hello. i use cdex to rip all my cd's to mp3's. i dont' use the presets because i think they apply filters to the frequencies [hi lo pass] . is this tru? and if so, when not using the presets, are these filters present? i'm also wondering about the old and new vbr methods in the encoder options. u can choose old, new, or mtrh. i use the 3.92 version of the lame encoder [it came with cdex]. i've read in various threads that the newer encoders of lame [ above 3.95 i think] use a different method of new or something of that nature. and the "q" setting is different. can anyone shed some light on this subject please. i've read til my eyes are bleeding and can't get any concrete evidence on anything but preset chit chat. thanx for any replies

use preset standard and you'll be fine, I don't think disabling filters is wise. If it was the devs would have done it...

hahahaha yes i hear u . but i really dont like the joint stereo option. no offence intended but i really dont want to use the presets. i just need a few questions answered about not using them. like which is the best lame encoder to use if presets are not used [i use 3.92 came with cdex] ? are filters applied to the encoded mp3 when the presets are not used? what's the difference between new, old, and MTRH VBR methods? why doesn't the "q=0" make larger file sizes? i can't get the quality to change with cdex except when using the vbr quality level? is this due to the version of lame i use. i m sure all this info is in this forum somewhere but i can only find discussions about the presets. thanx for any replies

Read the sticky threads, and use the presets.

edit: better yet, use Vorbis.

you'll even find information about why joint stereo is better than plain stereo, why lowpassing is better than having no lowpass at all etc. I think it's quite arrogant believing to know lame better than the people who actually test and develop the codec. Here are some threads for you to catch up:

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=31869
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=31963
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=995

not trying to b arrogant my friend. iv used the presets and on a particular cd [ billy idol vh1 storytellers] i have problems when encoding it using the j/s option and all the presets use it. i listen to my music thru a nice sony amp with surround sound. when i encoded the songs using the presets [ or with no presets and j/s chekd] i would get a squelchy ,almost too faint to notice , noise. when i would re encode it without the j/s option chekd it goes away. that was enuff to prove to me i dont want it chekd. im' sure some very smart people are behind lame and know what they are doing but i dont want to use the presets. i dont think it's too much to ask to explain some other avenues with the lame encoder. with this said , i will read yor links thoroughly and try to understand a little better, but i'd b willing to bet all three of those pertain to the presets.......thanx for the reply
,

Hello, and welcome to Hydrogenaudio.

You are reading this because you violated forum rule number 8.
Don't worry - you probably didn't know about it, or didn't understand the implications, and we understand that. The Hydrogenaudio Terms Of Service are here:

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=3974

The gist of rule #8 is that if you make a claim, you must have proper supporting evidence for it. This rule is the very core of Hydrogenaudio, so it is very important that you follow it.

This is a generic post, and not all what follows may be applicable to this situation. Read through it nevertheless, it contains essential information and will help you understand what to do (or not to do).

Why should I bother with all of this, I just want to report a problem?

For audio quality matters, 'proper supporting evidence' is a blind listening test result demonstrating that you can hear a difference, together with a test sample.
Graphs, non-blind tests, subtracting two files and so on are definetely not!

A proper blind test serves several purposes: it shows that you are serious towards our community, it proves to yourself that you can indeed hear a difference, it provides an indication of the seriousness of the issue at hand, and it helps pinpointing
the problem for differnent listeners.

The easiest and most common way to do a blind test is an ABX test. There are several free utilities to do one:

http://www.pcabx.com/
http://ff123.net/abchr/abchr.html
http://www.kikeg.arrakis.es/winabx/winabx.zip
http://www.beryllium.net/~remco/linabx/

An ABX test requires you do identify an unknown (X) sample as either the original (A) or the processed (B) sample. With some statistics it can be figured out how likely it is that you were actually hearing a difference instead of just guessing which was
which. Hydrogenaudio uses as a general guideline that < 5% change of guessing is considered 'proof' that you are hearing a difference. If you try the ABX test multiple tests, add up all attempts. You can use http://www.ff123.net/abx/abx.html to calculate the p-value ( < 5% = < 0.05), though most ABX programs have it built in.

If you managed to get a significant score, congratulations, it seems that the problem is real.

If applicable, you'll need to upload the test clip you used so other people can verify it and developers can tinker with it.

Uploading copyrighted music is generally illegal, but fair use laws generally permit short clips (< 30 secs) to be used for purposes such as this. Your ISP probably has allocated you some webspace for a webpage. You can upload the clip to it. If you're low on space, compress it with a lossless encoder (e.g. FLAC http://flac.sf.net), which will approximately halve the required space. If you don't have your own webspace, you might want to try the IRC channel, ask a friend, or simply post on HA and ask if someone wants to help you out.

If you finally make your post to Hydrogenaudio, try to include as much information as is relevant, and be sure to explain exactly what and where (important but often forgotten) you hear the problem best.

Audio is to a large extent a subjective matter, and as such, quality matters are prone to a few problems. The first is listener preferences. Something that applies to you may not apply to the majority of people. Maybe the clip is an exception or problem
case and not representative of general performance. This is why being able to verify a result is imporant, as well as giving the developers something concrete to work with.

The second is the mind. The human mind is powerfull, but has some weaknesses. It is very vulnerable to suggestion and subconscious influences, even for people experienced in these tests. No matter how how 'sure' you are that a problem exists, verify that it's not your mind playing tricks on you first, it'll save embarassement
later.

'Simply' reporting a problem generally doesn't tell us anything, isn't indicative of anything, can be impossible to reproduce, confuses people, and most importantly, wastes precious developer time determining if the problem is real and serious or not.

You may have saved yourself 5 minutes, but you've cost other people an hour. That's not very nice.

Could you provide some samples? (and maybe ABX results too). It could be helpful to developers, and also to the whole community. As far as I know, nobody has found any problem sample for joint-stereo with lame --preset. It would be the first one.

nah i have no examples except the fact i spent 4 hrs one nite encoding and re encoding songs off of that cd[billy idol storytellers] and kept getting bad results when using the j/s option. maybe it's the 3.92 version of lame in my cdex . i dunno. didn't mean to break any rulz im just trying to find the best encode method without using joint stereo.[all the presets use it] i'd like to use something like this : -b 192 -m s -h -V 3 -B 320 -F --resample 44.1 --lowpass 19.8 -q 0 --noath i got this commandline from razorlame but am unsure what the ath is. and there is no place for the new, old, mtrh method of vbr either. iv read somewhere [so many threads i can't remember] that the quality level of 0 doesn't even work. when i change it with cdex the file sizes never change. does -h mean quality 0 ? this is what im up against and need some advice [not preset advice pleez]. maybe one of u could post what some of the preset commandlines look like so i can get an idea of what they are doing and maybe use the commandlines minus the j/s option. j/s is the only thing i have against them and perhaps the hi pass settings. if i could tailor my own settings from the preset command line examples i think this would answer most of my questions. pleeez reply i appreciate the advice thanx

just put excerpts of the problematic track online. lets say in flac.

Currently it looks like this: "the earth is flat but I don't have anything to prove it. Additionally I am not willing to prove it but I know I am right"


are you sure you aren't trolling ?

If you want a non-preset command line, use -V2 for exemple with lastest lame encoders (3.92 is three years old...).

trolling? not sure i follow u. i forgot to add that i listened to that encoded cd thru 5.1 surround sound and the only place the squelchy noise was heard was in the rear speakers and only when using j/s or presets. im not trying to cause an arguement here i just want the best options set in cdex or razorlame without the presets. why is that so much to ask. i have been reading and can't find any threads pertaining to non-preset settings.

-b 192 -m s -h -V 3 -B 320 -F --resample 44.1 --lowpass 19.8 -q 0 --noath
^^^^^^ now this is what id like to run thru cdex but there is no way of course. while reading i came across a thread [no link] that said that the q=0 does'nt work for all lame versions[i have 3.92] and is basically the same as -h. is this tru? i got that commandline from razorlame trying to replicate what i set cdex too but cdex doesn't have all the settings that RL does. like the ath[i have no idea wat ath is. is it a method of VBR?] and RL has no setting for old, new, or mtrh. how do u tell which method it's using? and which is better when using the 3.92. i think these are legitiment questions coming from a rookie or newb at setting the commandline but after reading im sure the participants here are tired of answering these questions. i have read but i really can't find the answers to these[it may b in front of me but perhaps im not understanding the terminologies. i dunnno..] thanx for the help and anymore u can offer

You need to do some testing to gain some credibility. There are some links in my previous post.

i don't know why it is so difficult to provide some parts of the track if the problem is that obvious...

what are u using to insert yor commandlines? RAzorlame? i had read in some of the posts here that the 3.90.3 lame is still best and it's older than the 3.92[which is supposed to be the same as the 3.90.2 if i read correctly]

jesus im not trying to prove anyone wrong here. im just trying to figure this stuff out. tell me step by step how to provide u with my sample and i will do so if able. i have no web site, dont' kno wat flac is, and have no idea how to send u the songs. got soulseek? and you'll need a surround sound amp to hear it with all 5 speakers set up or at least 2 front[phantom mode on most amps] and two rear and sub/w.

Have you tried just doing a forum search on "prologic"?

Amongst the TOS 8 hurling, there is some explanation of the hazards:

Lossy comprssion saves bits by not preserving things you won't hear.

Surround processing derives rear channels encoded using things you won't hear.


Do the search to find out what may help.

With any correct GUI for lame. I didn't use RazorLame for years, but if I remember correctly, RazorLame offers the possibility to add your own switchs.

Could you give me any link? 3.90.3 is recommanded, but it doesn't mean that this encoder is better. It could be worse (and IS worse in my opinion in some aspect).


3.90.2 is 3.90.2 and 3.92 is 3.92. They are different.

list of recommended versions of lame this one comes to mind quickest and it reccomends versions of lame using the presets and says nothing else.

I'd recommend using 'lame 3.96.1 --preset extreme' for preserving surround sound information. Some time ago I was able too to hear croacking sounds with DSPs like SRS Labs' TrueSound when playing 'aps'-encoded mp3s. But when I encoded my CDs with 'ape' preset the problem was almost gone.

Your best option is to aviod post processing while listening to mp3's

yes i feel it's possibly the old 3.92 lame dll. im going to switch the .dll with 3.96 and 3.90.3 and see if it still happens. i will [i doubt it's wanted] post in this thread if i find any differences.
maybe this question is not too much to ask...... when NOT using the presets, is there a lowpass filter used with the regular settings? i agree with not needing all the hi's and from what i understand it takes much space to store this extra[not needed] info. i also think that audio cd's cut off at 20khz anyway. o yeah is the q=0 even used in cdex? iv changed this setting to q=2 and q=5 and get no change in file size.
ill try the preset extreme setting as well . thanx

Don't use q0, it has been buggy in the past; only the latest Lame 3.97alpha has solved this issue. If you really insist on using simple stereo (which is really stupid as everyone is trying to tell you), at least use it with the presets. I'd go for --preset standard -m s or --preset extreme -m s with Lame 3.96.1. "Extreme" has a lowpass of 19500. Please note that most people cannot even hear past 16000 Hz when it comes to music because the lower frequencies mask the higher ones, so 19500 is really more than enough for any human. Every other non-preset setting you could use also uses a lowpass filter by default, BTW.

Definitely having a low pass filter is a good idea but his particular issue with J/S versus simple stereo is due to the prologic surround sound he's using. Other people have also reported less artifacts on the rear channel with simple stereo, the big question is whether the main channel suffers as a result. It probably does so a higher bit rate may also be needed.

You say you're trying to figure stuff out, but you refuse to listen to all the people here at HA that have spent countless hours testing and troubleshooting LAME, and actually know what they are talking about. And trust me on this... You can't come up with a better quality command line using switches than Dibrom already has using code tweaks for the presets.

most excellent response. i thank u my friend. so i just enter "--preset extreme -m s" in the commandline eh? cool i didn't know u could change the parameters of the presets like that. will i need to update the lame version in razorlame to use that command? [to 3.96 ithink] and should i disable the ath or is it covered in the preset ? i apparentlly need to learn more about writing the commands. i shall try to read up a bit more b4 asking anymore questions but the wisdom in this forum is pretty spread out unless one lives and dies by the presets. thanx



apparently all the people here haven't tried to encode the cd i mentioned earlier with j/s enabled and then process it thru surround sound. i'm not trying to come up with anything better than anyone. i have no desire to take yor's or anyone else's preset glory. i noticed a noise with j/s in my rear s.speakers . when it wasn't activated no noise it's that simple. the half mb i save or watever with j/s is not really that important to me if i can't trust it for every cd i rip. some of them u get only one chance to encode. i just want a good vbr file with the lo pass of 19.5, no j/s and don't really care which method i use [new or old] . cdex supplies all the settings and i wouldn't even be here wasting this forums time[which is wat i thought forums were for] if it assured me it had a lopass with regular settings. it does not tho so i gave razorlame a whirl and it had options ididn't understand and doesn't even tell u wat version of lame it's using. im willing to bet that if u look back a few years when this stuff first came out , you were as ignorant about it as i am now.

You can either use Lame 3.96.1 or 3.90.3. With 3.90.3, however, you need to use the command --alt-preset standard -m s or --alt-preset extreme -m s instead of --preset standard -m s etc.
Don't enter any other switches like ath or whatever. In fact, the presets already are a collection of carefully chosen switches and code-level tweaks. If you mess with them, you can easily break this fine-tuning and end up with low-quality results.

With which commandline/preset and which Lame version did you notice the artifacts in the one channel when using joint stereo? Maybe the problem disappears if you use --preset extreme even with joint stereo.

@ chronicking

do you want me to be honest? From reading your posts I can tell that you have no idea about audio encoding. You are asking for best quality, but your switches are just crap, so it won't matter what LAME release you use. We have many people like you here and some of them listen what we have to say and after a while they come back and say 'Gosh, I was so stupid back then'. You'll find many hardcore audiophiles in this forum along with developers of LAME, AAC, Nero and so on...so they surely know what they are talking about and they have done this for years.

As mentioned many times, the best way is to stick with the --presets since they offer best possible quality. Your switches will not 'outsmart' any of the presets and they will not sound better on your system. Joint-Stereo is better than Stereo. It is pretty much an enhanced Stereo Mode with a higher (lossless) compression. The results are files with higher quality / smaller filesize with the exact same Stereo sound. It's like using a better compression in WinZip...

All this has been discussed many times and you are not the one who discovers something new...

Once again, if you care about quality, use the presets with NO extra switches. If you don't want to trust the FAQ blindly, you can search the forum for more (detailed) information. If you have a question ask...if you still think your switches are better and you can hear the difference, use your switches and be happy...but don't bother us posting so much crap...

yes i see. the presets are for the new and alt presets for the older ones. thanx for the tip
good point. im trying that now with a few different versions of lame. i used the -alt preset standard and fast standard when i noticed the noise. i did not try extreme. and it was the 3.92 .dll that came with cdex.





well jojo apparently u didnt read the hole thread. i heard the noise not u. i could care less if u believe it. im not ripping my music for u so what yor idea of quality is has no concern to me. ive listened to music thru hi quality sound systems for almost 20 years now and i know a garbled noise coming from a speaker when i hear it. and if u and i would happen to sit down with a pair of speakers and a good sound system i'd say i would recognize flaws while you were tapping away to the beat and not noticing a thing. none the less i appreciate all those that tried to answer some of my questions and some of my questions u did answer. thanx again

chronicking, could you please write your posts in proper Englisch? I have a hard time following this thread, because of the lack of capitalization, grammar and proper spelling in your posts.
This is also covered by TOS#10:

hahahaha you must forgive the improper grammar. i have been up all night reading and re-reading threads, faqs, and other various informational reads. i was just looking for some facts about non preset settings. that's all. i didn't mean to go against the forum's natural grain. i noticed a noise when i used one of the presets with the 3.92 version of lame. i know much time has gone into what you all are doing here, but somebody needs to go buy Billy Idol_VH1 storytellers and encode the first track using the presets or just j/s enabled while using one of the vbr methods [ not preset ]. it could very well be the version of lame im using. i'm testing that now[for my own needs]. i tried to ask some of these newb questions at the cdex and razorlame forums, but they either recommend Hydrogen audio or don't answer at all. i'm just going to assume that most are like me and don't really know the answers to these questions and feel it better just to use the presets. well, i'd rather test myself and find the best combination to my ears. good luck to u all and i hope that there isn't a problem and it's something with my equipment. if not , there's alot of messed up files out there

I'm not sure how old you are, but I just wanted to mention that over time the abilty to hear high frequencies is fading...as someone mentioned before, many people can't hear above 16khz when it comes to music (I'm not talking about a single tone)...just something you should consider next time you think you need the -k switch. The problem with the -k switch, however, is that it will most likely introduce artifacts at the costs of something you can't hear...

i agree 100%. i haven't messed with the -k switch. i was merely asking what it was for , but have since found several threads on it. an audio cd cutz out at 20khz anyway from what i understand. i don't know why so many feel threatened or are getting so frustrated about this. i would have used the presets and never said anything since i quit using cbr a month ago, but luckily i tested it for myself and my old ears clearly heard the squabble coming from the rear surround speakers when the j/s option is enabled[3.92lame]. this worried me because i didn't want to mess up ripping any cd's then find the flaws months down the road. i dont care if j/s saves a few mb's. i 'd rather feel safe with a vbr file slightly bigger than 192cbr and smaller than 256cbr . those are the bit rates where i can no longer tell the difference between my cd's and my files. i see this subject is taboo now. maybe if i was told "I just dont know" from the beginning this thread would be way dead. thanx to all those that answered my "bad newb questions" to their best ability.

Make that 22.05 kHz.

Well, then just go for -V0 (= --preset extreme) or -V1 (= in between --preset standard and --preset extreme), while not using any additional switches, as already abundantly suggested.

Really? Then for your age, you truly have golden ears, either you've grown accustomed to lousy (i.e. preset 'tweaked') high-bitrate encodings. Do yourself a favour, and back up your latter claim with a proper double-blind listening test (ABX). Can you really tell the difference between, say, a -V3 and a -V0 LAME 3.96.1 encoding?

Don't look at it like that. It's just that you have shown quite some stubbornness in refuting well established encoding recommendations. Not the way to gain a lot of credibility here.

And I must agree with dev0: it doesn't hurt to use that caps button and to break up your stream of thoughts into paragraphs now and again, does it? So why don't you just do so?

This is troll. See how he/she answered to dev0.

Yeah if it were me I would have answered the question to the best of my ability as a lot of members on this thread have demonstrated then dump the thread. It's no use arguing over this for another 2 pages, when it really isn't going to solve anything without any scientific evidence/ABX test to back up these claims.

I agree. Arguing about this is quite futile. Since when is trying to learn something considered trolling? I think a few of you are being quite arrogant and childish about all this. I have a problem with your blessed j/s option. Nothing more. I still use lame. My mp3's are very fine quality. No one ever complains over their quality and believe me in saying that they are definetely reviewed alot. You are wrong in saying that this hasn't helped anyone. I've learned quite alot from this thread. Some of you actually answered to the best of your ability and it really did help. I'm getting a grip on the commandlines and learned alot about the lame encoder i didn't know. I'm sorry this thread has wasted so much of your time. I think some of you think of this as some kind of "preset club" rather than an informational site. WEll forums are designed to be informational. Not some place for you to dump on the unknowledgable because perhaps you woke up on the wrong side of the bed

I think some of you are missing the point here. The presets *have* been known to affect Dolby ProLogic encoding. ProLogic encoding is contained within regular audio streams and ProLogic decoders can't tell if a stream contains ProLogic encoding or not, they will attempt to decode anyway. Thus, even if a file does not contain ProLogic information, standard and usually transparent audio encoders can cause artifacts if ProLogic decoding is enabled during playback. chronicking is not trolling he is just some sort of uber-n00b and can't figure out why no one will help him find a setting which will work for his setup, again the presets won't and I wouldn't expect them to.

Having said all this I think he should try --alt-preset standard --nsmsfix 1.0 IIRC it was supposed to help perserve ProLogic encoding.

ps. Keep toking chronicking

hahahahaa will do man. thanx for the tip. i will most definetely try that setting once i get this commandline down. I noticed when i encoded some wav files with EAC then used lame as an external encoder, it opened a dos window with all the encoder settings listed. I thought that was pretty cool in showing you what it's doing in real time. I noticed it was the 3.97exe version of lame that came with blue Razor Lame. I guess i need the 3.96exe. Owell more exploring to do. thanx again

chronicking-

1) have you played the original cd thru your system to see if the "noise" is there?
2) ABX testing is must.
3) I don't think you understand joint stereo at all.

[RANT]

I think this post is one of the worst hydrogenaudio has had for some time, and I DO NOT accuse chronicking , but instead, the members of this site.

Reading it, i felt like this being a church, and trying to "evangelize" people in what they have to do, and whatnot. ( Repetitive mentions to use presets and claim evidence, without ever understanding what the problem in hands was about ).

We know we have rules to keep things in control, (i.e. not have tons of posts saying the same and accusations of who is wrong). Paradoxically, THIS is the case here.

Going directly to the root:

A) Presets ARE NOT the answer for ALL SITUATIONS! UNDERSTAND the situation first!

B) Throwing the TOS #8 every time you have an opportunity isn't really smart. ( there is a worse example in this thread: ( it is just a misuse of words. "sounds cooler" doesn't mean the output of the encoder is better, but the version number, as in being newer. )

C) If we don't even listen to the newcomers, how come they will listen to our suggestions/decisions/recommendations? Ths is especially about the fact that already the first post says he (she?) played it through surround, and has said it two times more during the thread AND STILL there is this last "dreamliner77" post (sorry, it is not meant to be a direct offence) questioning it all once more.



Really, people. We want this to be a knowledgeable site, we want it to be troll free, we want evidences and facts so that we can prove things and improve our experience with lossy compression.
But, come on... chronicking has been really patient in this thread, repeating, reading, posting again... just to have almost the same reply once more.


[/RANT]

chronicking :

You won't get much more usefull answers from these boards about surround sound in MP3.

The reason about this is that is considered post-processing, because the encoder is encoding a stereo input, so it doesn't really know it.

Joint-stereo, as music_man_mpc said, is more prone to have problems with surround setups, because it is making *some* frames to be encoded in less bits than the needed for this concrete setup. The suggested commandline can help in this regards, still using the joint stereo option.


About the version of lame: 3.90.3 is the recommended version in these boards because it is mostly the version that was tweaked specifically for higher quality.
later version ( 3.91 , 3.92 ..) do not use these tweaks, and are considered inferior.

Versions 3.95 and up, incorporate *similar* tweaks to those of 3.90.3, but the source code is so different than the same ones wouldn't work.
Right now, 3.96.1 is being used by many people in this board, because it is twice as fast as 3.90.3, doesn't have any major flaw, and in some cases produces better output.
We all have hopes for the 3.97 version, which is currently in alpha state (testing), because it improves in the bad cases of 3.96.1.


Last, and not the least, testing is everything. So play a little with the encoder, (not too much, because it can go worse), and if possible, put samples online so that we can verify your findings and possibly improve the default behaviour.



EOF.

False.
This has been discussed in length several times before.
I will update the FAQ today with some threads regarding LAME and surround (aka ProLogic).
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=12004

I think the problem was that nobody really understood what chronicking's problem is and that he didn't really try to provide enough clear information to help him.

@[JAZ]:

Sorry, but I think (somehow I hope) this is a troll.

Look it from this point of view:

1) the initial post doesn't state what the his/her (let's assume is boy, from now on, for simplicty sake) problem is.

2) He instead states he is using a version of LAME that is (IIRC) somehow deprecated or at least taken as obsolete, anyway not amongst the recommended ones or emerging ones.

3) He also states that he has the solution to his undeclared problem: do not applying filters to the original signal.

Now... this is more than enough to make me suspect a troll, but...

4) He uses a goofy language/grammar/orthography/capitalization rules

5) In his second post he declares he "doesn't like" the joint stereo option (beware: there is already another thread active on this topic at that time....), he also states that he doesn't want to use the presets and that he wants information on how not using the presets and he also asks what is the best version of LAME for not using the presets.

... and ...

6) only at his third post he declares the nature of his problem. A very well known issue that has already been debated not long ago and that can be at least considered a "borderline" issue with, I think, every lossy encoder/format.

... even more ...

7) in his fourth post, after having been remembered of TOS#8 and offered to provide proof of his statements about the presets and j/s being evil for him, at this point our friend extracts from his hat a french salad of random switches:

-b 192 -m s -h -V 3 -B 320 -F --resample 44.1 --lowpass 19.8 -q 0 --noath

You see?? even a totally useless "--resample 44.1" and even a "--noath", that fu**s up the very nature of mp3 encoding (toghether with a statement that he really doesn't have the first idea of what the ath is at all).


... now I'm tired and don't want to go through all of his provocations, but I remember that when asked by dev0 to use a readable english he answers to a totally different argument... still using his goofy language.

To me this seems to be a (not so very well constructed) troll.



About the other "worst example" (you are referring to my objection, aren't you?), to affirm that the guy when he states 3.96.1 being cooler than 3.90.3 is talking about "version number to be cooler"... well... this is... ridicolous!


I just want to tell one more thing. I see you're quite old here at HA. Not very much after you subscribed I started anonymously reading HA. I continued reading and just reading for more than a year, trying to understand more and more about audio coding (not that I've learned enough, indeed ) and to get a grasp on this community "style" before deciding to write my first post. I honestly must say that I'm irritated by those coming here and before taking the time to use the search function or browse to the FAQs and various thread pretends to have a solution to "their problems" or even worst pretend to have a solution to "my problems". And they do with their (questionable) style. So even if it is not a troll (but I don't think so) I think he has been "unpolite" against this community. Like many others in the last few weeks.

Sergio

Edit: a typo

Rule #8 is one of the most important rules!

Even if it is so: lossy codecs MUST use lowpass filters cause the bits have to encode on these areas.

Example: 128 kbps should have a lowpass filter not higher than 17600...

but 192 have more bits, there u can use lowpass up to 19600 etc.

when you are not satisfied of the Lame MP3 codecs, then use lossless codecs, or compare your files made of Lame 3.92 with Lame 3.90.3 or 3.96.1 using preset standard and the original wav file...

we will see...

This thread is useless with out test results.

That is why chronicking has been ridiculed. He's been told multiple times to provide results, and has yet to comply.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I no longer think it is just my imagination.

These types of posts are increasing dramatically.

1. joint stereo sucks
2. lowpass filters sucks
3. lossless isn't really lossless
4. my cd sounds better than lossless
5. my command line is better than the presets because (insert stupid logic here)
6. i hear a problem with an encoded file but don't have the time to abx
7. i hear a problem with an encoded file but can't/won't upload a sample
8. etc, etc, etc...

Edit: oops, I almost forgot, VBR sucks

I agree with you indybrett, and I've already posted a thread in the site related forum about that matter.

Maybe a carefull analysis of the HA logs (IP addresses of suspect trolls, etc...) could reveal something.

But maybe we two should fund an "HA paranoids club"... or not... who knows.

Sergio

Don't be too hard on chronicking. The problem he heard exists and he just tried solving it in the way it seemed most plausible to him.

I very well know that the problem exists, but it is the way it has been handled (by him) that make me suspect a troll. It is typical of a troll to have a hook on something real and build over that.

Sergio

Probably so, and I wasn't meaning to single out chronicking specifically, just that there does seem to be a dramatic increase in these posts. Maybe we need to make the first page of HA a big search button. Maybe something like Google.

Is HA really attracting that many new members at this rate of speed?