Full Version: --remix vs. --alt preset standard
I've been archiving albums to mp3 and I want to keep them in archival quality while being able to archive 1000+ cds (so no lossless). I have been very happy with the --remix preset using razorlame. Alot of people say this is outdated and I should be using --alt preset standard. Is this true?? I checked on one file and the filesize was SLIGHTLY larger for the alt preset standard. I know that r3mix.net had a lot of research to back up their settings. HMM...I want to keep around the same filesize. Does ANYONE think r3mix is better than alt standard?
No, no one does. Use "--alt-preset standard" and be happy.
If the files are slightly larger, it's usually for a reason (i.e. --r3mix shortcoming).
If the files are slightly larger, it's usually for a reason (i.e. --r3mix shortcoming).
QUOTE
Originally posted by windoze9x
I've been archiving albums to mp3 and I want to keep them in archival quality while being able to archive 1000+ cds (so no lossless). I have been very happy with the --remix preset using razorlame. Alot of people say this is outdated and I should be using --alt preset standard. Is this true??
I've been archiving albums to mp3 and I want to keep them in archival quality while being able to archive 1000+ cds (so no lossless). I have been very happy with the --remix preset using razorlame. Alot of people say this is outdated and I should be using --alt preset standard. Is this true??
Yes. There haven't really been many modifications to --r3mix since around 3.89 if I recall correctly.
QUOTE
[b]I know that r3mix.net had a lot of research to back up their settings. HMM...I want to keep around the same filesize.
This is actually kind of incorrect. r3mix.net, or rather Roel, never really did that much testing of his settings. This is especially true with the newer --r3mix setting (post 3.88 or thereabouts). The newer --r3mix was decided upon in about the timespan of 2 weeks or so I believe (and ironically enough was even based on some of my suggestions, although these were unfortunately not followed to the fullest
). The -–alt-presets took months, and were subject to much, much more testing. In addition, the --alt-presets have always followed a differently philosophy than --r3mix. --alt-preset standard (really the best option to use all around) was designed to be “perfect” or as close to this as possible. It was designed to be perceptually transparent on every file you throw at it. Because of some of the limitations of the MP3 format as a whole, this isn’t entirely possible. However, the fact that this was a design goal pays off. A large majority of files sound transparent to even people with quite good hearing when using this preset. All of this testing for --alt-preset was done by quite a large group of people, over a large span of time.
--r3mix in contrast is designed to be “good enough”. This "good enough", is determined by only 1 person, Roel. This is unfortunately not a very good basis for determining optimal quality because not only has Roel shown that he is unable to hear problems in many of the more critical samples, many other people in these forums have shown that they can hear them. The author may not admit to as much, but by ignoring the problems that exist (which have been shown to be fixable, the --alt-presets are an example of this), and by not tuning according to what other people have proven they can hear, there can really be no other interpretation. --r3mix falters on a significantly larger portion of files, particularly music with quieter passages and electronic music.
And if by "research" you mean frequency analysis, you should know that this is completely and utterly useless as a way to measure quality in a psychoacoustic encoder. It tells nothing about perceived quality at all.
QUOTE
[b]Does ANYONE think r3mix is better than alt standard?
No, I don't know of anyone. And if someone did think this, I would very highly doubt their conclusion would be based on actual listening tests.
Why do you guys find it so hard to accept some people out there might actually understand the difference between --r3mix and --alt-preset standard, yet still use --r3mix at times? I am one of these people. I do not doubt that --alt-preset standard is the qualitatively better standard, and I take my hats off to all the guys who spent to much time implementing it. At the same time, I have never been able to hear any defects in --r3mix encoded files (blame it on my decidedly non-golden ears 
) and the one thing you guys keep claiming is that the bitrate difference is only "a few kb/s on average". That is simply a lie. I find that on average (using charts-type pop music) --alt-preset standard is roughly 20kb/s more, and that is something significant. You need to admit this, guys, and you also need to admit that Roel never claimed his settings were perfect, just that they represented his personal compromise between quality and file size. And since using lossy audio compression will always involve some kind of a tradeoff, I think this is perfectly valid. Those that want the state of the art, can use --alt-preset standard, as I do myself plenty of times. Those with smaller hard disks sometimes also use --r3mix.
I really don't wish to start a flame war here, but I do get the feeling --r3mix has been unfairly represented here at times.
) and the one thing you guys keep claiming is that the bitrate difference is only "a few kb/s on average". That is simply a lie. I find that on average (using charts-type pop music) --alt-preset standard is roughly 20kb/s more, and that is something significant. You need to admit this, guys, and you also need to admit that Roel never claimed his settings were perfect, just that they represented his personal compromise between quality and file size. And since using lossy audio compression will always involve some kind of a tradeoff, I think this is perfectly valid. Those that want the state of the art, can use --alt-preset standard, as I do myself plenty of times. Those with smaller hard disks sometimes also use --r3mix.
I really don't wish to start a flame war here, but I do get the feeling --r3mix has been unfairly represented here at times.
hey guys...I don't want to cause a commotion but I just wanted to know which is ACTUALLY better. I mean they really do produce a similar filesize. I have encoded my mp3s so far in --remix setting and am not going to re-rip/encode them. but I wanted to know if it's worth the switch. Which apparently it is. Thanks for the suggestions. thanks ALOT actually
If it's good enough for you, great!
However, --alt-preset was formulated to be superior in every way. This was made possible by smart code switches unavailable to the user.
Have a nice day
However, --alt-preset was formulated to be superior in every way. This was made possible by smart code switches unavailable to the user.
Have a nice day
I hope that we can seperate the --r3mix preset and Roel's attitude towards quality improvement.
1) Before the invention of alt-presets (and the older dm-presets), was there anyone not satisfied with --r3mix?
2) Is --r3mix better than normal -V options?
3) Is --r3mix worse now than in the past?
4) Any presets that gives better quality at the bitrate of --r3mix?
IMO, we get what we pay for. With enough testing, code-level tweaking, and at about 20 - 30 kbps larger, alt-preset standard must be better than --r3mix. But can it replace --r3mix? I doubt it, especially for those with bitrate concerns.
I think the presets focus on different "markets". For archival quality, alt-presets are the one to be used. However, at lower bitrates and still good quality, --r3mix still has its life.
1) Before the invention of alt-presets (and the older dm-presets), was there anyone not satisfied with --r3mix?
2) Is --r3mix better than normal -V options?
3) Is --r3mix worse now than in the past?
4) Any presets that gives better quality at the bitrate of --r3mix?
IMO, we get what we pay for. With enough testing, code-level tweaking, and at about 20 - 30 kbps larger, alt-preset standard must be better than --r3mix. But can it replace --r3mix? I doubt it, especially for those with bitrate concerns.
I think the presets focus on different "markets". For archival quality, alt-presets are the one to be used. However, at lower bitrates and still good quality, --r3mix still has its life.
I wonder if you can use --alt-preset standard -Vx (insert your own number here) to get better quality than r3mix at a similar / lower bitrate? I know Dibrom is working on another preset with lower bitrate than --aps, and when that comes out it ought to be a better solution, but in the meantime... ?
Here we go..
Who finds this hard to accept? I never said I found it hard to accept. Yes, I'm aware there are people that still use --r3mix. No, I'm not aware of any people who think that --r3mix offers better quality.
Perhaps you had better qualify your assertions here a little better.
First of all, the original statements about the --alt-presets being similar to --r3mix were based on bitrate measurements from the old --r3mix (pre 3.88), which I believe was often higher than the current --r3mix. So when I had originally stated that the bitrates were nearly equal, there was no misleading intent behind this.
Since then, I have become aware of the fact that --r3mix often encodes at a lower bitrate (too low, quite often, but that's another matter). I don't think anyone says that --alt-preset is equal to --r3mix in bitrate anymore, or even that it's only a *few* kbps difference. If they do say it, please realize that a few is not only relative to the person encoding, it's also dependant upon genre. Some of the music I encode quite often, does actually come out to a [b]higher bitrate with --r3mix in some cases. It really depends on what you're comparing here, and if you are going to make an issue of it, you should be very specific.
Second, you are wrong about Roel's claims. Go read the documentation on r3mix.net Roel says that --r3mix offers "Perfect CD-Quality", in more places than I can count. If that's not equivalent to Roel saying --r3mix is "Perfect", than I don't know what is.
While when pressed, Roel may have conceded that --r3mix was *his* personal choice for a quality/size tradeoff, he was also quick to say that this was likely the case for everyone else (going against test data), and he also continued to leave the contradictory information his website (saying --r3mix was perfect) online.
Hrmm.. it sounds perhaps like you are taking this --r3mix matter personally then. The "unfairly" part kind of hints at that. I don't understand this.
--r3mix is outdated. The author knows that it has many flaws but does not improve it anymore. The documentation for it is outdated. There are better choices than --r3mix for similar bitrates (--aps -Y). The basis for --r3mix is flawed (frequency analysis), it has not been properly tuned by listening tests, and it has not been widely verified and improved by 3rd parties. None of these things are personal insults, they are factual observations. Please tell me how stating any of these things is "unfair"?
I hope this isn't another "let's give Roel some credit because he did come up with --r3mix even if it's not that great of a choice" type thing.
I thought we already covered that in the last 2 flamewars seen in the Blade thread and the r3mix thread.
QUOTE
Originally posted by Bluenote
Why do you guys find it so hard to accept some people out there might actually understand the difference between --r3mix and --alt-preset standard, yet still use --r3mix at times?
Why do you guys find it so hard to accept some people out there might actually understand the difference between --r3mix and --alt-preset standard, yet still use --r3mix at times?
Who finds this hard to accept? I never said I found it hard to accept. Yes, I'm aware there are people that still use --r3mix. No, I'm not aware of any people who think that --r3mix offers better quality.
Perhaps you had better qualify your assertions here a little better.
QUOTE
[b]I am one of these people. I do not doubt that --alt-preset standard is the qualitatively better standard, and I take my hats off to all the guys who spent to much time implementing it. At the same time, I have never been able to hear any defects in --r3mix encoded files (blame it on my decidedly non-golden ears ) and the one thing you guys keep claiming is that the bitrate difference is only "a few kb/s on average". That is simply a lie. I find that on average (using charts-type pop music) --alt-preset standard is roughly 20kb/s more, and that is something significant. You need to admit this, guys, and you also need to admit that Roel never claimed his settings were perfect, just that they represented his personal compromise between quality and file size.
) and the one thing you guys keep claiming is that the bitrate difference is only "a few kb/s on average". That is simply a lie. I find that on average (using charts-type pop music) --alt-preset standard is roughly 20kb/s more, and that is something significant. You need to admit this, guys, and you also need to admit that Roel never claimed his settings were perfect, just that they represented his personal compromise between quality and file size.First of all, the original statements about the --alt-presets being similar to --r3mix were based on bitrate measurements from the old --r3mix (pre 3.88), which I believe was often higher than the current --r3mix. So when I had originally stated that the bitrates were nearly equal, there was no misleading intent behind this.
Since then, I have become aware of the fact that --r3mix often encodes at a lower bitrate (too low, quite often, but that's another matter). I don't think anyone says that --alt-preset is equal to --r3mix in bitrate anymore, or even that it's only a *few* kbps difference. If they do say it, please realize that a few is not only relative to the person encoding, it's also dependant upon genre. Some of the music I encode quite often, does actually come out to a [b]higher bitrate with --r3mix in some cases. It really depends on what you're comparing here, and if you are going to make an issue of it, you should be very specific.
Second, you are wrong about Roel's claims. Go read the documentation on r3mix.net Roel says that --r3mix offers "Perfect CD-Quality", in more places than I can count. If that's not equivalent to Roel saying --r3mix is "Perfect", than I don't know what is.
While when pressed, Roel may have conceded that --r3mix was *his* personal choice for a quality/size tradeoff, he was also quick to say that this was likely the case for everyone else (going against test data), and he also continued to leave the contradictory information his website (saying --r3mix was perfect) online.
QUOTE
[b]And since using lossy audio compression will always involve some kind of a tradeoff, I think this is perfectly valid. Those that want the state of the art, can use --alt-preset standard, as I do myself plenty of times. Those with smaller hard disks sometimes also use --r3mix.
I really don't wish to start a flame war here, but I do get the feeling --r3mix has been unfairly represented here at times.
I really don't wish to start a flame war here, but I do get the feeling --r3mix has been unfairly represented here at times.
Hrmm.. it sounds perhaps like you are taking this --r3mix matter personally then. The "unfairly" part kind of hints at that. I don't understand this.
--r3mix is outdated. The author knows that it has many flaws but does not improve it anymore. The documentation for it is outdated. There are better choices than --r3mix for similar bitrates (--aps -Y). The basis for --r3mix is flawed (frequency analysis), it has not been properly tuned by listening tests, and it has not been widely verified and improved by 3rd parties. None of these things are personal insults, they are factual observations. Please tell me how stating any of these things is "unfair"?
I hope this isn't another "let's give Roel some credit because he did come up with --r3mix even if it's not that great of a choice" type thing.
I thought we already covered that in the last 2 flamewars seen in the Blade thread and the r3mix thread.
QUOTE
Originally posted by windoze9x
hey guys...I don't want to cause a commotion but I just wanted to know which is ACTUALLY better. I mean they really do produce a similar filesize. I have encoded my mp3s so far in --remix setting and am not going to re-rip/encode them. but I wanted to know if it's worth the switch. Which apparently it is. Thanks for the suggestions. thanks ALOT actually
hey guys...I don't want to cause a commotion but I just wanted to know which is ACTUALLY better. I mean they really do produce a similar filesize. I have encoded my mp3s so far in --remix setting and am not going to re-rip/encode them. but I wanted to know if it's worth the switch. Which apparently it is. Thanks for the suggestions. thanks ALOT actually
--alt-preset standard is better.
Read the LAME changelog.
Use the search function.
Have a blast.
QUOTE
Originally posted by William
I hope that we can seperate the --r3mix preset and Roel's attitude towards quality improvement.
1) Before the invention of alt-presets (and the older dm-presets), was there anyone not satisfied with --r3mix?
I hope that we can seperate the --r3mix preset and Roel's attitude towards quality improvement.
1) Before the invention of alt-presets (and the older dm-presets), was there anyone not satisfied with --r3mix?
Yes, quite a few. HA was eventually formed because of this actually, because the discussions for trying to provide a better presets were no longer possible on --r3mix.net.
Almost all of the prominent members of this community were people who originally helped with --alt-preset development in some way or another (usually testing and discussion), and almost all of them did so because of the problems they had found with --r3mix.
QUOTE
[b]2) Is --r3mix better than normal -V options?
You'll have to be more specific than this.
QUOTE
[b]3) Is --r3mix worse now than in the past?
I've begun to suspect that the newer --r3mix is actually worse than the old --r3mix in more situations than not actually. The newer --r3mix switched to using nspsytune, but then skimped out in a few other areas, which I believe probably led to much worse pre-echo handling in the majority of cases, even if a handful of more widely known test cases were improved. Of course, both are non-optimal compared to the --alt-presets, so I haven't gone much out of my way to verify this theory.
QUOTE
[b]4) Any presets that gives better quality at the bitrate of --r3mix?
--alt-preset standard -Y
I'm also kind of working on another preset at the moment that will be closer to/lower than --r3mix in bitrate, but that's on hold right now while I work on the FAQ's and new website.
QUOTE
[b]IMO, we get what we pay for. With enough testing, code-level tweaking, and at about 20 - 30 kbps larger, alt-preset standard must be better than --r3mix. But can it replace --r3mix? I doubt it, especially for those with bitrate concerns.
That's funny, I thought it already had replaced it.
QUOTE
[b]I think the presets focus on different "markets". For archival quality, alt-presets are the one to be used. However, at lower bitrates and still good quality, --r3mix still has its life.
There are better alternatives to --r3mix. --alt-preset standard -Y for example.
If people find that --alt-preset standard results in bit rates that are significantly higher than --r3mix, they should simply switch over to --alt-preset standard -Y instead. Hey, it works great for me!
Almost forgot...
There are quite a few things that could be misleading in LAME's own help descriptions (v3.92).
-help
Note some missing descriptor from --aps, perhaps "highest quality"?
--alt-preset help
What, may I ask, is the reasoning behind --r3mix being mentioned here!? I thought I typed "--alt-preset help" and got a rendition of --preset help instead :/
I guess this is the wrong place to complain but how many veteran LAME users even look at the help descriptions anymore?
There are quite a few things that could be misleading in LAME's own help descriptions (v3.92).
-help
CODE
--alt-preset type type must be "standard", "extreme", "insane",
or a value for an average desired bitrate and depending on
the value specified, appropriate quality settings will be used.
--r3mix use high-quality VBR preset
or a value for an average desired bitrate and depending on
the value specified, appropriate quality settings will be used.
--r3mix use high-quality VBR preset
Note some missing descriptor from --aps, perhaps "highest quality"?
--alt-preset help
CODE
LAME version 3.92 MMX ([url]http://www.mp3dev.org/[/url])
Presets are shortcuts for common or carefully tuned settings.
Several separate collections of preset profiles are available.
For more preset details, refer to --preset longhelp.
basic- presets covering a wide span (fixed rates unless used with -v or VBR):
phone (16 kbps) mw-us (40 kbps) radio (128 kbps) studio (256 kbps)
phon+ (24 kbps) sw (24 kbps) tape (128 kbps)
lw (24 kbps) fm (112 kbps) hifi (160 kbps)
mw-eu (24 kbps) voice (56 kbps) cd (192 kbps)
alt- presets highly tuned for utmost quality via blind listening tests:
VBR presets for steady quality
--alt-preset standard
--alt-preset extreme
--alt-preset insane
ABR presets for best quality at a given average bitrate:
--alt-preset <bitrate value>
r3mix- VBR preset for steady quality with little excess:
--preset r3mix
Presets are shortcuts for common or carefully tuned settings.
Several separate collections of preset profiles are available.
For more preset details, refer to --preset longhelp.
basic- presets covering a wide span (fixed rates unless used with -v or VBR):
phone (16 kbps) mw-us (40 kbps) radio (128 kbps) studio (256 kbps)
phon+ (24 kbps) sw (24 kbps) tape (128 kbps)
lw (24 kbps) fm (112 kbps) hifi (160 kbps)
mw-eu (24 kbps) voice (56 kbps) cd (192 kbps)
alt- presets highly tuned for utmost quality via blind listening tests:
VBR presets for steady quality
--alt-preset standard
--alt-preset extreme
--alt-preset insane
ABR presets for best quality at a given average bitrate:
--alt-preset <bitrate value>
r3mix- VBR preset for steady quality with little excess:
--preset r3mix
What, may I ask, is the reasoning behind --r3mix being mentioned here!? I thought I typed "--alt-preset help" and got a rendition of --preset help instead :/
I guess this is the wrong place to complain but how many veteran LAME users even look at the help descriptions anymore?
Well.. there were a certain bit of "politics" to LAME around the time the --alt-presets were created. To say then that they were the highest quality vbr presets would have caused some people to throw a fit Er.. wait, maybe we aren't even safe from that now 
About the --alt-preset help.. you sure you typed --alt-preset help correctly and not --preset help (which shows what you pasted)? On mine here's the output:
Er.. wait, maybe we aren't even safe from that now
About the --alt-preset help.. you sure you typed --alt-preset help correctly and not --preset help (which shows what you pasted)? On mine here's the output:
CODE
[size=9]
C:Downloadslamelame-3.92>lame --alt-preset help
LAME version 3.92 MMX ([url]http://www.mp3dev.org/[/url])
The --alt-preset switches are designed to provide the highest possible quality.
They have for the most part been subject to and tuned via rigorous double blind
listening tests to verify and achieve this objective.
These are continually updated to coincide with the latest developments that
occur and as a result should provide you with nearly the best quality
currently possible from LAME.
To activate these presets:
For VBR modes (generally highest quality):
"--alt-preset standard" This preset should generally be transparent
to most people on most music and is already
quite high in quality.
"--alt-preset extreme" If you have extremely good hearing and similar
equipment, this preset will generally provide
slightly higher quality than the "standard"
mode.
For CBR 320kbps (highest quality possible from the --alt-preset switches):
"--alt-preset insane" This preset will usually be overkill for most
people and most situations, but if you must
have the absolute highest quality with no
regard to filesize, this is the way to go.
For ABR modes (high quality per given bitrate but not as high as VBR):
"--alt-preset <kbps>" Using this preset will usually give you good
quality at a specified bitrate. Depending on the
bitrate entered, this preset will determine the
optimal settings for that particular situation.
While this approach works, it is not nearly as
flexible as VBR, and usually will not attain the
same level of quality as VBR at higher bitrates.
The following options are also available for the corresponding profiles:
<fast> standard
<fast> extreme
insane
<cbr> (ABR Mode) - The ABR Mode is implied. To use it,
simply specify a bitrate. For example:
"--alt-preset 185" activates this
preset and uses 185 as an average kbps.
"fast" - Enables the new fast VBR for a particular profile. The
disadvantage to the speed switch is that often times the
bitrate will be slightly higher than with the normal mode
and quality may be slightly lower also.
"cbr" - If you use the ABR mode (read above) with a significant
bitrate such as 80, 96, 112, 128, 160, 192, 224, 256, 320,
you can use the "cbr" option to force CBR mode encoding
instead of the standard abr mode. ABR does provide higher
quality but CBR may be useful in situations such as when
streaming an mp3 over the internet may be important.
For example:
or "lame --alt-preset fast standard <input file> <output file>"
or "lame --alt-preset cbr 192 <input file> <output file>"
or "lame --alt-preset 172 <input file> <output file>"
or "lame --alt-preset extreme <input file> <output file>"
[/size]
C:Downloadslamelame-3.92>lame --alt-preset help
LAME version 3.92 MMX ([url]http://www.mp3dev.org/[/url])
The --alt-preset switches are designed to provide the highest possible quality.
They have for the most part been subject to and tuned via rigorous double blind
listening tests to verify and achieve this objective.
These are continually updated to coincide with the latest developments that
occur and as a result should provide you with nearly the best quality
currently possible from LAME.
To activate these presets:
For VBR modes (generally highest quality):
"--alt-preset standard" This preset should generally be transparent
to most people on most music and is already
quite high in quality.
"--alt-preset extreme" If you have extremely good hearing and similar
equipment, this preset will generally provide
slightly higher quality than the "standard"
mode.
For CBR 320kbps (highest quality possible from the --alt-preset switches):
"--alt-preset insane" This preset will usually be overkill for most
people and most situations, but if you must
have the absolute highest quality with no
regard to filesize, this is the way to go.
For ABR modes (high quality per given bitrate but not as high as VBR):
"--alt-preset <kbps>" Using this preset will usually give you good
quality at a specified bitrate. Depending on the
bitrate entered, this preset will determine the
optimal settings for that particular situation.
While this approach works, it is not nearly as
flexible as VBR, and usually will not attain the
same level of quality as VBR at higher bitrates.
The following options are also available for the corresponding profiles:
<fast> standard
<fast> extreme
insane
<cbr> (ABR Mode) - The ABR Mode is implied. To use it,
simply specify a bitrate. For example:
"--alt-preset 185" activates this
preset and uses 185 as an average kbps.
"fast" - Enables the new fast VBR for a particular profile. The
disadvantage to the speed switch is that often times the
bitrate will be slightly higher than with the normal mode
and quality may be slightly lower also.
"cbr" - If you use the ABR mode (read above) with a significant
bitrate such as 80, 96, 112, 128, 160, 192, 224, 256, 320,
you can use the "cbr" option to force CBR mode encoding
instead of the standard abr mode. ABR does provide higher
quality but CBR may be useful in situations such as when
streaming an mp3 over the internet may be important.
For example:
or "lame --alt-preset fast standard <input file> <output file>"
or "lame --alt-preset cbr 192 <input file> <output file>"
or "lame --alt-preset 172 <input file> <output file>"
or "lame --alt-preset extreme <input file> <output file>"
Dibrom: Er- yeah, you're right. I made a mistake.
The politics you're referring to must be the r3mix site helping show the flaws of other encoders. I will admit I owe it to that site for informing me of LAME's existence and why it was worth sticking with. I read in HA the tests were not the best to run for perceptual encoders but it was a hell of a way to impress a newbie, such as what I was.
So, yeah, I guess to show appreciation there's a notable mention of the site that helped LAME become popular. But it should really be mentioned in the docs or the credits (i.e. LAME version 3.92 MMX (http://www.mp3dev.org/ For more tests/info visit www.r3mix.net). But the --r3mix preset just interferes with what everyone wants: highest quality MP3. The question of "How to get the highest quality MP3" must be the most frequently asked MP3 question.
The politics you're referring to must be the r3mix site helping show the flaws of other encoders. I will admit I owe it to that site for informing me of LAME's existence and why it was worth sticking with. I read in HA the tests were not the best to run for perceptual encoders but it was a hell of a way to impress a newbie, such as what I was.
So, yeah, I guess to show appreciation there's a notable mention of the site that helped LAME become popular. But it should really be mentioned in the docs or the credits (i.e. LAME version 3.92 MMX (http://www.mp3dev.org/ For more tests/info visit www.r3mix.net). But the --r3mix preset just interferes with what everyone wants: highest quality MP3. The question of "How to get the highest quality MP3" must be the most frequently asked MP3 question.
QUOTE
Originally posted by Dibrom
Yes, quite a few. HA was eventually formed because of this actually, because the discussions for trying to provide a better presets were no longer possible on --r3mix.net.
Almost all of the prominent members of this community were people who originally helped with --alt-preset development in some way or another (usually testing and discussion), and almost all of them did so because of the problems they had found with --r3mix.
Yes, quite a few. HA was eventually formed because of this actually, because the discussions for trying to provide a better presets were no longer possible on --r3mix.net.
Almost all of the prominent members of this community were people who originally helped with --alt-preset development in some way or another (usually testing and discussion), and almost all of them did so because of the problems they had found with --r3mix.
Yes, I know this since I was also on that forum. What I mean is even before that happened, say, at the age of LAME 3.85.
QUOTE
You'll have to be more specific than this.
e.g.
lame --r3mix test.wav
lame -V0 test.wav
Which one is better?
QUOTE
I've begun to suspect that the newer --r3mix is actually worse than the old --r3mix in more situations than not actually. The newer --r3mix switched to using nspsytune, but then skimped out in a few other areas, which I believe probably led to much worse pre-echo handling in the majority of cases, even if a handful of more widely known test cases were improved. Of course, both are non-optimal compared to the --alt-presets, so I haven't gone much out of my way to verify this theory.
I think no one really knows, even Roel. I am not aware of any comparison between new and old --r3mix.
QUOTE
--alt-preset standard -Y
I'm also kind of working on another preset at the moment that will be closer to/lower than --r3mix in bitrate, but that's on hold right now while I work on the FAQ's and new website.
QUOTE
There are better alternatives to --r3mix. --alt-preset standard -Y for example.
I am looking forward to this new preset.
Are there any samples that shows --alt-preset standard -Y to be superior than --r3mix?
If --alt-preset standard -Y is better, then everyone can happily switch to it.
QUOTE
That's funny, I thought it already had replaced it.
For archival quality, --alt-preset standard has replaced --r3mix. That's no doubt.
But in the case of portable MP3 players with limited memory, --r3mix might still be the choice because the MP3 player can hold more songs and for causal listening, it may not be that bad. Of course, --alt-preset standard -Y can also be the choice in this case if it is better.
I would like to see some comparison between --r3mix and --alt-preset standard -Y.
QUOTE
Originally posted by Destroid
So, yeah, I guess to show appreciation there's a notable mention of the site that helped LAME become popular. But it should really be mentioned in the docs or the credits (i.e. LAME version 3.92 MMX (http://www.mp3dev.org/ For more tests/info visit www.r3mix.net).
So, yeah, I guess to show appreciation there's a notable mention of the site that helped LAME become popular. But it should really be mentioned in the docs or the credits (i.e. LAME version 3.92 MMX (http://www.mp3dev.org/ For more tests/info visit www.r3mix.net).
Umm..
This would be an absolutely horrible idea.
I'm not even going to rehash all of the reasons why, but doing something like this would be a huge step backwards for the entire community in almost every possible way.
r3mix.net is flawed, it promotes flawed ideologies, much of the information there is flat out wrong, and that which isn't, is outdated.
There would be no benefit from doing something like this.
*Sigh*...
With all the work going into trying to increase the level of awareness about this kind of thing, and all the work that goes into these tests (like the one ff123 recently held), I can't even imagine that people would still be defending r3mix.net or considering these types of things.
QUOTE
Originally posted by William
lame --r3mix test.wav
lame -V0 test.wav
Which one is better?
lame --r3mix test.wav
lame -V0 test.wav
Which one is better?
-V0 probably.
QUOTE
[b]
I am looking forward to this new preset.
Are there any samples that shows --alt-preset standard -Y to be superior than --r3mix?
If --alt-preset standard -Y is better, then everyone can happily switch to it.
I am looking forward to this new preset.
Are there any samples that shows --alt-preset standard -Y to be superior than --r3mix?
If --alt-preset standard -Y is better, then everyone can happily switch to it.
Yes, just about every sample which --aps is better than --r3mix on, --aps -Y is also.
Read some of the older threads on the dm revs or read the LAME changelog if you want some more information.
QUOTE
[b]For archival quality, --alt-preset standard has replaced --r3mix. That's no doubt.
But in the case of portable MP3 players with limited memory, --r3mix might still be the choice because the MP3 player can hold more songs and for causal listening, it may not be that bad. Of course, --alt-preset standard -Y can also be the choice in this case if it is better.
But in the case of portable MP3 players with limited memory, --r3mix might still be the choice because the MP3 player can hold more songs and for causal listening, it may not be that bad. Of course, --alt-preset standard -Y can also be the choice in this case if it is better.
I think most of the people who have been around here for awhile who are in a similar situation, are already using --aps -Y.
QUOTE
[b]
I would like to see some comparison between --r3mix and --alt-preset standard -Y.
I would like to see some comparison between --r3mix and --alt-preset standard -Y.
A comparison of what exactly?
Try out pretty much any of the samples --aps is better than on --r3mix, and the same will hold true with --aps -Y. It may be to a slightly lesser degree, but I can't really see --r3mix sounding better on any samples, due to it's lack of the kind of code modifications that --aps uses.
The only real difference between --aps and --aps -Y, is that the -Y causes --alt-preset standard to encode less high frequency content as often.
I'll admit I was brainwashed on using the r3mix preset because the r3mix.net website made it seem like it was the end all be all of VBR encoding. It only compares against Xing in VBR, and I think even the average mp3 user knows xing is %@#*. When was the website last updated because if I remember correctly even in the r3mix forums people were already switching to APS.
QUOTE
Originally posted by Destroid
But it should really be mentioned in the docs or the credits (i.e. LAME version 3.92 MMX (http://www.mp3dev.org/ For more tests/info visit www.r3mix.net).
Haha, I'd just love to see this and what ff123 says after announcing listening test he would see this even more often in various forums: "That's not the proper way of listening test, only scientific way is the r3mix-method" like happened at slashdot and arstechnica.. But it should really be mentioned in the docs or the credits (i.e. LAME version 3.92 MMX (http://www.mp3dev.org/ For more tests/info visit www.r3mix.net).
LOL
God help us, I don't want to see those comments appear even more often... IMO r3mix is actively hurting the community by spreading false info and weird impressions. Even developers of other formats don't like it, because it spreads totally false impressions of how codecs should be tested.
Even more funnier was the one "archive quality listening test" arranged by Roel. He still hasn't put up the real results showing that with over 95% confidence the tester group found both 192cbr and --r3mix worse than the reference sample.
QUOTE
Originally posted by JohnV
God help us, I don't want to see those comments appear even more often... IMO r3mix is actively hurting the community by spreading false info and weird impressions. Even developers of other formats don't like it, because it spreads totally false impressions of how codecs should be tested.
God help us, I don't want to see those comments appear even more often... IMO r3mix is actively hurting the community by spreading false info and weird impressions. Even developers of other formats don't like it, because it spreads totally false impressions of how codecs should be tested.
To be fair, he does include appropriate disclaimers at the top of the "analysis" page:
"Tests and fancy graphs don't prove much. Anyone with a bit of computing experience can look for some piece of music, and produce an "encoder comparison" so that their favorite mp3-er comes out best."
"to deliver a reproducible test... with general conclusions (emphasis is his)...
I don't know about the rest of the site though... don't want to bother reading in-depth.
If codec developers don't care for the site, then I'm sure "audiophiles" don't either:
"Reality check: Tube amplifiers "color" the sound with a fuzzy distortion. High frequencies appear to be softer or are severely rolled off. This is *NOT* "hifi"."
"Reality check: Vinyl is a very primitive recording medium. The artifacts, pops, and lack of dynamic range make Vinyl far inferior to CD."
HOO boy... I don't know why he wanted to 'go there'...
.
QUOTE
Originally posted by fewtch
To be fair, he does include appropriate disclaimers at the top of the "analysis" page:
"Tests and fancy graphs don't prove much. Anyone with a bit of computing experience can look for some piece of music, and produce an "encoder comparison" so that their favorite mp3-er comes out best."
And does that disclaimer help?? I've never understood why he puts that "comparison" up, and then with a small print says "it doesn't prove much".
To be fair, he does include appropriate disclaimers at the top of the "analysis" page:
"Tests and fancy graphs don't prove much. Anyone with a bit of computing experience can look for some piece of music, and produce an "encoder comparison" so that their favorite mp3-er comes out best."
At least people at slahdot and arstechnica didn't really notice any disclaimers at all, most newbies just see some fancy CoolEdit graphs... and think that's the proper way of testing.
QUOTE
Originally posted by Destroid
The politics you're referring to must be the r3mix site helping show the flaws of other encoders.
It doesn't show flaws of other encoders. It just shows some frequency response graphs. How much those make difference to the actual perceptual audio, is another thing. You don't look flaws of perceptual lossy encoders by looking at the FFT graphs. Or using totally tonal sinesweeps or totally noisy white noise, what does that possibly could tell about the true quality of a psychoacoustic-model for example??
The politics you're referring to must be the r3mix site helping show the flaws of other encoders.
It's known that FhG encoders for example are very picky giving frequencies over 16kHz. Of course in the FFT graphs over 16kHz frequencies are attenuated, but does it show if it gives high frequencies when it actually matters the most? It's a known fact that people that can hear frequency sweeps clearly over 18kHz may have trouble hearing anything wrong with 16kHz lowpassed music. The resolution of lower frequencies is also much more important than higher frequencies. So giving points based on FFT graphs at high frequencies is nothing short of plain stupid.
Even if the "analysis" comes to the quite correct finals conclusion, that Lame is pretty good, it does it in the wrong way which promotes the spreading of wrong impressions about how proper testing of perceptual lossy encoders should be done.
FFT graphs tell practically nothing about: block switching, simultaneous- and temporal masking performance (you can't say from a FFT graph what is masked, what's not), tonality estimation, quantization noise shaping and noise measurement, or practically anything else very important considering the actual quality. Unless it's totally screwed after you can conclude that something is badly wrong, although you prolly can't say what exactly if you don't actually do any listenings.
At first for a long time there were no disclaimers at r3mix analysis page. Then he subtly added "it doesn't mean much" after lots of complaining by different people, but still there are the great sinesweep and pure noise FFT graphs which are worse than bad examples. First using FFT in the first place and then using sinesweep- and pure noise signals, signals which are the lowest of importance in measurement of lossy audio quality..
QUOTE
Originally posted by JohnV
It doesn't show flaws of other encoders. It just shows some frequency graphs. How much those make difference to the actual perceptual audio, is another thing. You don't look flaws of perceptual lossy encoders by looking at the FFT graphs. Or using totally tonal sinesweeps or totally noisy white noise, what does that possibly could tell about the true quality of a psychoacoustic-model for example??
It doesn't show flaws of other encoders. It just shows some frequency graphs. How much those make difference to the actual perceptual audio, is another thing. You don't look flaws of perceptual lossy encoders by looking at the FFT graphs. Or using totally tonal sinesweeps or totally noisy white noise, what does that possibly could tell about the true quality of a psychoacoustic-model for example??
Bottom point: You see the music, or you listen to it?
Well there you go. People don't listen to music. They look at the brags and graphs then follow whatever sources they deem credible while regurgitating all the experts' quotes as if they had known and leaned something themselves.
And I can see that paying any tribute to r3mix is not a solution whether or not the preset sticks to it. It should be scrapped entirely then. Make it a razorlame preset and kick it out of the code? Yes, I think this would be fine too. BTW, has anyone actually emailed LAME dev with a list a reasons and gotten a reponse back?
And I can see that paying any tribute to r3mix is not a solution whether or not the preset sticks to it. It should be scrapped entirely then. Make it a razorlame preset and kick it out of the code? Yes, I think this would be fine too. BTW, has anyone actually emailed LAME dev with a list a reasons and gotten a reponse back?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.