbps and --r3mix are not at the very least.

I think that if "high quality" presets are going to make it into LAME now and entirely replace the old ones, we need to make sure that the default setting will profide sufficient quality for the "average" user. Determining this threshold is the whole point behind Roel's AQ test. Unfortunately, the results from that test eliminate what cd-rw.org is proposing we use as the default setting itself.

JohnV,

Dig out the Tekniikan Maailma 12/99. Especially page 39, lower right corner has interesting comments about quality and the human ear.

Dibrom,

Perform a test so that you do not know which is the original, and throw those headphones to the trash can and use speakers in a normal room. Also a long time ago EmediaPro had similar test results than the "Tekniikan Maailma", also with Blade 192.

But 192cbr is not the issue here - the topic is VBR presets.

You seem to something against the AQ test. It may not have been the definitive and absolute truth telling test, but it also showed that --r3mix is better than 192cbr. Noe the "-standard" doesn't have to be --r3mix, but a MTRH variant targetting around 200kbs - in other words a 192crb replacement.

192 is THE standard, so "-standard" should be a replcament for it - offering improvoved quality, with little file size gain. Audio quality sufficient for most purposes.

It did not.

1. mpc is better than abr224, r3mix, and cbr192
2. dm-xtrm is better than cbr192
3. dm-std is better than cbr192

From eyeballing the results, it's unlikely we can prove r3mix > cbr192 even with more sensitive analysis.

--
GCP

Umm, don't take this wrong, but I was afraid you say Tekniikan Maailma... But, before I totally condemn this general tech magazine old article, I should read it. I have a feeling though I have read it but didn't give it much credit even back then.
Everybody can do their own ABX tests which proves totally the opposite. And even non-audiophile r3mix AQ-test found Lame 192cbr (and --r3mix) not archival quality.

Of course you can find very very easy to encode piece of music which is near transparent with Xing128, but then there's something wrong with the test setups and settings if this kind of music is used. (A bit exaggerated but you get the point.)

I think some of you are forgetting few things: most of the people don't recognize artefacts of lossy compression-they may hear a difference, but can't tell which is the original. Most people listen to music with speakers which makes fiding artefacts a whole lot harder. I know this-I been into hifi for ten years and I have a pair of Genelec active studio monitors. I can hear a bad freq curve, sloppy bass, hard high register, or any other way in-balanced sound very easily. I can easily listen and give feedback on speakers, but hunting for MP3artefacts is still very hard for me. I have never bothered to look into them either, since they are not so bad if you are not aware of them. Also, not many people have good soundcards. You are the extreme cases and thats why there should be an extrme preset for you and the standard preset for the Joe Average.

Ok, now let's get back to topic, shall we? This wasn't supposed to be a -r3mix vs. dm issue?

Everyone agrees that we should dumb personalized presets, and make things more understandable with a "standard" preset setup in the fashion of MPC or Psytel AAC?

I proposed a MTRH variant settings that produces bitrates around 200kbs: In other words a solution that gives quality improvements over 192cbr, reasonable speed and maintains a good compression ratio. In the middle of the pack solution, a good compromise.

xtreme, like the name implies should the choice for high fidelity, extremely high quality.

insane, would be something to squeeze out the maximum theoretical quality.

I don't quite see the point why -standard should be as HQ as --dm standard, since that's propably not what Joe Average is after. And naturally the help/docs would describe the nature of the presets and incidate that hifi freaks should use -xtreme for improved quality.

Well, in my modest opinion, I think both cd-rw.org and Dibrom have the reason.

Newbies doesn't want any complication (and they are very numerous), but there is people that want quality.

For example, I'm reading those forums of audio-compression about 2 years, trying to find a good parameters to encode a good mp3.

I think to acomplish with both worlds maybe this classification:

-insane (dm insane )
-xtreme (dm xtreme)
-standard (dm standard)
-standard_fast (r3mix)
-divx (abr 128kbps stuff?)
-radio
-thumb? (something small)

or beetwen to standars, perhaps:

-standard_hq -- -standar_lq
-standard_high -- -standard_fast || vbr192

I think the both presets have sense, because to newbies the combination of speed, quality and size of r3mix could be really important. While dibrom standard (dibrom presets) could only be apreciated by a people concerned about audio quality.

I'm studying computer sciences, obtaining mp3 in my faculty is really easy...really. But the quality is really poor 128 (Xing). I have friends who don't want use lame because of it speed vs Xing, or because a good preset size results.

And yes I'm talking about advanced students of Computer Sciences. When I started in mp3 world I believe that if an mp3 encoder (xing) says 128 is cd quality, is true.

Well dibrom I'm trying to say you, that the vast majority of people isn't concerned absolutely nothing about quality(because 128-192 is enough for them), but they produce the majority of mp3 in Internet

This reason is why has sense r3mix in a standard preset, simplicity, speed, quality and size. Many people like I said before would never used dm_standard, even lame.

Personally I'm using dibrom_standard instead r3mix since I have knowlege of it, and it quality. But I couldn't distinguish beetwen them, I encode with db_standard because maybe in future I would have better equipment. Hence I want a standard that offers me a really high quality over speed and size.

Well, I'm only trying to help, if it's possible.

Excuse my poor English, this text is too large to my knowledge¡¡
Sergio

Ever heard of ABX? I use it all the time...



Why? This is how I choose to listen to my music often. If the music doesn't sound good on headphones, I don't care of it sounds OK on speakers.



Exactly, so why did you bring it up?



No, I have something against certain people spreading mistruths about the results, and meanwhile calling those trying to get something useful out of it liars.



Sadly it didn't. And this is one of the biggest problems. If you were to go on Roel's "interpretation" of the results, he would have you believe that there was no difference between any setting and the original except for 192kbps. Lately he has gone so far as to say that MPC may not have even been shown to perform better than --r3mix, yet looking at Garf's and ff123's stastical analysis of the results there is such a high probability that there would be no possiblity for this not to be the case!



Well first of all, I don't give a damn about what the mp3 council thinks is "standard". Their idea of "quality" is just laughable. What I care about is providing a preset which is sufficient quality also. But I think that preset should be one which is reasonably transparent to most people, and also, if the AQ bit goes in, even the standard mode should be considered AQ.

I don't think anyone ever said it was a matter of this issue. Some people seem to think that whenever I say something which is not necessarily favorable towards Roel or his switches that it comes down to this.. heh.



Yes



Well for one, I would like to state that --dm-preset standard actually isn't too far from this bitrate. And once --vbr-mtrh is upgraded to support these new -X modes, I will be switching to that also. Plus with some of what I am working on, I'm already seeing bitrate decreases of up to 10kbps or more in some cases (though none of it is finalized yet). Considering that --dm-preset standard only averages about 10-20kbps more in bitrate over --r3mix... well you get the point. So it is very possible that in the near future, dm-standard could actually fit all of that criteria. Except for just being a "middle of the pack" solution.



I agree on both of those points.



1. Because it is possible to allow this.
2. Because AQ has been pushed so hard by some people, and now a standard setting should conform to this rating.
3. Because it may actually be possible to get dm-standard to overcome its current weaknesses (slower speed, and slightly higher bitrate) before too long.

I think just using something lower quality in a hasty manner wouldn't be the most prudent idea.

That's my point. AQ is killing this idea. Who said the proposed --standard has to be "AQ"???





Although I agree with all parties involed that --r3mix is not AQ, I also don't believe the test Roel gave wasn't in any way taken by "average" users. "Average" users are the ones who share all those 128CBR files on winMX. "Average" users just want to slap on their headphones and throw some weights around while stuffing as many MP3's into their portable players as possible. The people who take the time to read these boards and understand the inner-workings of these programs are simply not your typical MP3 listener. The bottom line is this whole "AQ" threshold is going to be impossible to agree upon so why refer to it when deciding on new presets. --standard should be quick with decent quality to please the masses. I won't use it and neither will most users on this board but many will freak out when they see how much better lame --standard (--r3mix) sounds compared with what they have been using.

Sorry, I didn't read the last couple of posts, I'm kinda in a rush tonight. (wife not feeling good, 2 days overdue with our 2nd kid)

i must agree with cd-rw.org, simplification needs to made, and i believe that --r3mix should be standard. common guys, almost everyone outhere is trading 128cbr mp3s claiming that those are cd quality, ovbiously --r3mix is better than that, and most of the times it is good enough for the vast majority of users. sure there will be people who require more quality than that, and there's where dibrom's presets kick in. i think it would be wrong to use all dibrom's presets (including standard) because they're are slow, and there are still some of us which are using slow computers, and to be honest speed is also important to me, and quality wise --r3mix is a good compromise between quality and speed and you must remember that after all it is lossy compression.

You may not give a damn about the MP3 council standard, but I do. Why? Because I don't look at this just as an encoding solution for me or you or the 50 mp3philes that hang around the "LAME scene". I wan't the world to change away from 128-192 to good quality VBR. Currently I am just waiting for your new presets in order to launch a new MP3 encoding article for tens of thousands of people, striking to the core of the MP3 scene.

The people have something against VBR. I think that if they are given dm standard as a default, they'll be scared by the large files and are less likely to use it. But if we can sell a decent VBR setting offering good quality and competitive bitrates, the step to talk them out to switch from -standard -> -xtreme is a whole lot smaller. But first we need to get them to use VBR.

Marketing Dibrom, marketing..

If you are able to cut the bitrate and use MTRH, then that's more than fine. As I said before, it does not have to be -r3mix, but any MTRH variant targeting to the same bitrate range. the dm standard currently shoots 20-30kbps above --r3mix (depends on the music, naturally, but in my case).

Talking about the AQ test, I think that the participants were far for the average. It might be useful info for determining AQ, but certainly it won't tell anything about the Joe Average. The LAME-people tend to have: great sound cards, good headphones, good amps/pre-amps, good speakers, quality wiring all the way...this is not the average people!

Well I understand your point, I just don't think this is ever going to happen. I've actually been involved in parts of the mp3 scene before and know quite a few of the "higher up" people in the mp3 councils, and I can tell you, they just don't give a damn. I don't think there is anything you can say that is going to change their mind about quality. They are stubborn and they have been doing it the same way for a long time now, it is unlikely that anything is going to change that, except for switching to another format.



Well for one, I think it is a common misconception that dm-standard always gives high bitrates. I have plenty of albums that encode in the 160-190kbps range with these settings. Sure, --r3mix may be lower on these particular clips, but while you are comparing --dm-preset standard to 192kbps, keep that in mind. The problem is when you encode metal that you start to see significantly higher bitrates.



People are so scared of VBR and joint stereo, I don't know how you can ever possibly convince them. There was a thread started recently on this board titled something like "I know sound quality" or something similar. Much of the line of "thinking" you see there, is the same you will see from the people out there convinced that 192kbps fhg is perfect.

Yes, I understand the point in actually trying to convince these people, I've tried before and I've seen many others try as well, and it never works. Considering that, yeah, I am much more willing to cater towards the crowd that DOES care about quality (many of the people here and on r3mix.net). After all, it is these people that are likely to help convince others in the long run. So catering presets to a crowd that more than likely doesn't even care in the first place, doesn't seem to make quite so much sense for me. Not to say they couldn't use all of this though. They would probably rather use a smaller setting than -standard anyway, to save space and possibly get some sort of speed increase.

So the same people you keep talking about using 128kbps that "need" high quality vbr, are probably going to be the first people to ignore the efforts anyway.



Yeah, keep in mind though that the AQ stuff was not my idea. It was someone elses idea, and again, it is likely going to make it into LAME in some form or another. This means that anything else added to LAME should be taking into consideration all of that. If you promote AQ, but your default setting doesn't actually provide AQ, then what does that say? It tells everyone to use a higher quality setting, and basically kills the usefulness of having one setting as a default in the first place.

It may sound elitist of me, but I think those who actually want the higher quality should be those that are catered towards first. After all, they are the ones who have been spending the time and effort performing listening tests and learning all they can to achieve this. Nothing is stopping anyone else from doing the same.. they just aren't as interested. So why should we tailor for them? I'm just not convinced..

Also keep in mind that it would be far better to overshoot the quality margin than it would be to come up too short (at least in my opinion).

If you really want to include some lower quality presets as LAME defaults, that is fine. Just don't expect me to support that kind of thing. I'm not interested in lower quality, and neither are many of the people who's opinions I value the most, so asking me to place that as the highest priority overall is pretty much an impossibility.

I'm doing my best to increase the performance of LAME in regard to the --dm-presets in every way I can think of, and to help integrate all of this into LAME more smoothly, but quality is not something I am willing to sacrifice. For me to do so would be to go against everything I have worked towards so far. Maybe you can understand that, maybe not.

Oh yes I do understand your view. You consider this issue form your personal perspective, while I try to do it from the perspective of the general audience.

Yes, I know that dm-standard can go lower in some cases. Mellow rap tunes are one example where VBR settings usually dip rather low.

More opinions? Where are the LAME developers?

If you read my message, you would see many references to what other people think about this matter. Yes, I am considering other people's perspectives on this. I think the audience you are targeting (the mpc council audience) is not going to be interested. The people here ARE interested though, so I think they are the ones that should have more influence in this case, as they are the ones that will be taking advantage of this the most anyway.

Regardless of what presets go in, LAME is still going to see FAR more use at 128kbps CBR. You are not going to change this with a single article, or even a zillion articles. Therefore, going backwards in quality to "accomodate the majority" (of people who don't like or use VBR or js anyway) seems rather pointless to me.

Yes, I know that it is quite impossible to change the world in this. I however wan't to share and pass this good message to the maximum number of people, rather than keeping it as the valuable little secret of a small community.

If I contact 100.000 people with an article, I sure that couple of heads will turn. Turn again, my previus LAME article had quite a lot of reactions at the CDFreaks.

Maybe lame should use the original --preset command to accomodate any kind of preset. It already has phone/voice/fm/tape/hifi/cd/studio so it could be a matter of adding some more names. The difficult part would be choosing the proper names.

Hrm, I think that's what they're fighting over.

--
GCP

I don't get it. You are basically trying to get the people putting out cbr192 files right now to switch over to a VBR setting.

The dm presets aren't good because

a) they're slower
b) they give big files (+- 200kbps)

Okay, fine, but why try to convince people to use VBR when you give them --r3mix?

a) it's slower than CBR
b) it doesn't seem to give better quality than cbr192

If speed is so important, then what's the advantage of r3mix VBR here?



The test included a lot of people not having experience with listening tests. It was a very good sample for people that are at least remotely interested in mp3 quality.

Edit:

My basic issue with this whole thing is that you guys are trying to get people to use VBR because of quality issues, but then immediately make a compromise (r3mix) that gives a minimal, it at all, quality improvement. What exactly are you advocating here??

--
GCP

By the same reasoning, I recommend --abr 160 as --standard

a) it's better than cbr128
b) good enough for the 'vast majority of users'
c) if they want more, dm presets kick in
d) it's fast for the people with slow computers
e) good compromise between quality and speed

And, after all it's just lossy compression!

--
GCP

It seems to me that there are basically 3 categories of audience here:

1) Those for whom size is all important; ie. how many MP3s can I squeeze in to my portable player. These people are mostly going to use 128CBR and Real Jukebox, MusicMatch, or the like. Few of these people will be likely to pay any attention to the "quality" arguments here. At best, you might "sell" them a better 128 mode.

2) Those who are interested in quality but are also size limited.

3) Those for whom quality is of more importance than size.

Spending time on the first category seems to me to be a noble but fruitless exercise. Surely the only real target audiences are categories (2) and (3)?

Most of the people who fall into category (1) wouldn't know quality if it hit them between the eyes. For them VHF stereo radio is as good as it gets!!

I agree with both parties on this one, but am leaning towards Dibrom's opinion on the issue. The fact is, people who just want low filesize and don't care about quality will always first try the -standard preset. Then, when it comes out too large for them (probably without them even listening to the quality), they'll just use a preset that gives a lower filesize (personally, I think these presets shouldn't have names at all, but should be identified by numbers, preferrably with an even amount of choices, e.g. -preset 1-4). So, what's the point in making -standard lower quality than transparent as it is? The ignorant will STILL go for a lower filesize, since they will believe the filesize they reached with -standard is, naturally, "standard", so they'll always go lower from that, despite if the audiophile community considers it transparent or not! You can see the basic reasoning here like this:

[list]Of course, there will also be the "unsalvagable" who will simply keep lowering the preset until it reaches the filesize they want, but those will excersize this regardless of whether -standard is transparent or not! However, since most people will go for -standard right away, it's much "safer" to make that setting of good quality to begin with.

Oog, I had difficulty expressing this, but I hope you'll understand what I'm trying to say.

I personally use dm -standard. I like what it does for me, and have a ton of disk space. However, I tend to agree that perhaps an "-r3mix like" or abr160-like setting would be best as a default setting, because it is faster, good enough, blahblahblah. I would also agree that there should be a clear switch for a dm -standard setting, for people who want the higher quality like me, but aren't into it enough to learn / figure out how to get it.

I am relatively new to mp3, LAME, and the use of the exe instead of the dll. I went from using Audiograbber and a lame.dll at first, to messing with the dll settings, to the external in about two months. Slow. I was interested, though. I tell people about all this, and they say "Wow, how did you learn about that?" But then they don't bother to take it any further.

The goal is to improve the quality of mp3s floating around, right? So let's do that, but leave the primo settings for people who care, and make it easier for them to get it with a nice big button. And perhaps even a line that says (Increases bitrate) for those that have no clue.

I commend Dibrom for catering to those of us that want superior quality first. I mean, there will always be cruddy 128s out there. I only trust what I have encoded myself. That is, what I have encoded since gaining some education on it. Sometimes I am surprised by other people's rips, but not too often.

My idea of utopia in three settings:

a) portable mp3 player setting - fast, low bitrate, as good as it can be for about 128

b) -r3mix type setting - most bang for buck theory, high speed and good quality

c) fine-tuned dm -standard setting - higher bitrate, slower encode, but worth it, dude!

Indeed that's more useful and in line with some other options in LAME. Why not have
-VBR [0-9] ? Scalability being the keyword. To eliminate long arguments which is better, let the ranking be size and nothing else (even that can cause problems with VBR ).
The rationale being that a good preset should be trying to get the best quality for its size.

As for the hard work people have put into presets, I wouldn't mind if Dibrom would provide the settings that target maybe -VBR 0 and 1 (if he wouldn't mind too).

Well I'm not so sure about what -VBR 9 should be, but maybe it could be used to compress telephone conversations
It would be nice to have scalable (VBR) presets in the range that LAME is capable of doing, not just the part we think is "good quality". Different people might have different needs.

On the other hand if VBR isn't doing anything good on average bit rates under 128 then -VBR 0-4 would be plenty of choice. (never even tried those myself).

that's my 2 eurocents.

BTW. no big problem to have the --dm-preset and --r3mix as well, (aliases ?) having a status like the experimental switches.

Ge Someone.

I suggested the usage of -standard -xtreme -etc. due to the fact that Psytel AAC and MPC use such names for their presets. They are a sort of a standard, make sense and using such presets makes it easier for a newbie to try these different encoders.

I agree. In my opinion -standard -xtreme etc. naming is better.
One thing that is bothering me with --r3mix setting being the -standard is that it doesn't have very good pre-echo control. It's often at the level of Lame192CBR, with some pre-echo test samples I actually prefer Lame192cbr over --r3mix, which is not very good.

Let's see what Dib has to offer. Maybe something can be done to combine vbr-mtrh, close to --r3mix bitrate and better pre-echo control. Part of the problem is that lack of nssafejoint has negative effect on pre-echo.

This should be done right at the first time and not rush too much. I believe (at least hope) that better than --r3mix quality can be achieved with similar bitrates. And yes, in my opinion the lack of speed of vbr-old would be somewhat a problem for -standard preset.

If things can be done better with similar --r3mix ~200kbps targetting bitrates with MTRH speed(I think this is important for the -standard), then by all means please do so.

Sure sure, cd-rw. But i don't think we should rush now. Robert is doing vbr-mtrh modification that makes other than average noise measurement work correctly. Dib is doing very nice tweakings.

In my opinion we shouldn't rush now.

Hi all,

I can understand the current dilemma that everyone is debating here. I understand Dibrom's stance that quality should come first because everyone involved on LAME lately has been trying very hard to improve quality and testing to help improve quality.

I also see the other side of the coin that LAME should be adapted to appeal to a greater range of listeners than just audiophiles.

There is a compromise here and one that I think we can clearly categorize for all people who want to use LAME from the mp3-portable user all the way up to archival-CD-burning-quality users. I agree that an attempt has to be made to convince the "mp3-council" to use VBR. Even if that attempt is fruitless, a hand must be extended in sincere wisdom nonetheless. I'm convinced if we do this, some of their brethren will breakaway from the pack and give LAME a legitimate shot. The 'AQ-test' was a fantastic first step towards convincing these people to use VBR over CBR, and that when properly implemented, joint-stereo can deliver just as high quality a sound as full stereo.

I would say we should allow a two or three tier quality spectrum separating user interest levels. A level for portable users in the 96 kb/sec - 128 kb/sec range. A level targeted at casual users who are limited in hard drive space and CPU speed, but want decent quality, acceptable speed, and simple user-friendly commands or a front-end for windows, their target is 128 kb/sec - 160 kb/sec. Finally, we can have a level catering to ourselves at the top of the ladder and label this level the popular "AQ".

PORTABLE USER - Recent developments in LAME settings have resulted in an array of good low-bitrate command lines which should interest portable users. Remember ff123's command line? -b128 --nspsytune -mj -h --athtype 2 --nsbass -8 --lowpass 16 I'm sure the brilliant minds here can come up with some nice command lines for the low-bitrate crowd.

CASUAL USER - I agree with Dibrom that we aren't likely to convince many casual users to give up the medium bitrates and it will be very hard for them to understand the advantages of VBR when they see wild differences in bitrate from song to song. We can likely get them to use ABR in this range. This would greatly improve their results and may allow them to make a step towards understanding and accepting VBR. Try to introduce --r3mix to this crowd or re-tool r3mix to keep bitrates under 192 kb/sec. This will require us to convince Roel to maybe lower --r3mix quality just a tad for the casual user.

AQ LEVEL - No explanation needed. All the high quality presets can fall into this category. --dm standard can be the hallmark setting for most users and we can try to encourage casual users to adopt this setting as it gets lower in bitrate.

If we make it clear what "level" of user we are talking about, then we can easily make presets that they can enjoy. That's my compromise. What do you guys think?

mp3

I totally support the idea of people's names not being attached to preset names for two reasons.

1.It seems to affect the ego very negatively in some, seeing there nick in that command line box. We have witnessed some very innappropriate behaviour over the last few months which was at least partly related to the naming issue IMO.

2.It seems to cause extreme conservative behaviour for the switches in the given preset. Getting a change implemented without a bruised ego should not be the principle concern.

Hmm,

I really don't care if someone uses their nickname in a preset or anything else. If someone put their hard work into a good commandline and even contributed some code, then why not? Most people will eventually be using a windows frontend or .dll for their LAME mp3s anyway when a stable release comes out. The only people who really know who "r3mix" or "dm" are, are us here on the bulletin boards. I personally don't even know Dibrom or Roel. So what if they work hard on something and put a nickname on it? I think it's only natural to feel some pride and a deep sense of accomplishment when something you work hard on is being used by many people.

On the other hand, you make a point about over-blown ego's and hurt feelings when presets don't test as well as the creator intended. Roel saw the test results of "AQ" and was in denial about the results. If the second AQ test proves again that r3mix isn't quite AQ, then it might hurt him a lot. I know how hard he has worked on this stuff. I see myself as not having an ego to bruise, but then again, I haven't put my sweat and work into a preset. It's easy to tell these guys not to have an ego about it, until it's you who creates one that doesn't come out well on a test.

mp3

I agree totally that hard work should be acknowledged and appreciated. But the negatives have outweighed the positives very much in the last month or two, at least for me.

There is also a big difference between CREATING switches and changes in an encoder and using the ones created by others. The lame changelog is a very exclusive club to find one's name, and I think this is a more appropriate place to acknowledge such efforts.

Everyone in this community knows who is actually trying to improve the product and who is trying to cling to an idea proven false anyway.

Getting rid of the names wont solve the ego thing but it might take the edge off and ease/speed changes to the presets when improvements are made, IMHO FWIW.

Sigh... I'm tired of seeing this. I see a few people complaining about the fact that I have my initials on some presets (which I [b]never asked for btw) and so I think I'll change them... then everyone else tells me they want them left the way they are and that those complaining are in the minority. So I think.. "ok fine". Then I continue to see this kind of thing. My conclusion? That it is basically a complete waste of time to bother worrying about what people think of the name of a stupid preset. I don't care if the name does get changed at this point, but I'm not going to bother spending time worrying about who this will affect of why, etc. If a name change comes it will be when it is appropriate and it will have little to do with any of this.

Oh, and if you actually think that what has happened recently has anything to do with me thinking my presets are superior because they have my initials on them, you are totally wrong. I know they are superior because they have been proven so. What all this has to do with (recent events that is) is not related to that, it is related to the fact that certain people cannot handle the truth, and they are willing to totally disrespect and mistreat others in the community simply to further their flawed agenda.



Care to be a little less vague? I'll take a guess here and assume you are referring to nsmsfix. If not, then completely disregard the rest..

I've already explained multiple times in the past why nsmsfix has been inappropriate to use to decrease bitrate without affecting quality. You seemed to have not understood this. Recognize that there are those out there who have a different opinion about quality and where compromises should be made to acheive a lower bitrate.

Common sense would have had that I should have used athtype 3 (old version) in the past to lower bitrates, right? Well look at what happened when I created dm-preset standard.. I found a much better and much more appropriate solution. The same thing is happening now. I've found a much more appropriate solution to decreasing bitrates and in fact I'm working on more fundamentally solving the issues that safejoint has helped to fix in the past, so now nsmsfix isn't such a problem. But, when it was originally brought up, it was not appropriate.

So instead of thinking about "conservatism" and "bruised egos" you should perhaps be glad that someone is willing to not add some switch to a preset just because it's the "new thing" and that popular demand says it should be there, even though that is not backed by a single objective test at all. In fact, I did try to get some people to perform some testing with this switch since they were interested in it's use, but asking for this got me a bunch of flames instead. So I'm sorry, but when shooting for the highest quality level possible, it should be understandable that I will only make a change which I am certain will not decrease quality, not at least without offering higher quality elsewhere. In addition, I need to have [b]objective data (multiple abx test results) which shows this.

Again, if you were not referring to the nsmsfix issue again, then feel free to ignore all of that..

Dibrom,

I have to ask. Have tests been done that lead you to believe that nsmsfix is hurting quality when it's used to lower bitrate? And if so, at what setting is the quality being hurt? I'm interested in your findings.

mp3

Dibrom,

Clearly you have spent so much time defending yourself from J and --r3mix that you are on red alert for criticism.

Please re-read the posts I have made. The comments made are not directed at you whatsoever.

I would however still believe that the removal of any "personal" ID attached to a preset would be a good thing for the reasons I mention.

The conservative behaviour I mention also does not apply to you. Your presets appear to be under regular revision/ testing, yes?

As far as -msfix goes, I understand your explanations for not pursuing this for your presets. I still believe it is a worthwhile adjustment to look at in the future. It may have a place for multimike stuff around 160kbit, for instance. Or 192 cbr or abr.

i also think that it's much wiser to rename presets

i told this already many times....

Yes, I have found that in some cases using a higher nsmsfix value actually has an audible impact (for the worse) on quality. I've mainly come across this on samples heavy on impulses such as fatboy and some of the others. It appears that these particular clips even cause problems for joint stereo interestingly enough.. I'm working on other ways to improve the quality in these situations though, so once those are in place nsmsfix will be used if appropriate.

Sorry, I don't have any hard numbers for you at the moment because I've been constantly testing and tweaking various settings, but especially on these particular types of samples, the joint stereo thresholds are so critical that I've actually been working on ways to make switching criterion even more strict in various situations to improve quality.

Yeah, I re-read them. I'm sorry if I offended you, but I honestly thought those comments could have been (and actually were) directed at me since I've seen people attempt to criticize me on those very issues lately. At any rate, I should have probably taken a bit more time to think about the statements before responding. Again, sorry about that..



Possibly. I don't actually put my full nick on the presets and they are only even there to differentiate the work that I'm doing from the rest of the stuff. The dm signifies that they are presets that are designed separately from the standard LAME presets.. and also that they are subject to much more in depth testing and tuning to achieve optimal quality. In this case it isn't so much that they are mine because they have my initials on them, it's more just a reference to what I'm working on or towards. Changing the name might be prudent, but I'm not sure what it should be changed to. I'm also not really sure that it is worth worrying about at this moment because I may actually change the entire preset structure when I finish these latest modifications.



Well, it appears so



I have already been looking at this a lot lately. If I can find a way to use something which lowers bitrate without decreasing quality, rest assured that I will take advantage of that.