What about a perceived quality vs size graph?

Arbitrarily, I'd give the following quality levels:

--abr 56: 3
--abr 90: 5
-V5: 7
-V4: 8
-V3:8.5
-V2: 8.7
-V0: 9.1
-b 320: 9.2

This is purely informal, but if you trace a graph of perceived quality vs average size, you will probably obtain a nice curve with valuable indication regarding efficiency of the settings.

yes, that as graph would be valid additional info. Can somebody make the graph ?

Must have missed that hidden switch...

I think citing -V4 is pointless. You either make a recommendation at -VX or you don't. What's wrong with -V3? Or -V1?

I also think citing -V0 is pointless. It's the best quality VBR setting - what more can you say?

If HA wants to recommend -V2 as a standard for home listening and -V5 for portables then I can see some sense in that. I would possibly also consider some text explaining that HA would recommend performing some tests (link to "how to abx") for the user to discover whether they require -V1, or whether -V3 or -V4 may be perfectly adequate. i.e. a link to "want to learn more..." or "how to use your own brain".

I basically agree with the following though:

How many test files would be acceptible?

as i understand, you say don't recommend V2 cause it's not always transparent, then go on on saying recommend V3 or V4, which should be "less transparent"! i think V2 is a good bet between V0 and V4 ...

hm, where is the graph ? Can you post it again, please?

i think the HA primary recommendation should cover the most % of people with the least posible BR. I still think V2 is the best compromise. People are already using CBR 192KBPS, which is more or less the average of V2.

Also, the recommendation is not only for the person encoding, as most of the time, you somehow share what you encoded, by, for example, playing the encoded files throug a music system on a party (what i do), so you don't want to play all yout V4 MP3s and see a big percentage of your firends going "WTF is he playing?".

Also, as i said before, we should make a newbies recommendation, on a first post (recommending probably V2), and then we can go on on a subsecuent post, with more details for advanced users.

if we post a huge post first, 90% of people won't pay attention.

edit: also, we are recommending for people looking for quality encoding, the rest are probably encoding in WMA 64kbps.

I did post this:



Taken from XLS (2KB ZIP)

... but then realised that this is not what Gabriel said - it's supposed to be filesize vs quality... or are we calling that filesize?

I don't know if it was supposed to be more of a Quality/KB graph. If so we need to do more tests to get average filesizes for these settings. I don't mind volunteering to do a set (part of a larger set) of files.

No.
There are two problems with -V2 as recommended setting:
- not transparent enough for some (rare probably) users.
- transparent but too big for some (most?) users. These people could get the same perceptual quality with -V3, -V4, -V5 or even -V6.

Recommending -V2 is just a legacy of the old recommendation thread. --standard was logically recommended for a simple reason: there were nothing inferior to --standard. Now we have -V3. We have -V4 also. Are they less transparent for most people than -V2? I can't answer, but I have my opinion about it.

I see more and more people coming back to 160 or even 128 encodings, now they have portable players with limited storage capacity.
Take a look on last multiformat listening test:



LAME notation is superior to 4.0, which corresponds to "perceptible but not annoying". Setting was not -V2, V3 and not even V4. It was -V5.
In other word, -V5 is close to be transparent for the people (on average) which took part to this test. If -V5 is close to be transparent, I don't see why we should consider -V2 as an excellent compromise.
It's like recommending mpc --insane because --radio is already very good.

i understand your point. maybe we can do a V5 to V1 test ...

maybe we can have two basic recommendations "space is not a problem" and "limited storage". is better thatn saying "deaf people", "expert listeners", cause people don't like to call themself "deaf", and they tend to always think they are the best

I prefer Gabriel's suggestion:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....ndpost&p=329933

If space is not a concern, cbr 320 is a better choice. There are still probelm samples for LAME VBR.

i mean normal situations, if space is really not a problem, FLAC is a better option. maybe a:

Recommended settings: V2
Recommended Setting for Limited Storage: V5

Of course. But compatibility is not the same.

So... since a good recommendation based on quality on which everyone would agree seems impossible, it is only possible to give an advice based on the users particular file size requirements. (which are a. a bit rate or b. none). Now there is the situation where some people are saying -V 2 is generally good enough and others are saying -V 2 is generally overkill. Fact is, no one knows which -V setting is transparent for him/her till he actually tries it out and therefor any recommendation to achieve transparancy is inherently flawed.

IMO no particular recommendation (for transparency) should be given other than using -V and a graph/table mapping bit rates to -V settings which can help the person further in making his choice.

I have created the following chart.



Taken from XLS (3KB ZIP)

The data is taken from only one album file (Kings of Leon, Aha Shake Heartbreak) but is intended simply to demonstrate any potential usefulness.

I added -V1 in there, to get the unsightly kink out of the first graph (qualily value is simply the average between -V2 and -V0).

I guess the idea is, the bigger the gap between the two lines, the more quality you are getting for your MB... (-V3 best, then -V4, then -V2).

If there's any interest then we could expand/improve it. However, bear in mind that the quailty values are subjective, and therefore limit the usefulness of the data.

Question:
What is the default commandline-option if you do not specify anything?

If V2 is the recommended, the default should be V2, or am I wrong with that?

This would make it much easier to say "Hey use 'LAME x.wav x.mp3', and everything is fine. And btw it uses the default option V2"

Default is CBR 128

Edit: Remember, we are HA - not LAME dev. Although we have the benefit of Gabriel's ear, and he the benefit of ours, the two are not synonymous.

still, i think gabriel's earlier suggestion makes the most sense. it is simple but clear. it does make some assumptions about the listener, but i think that is fair for the sake of simplicity. it clearly gets the idea across to the reader, so they can make an informed decision on their own. just my 2 cents though.

edit: typo

agree with grabriel:

VBR settings provide different quality levels, adapted to different configurations/needs.
A few examples:

V5 seems to be appropriate on portable devices used in a nomadic way.
V4 seems to be appropriate if you pay a moderate/medium attention to the music.
V2 will likely be transparent to standard people.
V0 will give you the highest VBR quality, but is a bit extreme regarding bitrate/file size.

the graphs and such should go into the "advanced" explanation ...

The remaining questions are if we want to keep the "Quick Start" (-V 2) recommendation or leave that out alltogether.

Are there any more oppinions regarding which layout is prefered?

Can you update the other 2 stickies, about lame & alpha versions, and especially, which compiles are recommended ?

These settings require Lame 3.94 or later.

[deleted]

indeed, that is correct and on purpose. Please read the mp3-lame settings sticky topic in mp3-general forum.

Will the final document still be a post in the forum, or a wiki page?

It seems that you have a lot better formatting tools with the wiki, and the ability to upload images.

Can you lock a wiki page so only one user can edit it? I'm not familiar with administering a wiki. I know it kinda goes against the idea of a wiki, but I'm sure it's possible.

Just a thought.

I vote for wiki page and keeping the sticky post, both,
as newbies might find the forum, but not the wiki, or vice versa.
wiki can be different layout, of course.

ToDo list:

* update/edit of the 2 stickies:
recommended lame compiles & about lame (alpha) versions history

* wiki
^ so far I find only more tech informations about mp3/mpc etc. at wiki, but no howto guide for end-users, like the recommended settings topic ? <-- wiki will be improved, if there are also guides for end-users, like the mp3/ogg/mpc stickies.





* include link or directly the content of the recommended settings thread into the basic Lame text files, which are bundled, if you download lame.exe usually, you know, what I mean, probably:
basic.html , examples.html , modes.html , presets.html
More or less, those pages deal with the usage of Lame.
eg:
* modes.html explains about vbr, abr, cbr, but the clear hint is missing, that at given bitrate, quality should be : vbr>abr>cbr
* presets.html : deals with the medium, standard, extreme presets, but thanks to the -Vx system, we have nowadays more very good options. basically, the -Vx table of the recommended settings topic could be integrated to that page.
* basic.html: Basic command line switch reference
Only the most usual switches are described here. However those should be sufficient for the vast majority of users.

well, switches like -h etc etc. are mentioned there, abr, cbr, but no structured system regarding quality, efficiency. The recommended settings topic was years ago invented, to improve the guidance for the "vast majority of users".
maybe basic+presets+examples.html could be merged, or better structured with today's Lame knowledge.

Gabriel, do you have influence to edit these bundled Lame html pages ?


edit-addon:

sent email via HA to Gabriel, worked on examples.html , modes.html , presets.html;
mostly presets.html, the other 2 files only minor updates, so that everything will be smooth now, no contradictions anymore, and everything updated to the fascinating qualities of lame 3.97.


* I cannot work on wiki and update of the other 2 stickies, tasks for you, somebody else, yes you, who reads this !

I am not sure that VBR > ABR when dealing with low bitrates.



This is because if we (Lame project) make some quality judgements, we usually have a flood of people claiming that we are totally wrong because they found some cases where the situation is different, or they prefer to add another option. Usually, soon after we hear things like the fact that we are not interested about quality.

ie: experience demonstrated that if we clearly expose our choices and judgements we are beeing flamed, thus I prefer to be on the safe side.


Considering that usually I am the one editing them, yes. However, having time is another matter.
Feel free to send me some modified versions.

i vote to keep it.

I vote not to keep it (yeah, I can be a nuisance sometimes ).

Just look at the recommended settings post for Ogg Vorbis, it doesn't specify a quick start setting either. It doesn't seem like -V 2 is the ultimate solution for everybody (for example, I use -V 4).

Should we create a poll for this?

Very minor thing considering all the other ongoing discussions ...
I suggest adding "predictability" as above. Could otherwise possibly be misunderstood as bitrate in terms of size...

Seems -V3 is a good compromise for a recommendation IMO. Because you gain little quality in going to -V2 while file size increases more than the perceived quality gain. At the same time it is notches above the still decent -V4 and -V5 which has been tested to still sound very good.

BTW, is there a plan to make the -AP settings use vbr-new in the final version?

I can't find it now, but I have seen Gabriel state unequivocally (in a post quite possibly on this thread) that --vbr-new will not be the default in 3.97.

Edit: Here it is.

I agree and I was thinking of something similar when I was re-reading my original post.

---

As for which -V preset to tell people to use, maybe something like this could be included after a table showing the bitrates for each setting:

What about this quickstart:



QUICKSTART


• low bitrate (1CD DVD Rip, radio recording, mono encodings...): for inferior bitrate to 100 kbps, ABR is probably the best solution. Just use --abr xx (ex: --abr 80).

• portable: -V6 (~115 kbps), -V5 (~130 kbps) or -V4 (~160 kbps) are recommended for this usage. -V6 produces average but decent quality, whereas -V4 should already be close to perceptual transparency.

• (very) high quality: -V3 (~175 kbps), V2 (~190 kbps), V1 (~210 kbps) or V0 (~230 kbps). Transparent encodings. Audible difference among these presets exists but is really marginal.

[optional]
• Best quality (archiving): cbr 320. This is the strongest setting for LAME MP3. Lowest risk of artefacts. But keep in mind that except really few situations quality is rarely better than for highest VBR profiles described previously. That's why cbr 320 is called "insane" and is not recommended for a simple listening purpose.

Is is still called insane then? If all the other -preset xxxxx are now legacy in favour of -V x then is it stilll correct to call it insane?? Forgive me if im way off the mark though. Otherwise, it looks a good quickstart.

Kristian

I am voting against recommending V2 and I really like this quickstart !

--preset insane is still working (legacy). I'd rather use -cbr 320 commandline. That's why I didn't mention --preset insane, but just "insane".

i like this as the quickstart as well my only question, is this, is abr recommended for everything below -V6?

There are not enough tests to answer.
From my (small) experience, I'd use ABR. But there are maybe more experienced listeners than me.

For people with ipods that use mp3s, preset insane is not really insane because its the preset that doesn't skip. hehehe

looks nice for me ... simple but explanatori

Get rid of the colors.

I'm voting in favor for recommending V2.


I like the colors, makes it easier to read

Can I suggest the text/formatting below?

The format is simple and easily transferred to the wiki (I personally believe that the thread should only point to the wiki, so there isn't duplicated information, but hey). I have used links to suggest where... um... links could be*. I have changed guruboolez's text slightly, I hope it still retains his intentions. It's only my suggestion anyway - mainly for a tasteful and consistent formatting. I find a lot of the colours difficult to read. Colours may be acceptable to distinguish headings, but reading a lot of text in orange is just painful.

One other note: if --cbr 320 is "not recommended" should it be in this recommendation? If the page is actually to be a summary of LAME's features then it certainly needs detailing - but I would suggest it maybe shouldn't be in the Quick Start if not recommended.


Quick Start

Low Bitrate : (S)VCD audio rip, radio or mono encoding, etc.

For very low bitrates, up to 100kbps, ABR is most often the best solution.
Use --abr xx (e.g. --abr 80).

Portable : background noise and low bitrate requirement

-V6 (~115 kbps), -V5 (~130 kbps) or -V4 (~160 kbps) are recommended for this use.
-V6 produces an acceptable quality, while -V4 should be close to perceptual transparency.

High Quality : home or quiet listening

-V3 (~175 kbps), -V2 (~190 kbps), -V1 (~210 kbps) or -V0 (~230 kbps) are recommended.
These settings will produce transparent encoding. Audible differences between these presets exist, but are extremely marginal.

Best Quality : archiving

--cbr 320. This is the strongest setting for LAME MP3, with the lowest risk of artifacts.
With the exception of a few situations, quality is rarely better than the highest VBR profiles described above. There is a reason that --cbr 320 is called "insane". It is not recommended.

--
* Either for the wiki, or in the thread - either pointing to wiki pages or other threads. We should be using links more so that noobs can jump from one place to another and have all their questions answered in one go.

Edit : added more links! Edit 2: Amended text following suggestions.

I prefer your version
It's better in my opinion to the current recommendations remaped as "Remarks":



V1 or V3 are not even mentioned! The old --alt-preset system is maybe outdated, but the logical (--standard/extreme/medium and nothing between) is still haunting the thread.

Maybe "inferior" could be replaced with a different word (just "low" I guess)? For me it has a very negative tone to it, which makes the recommendation more like a dissuasion.

Grammar:

Use either

"Audible difference ... exists, but is extremely marginal"

or

"Audible differences ... exist, but are extremely marginal"

Regards,
Madrigal