QUOTE (jaybeee @ Sep 16 2005, 09:20 PM)
Not sure if it's been mentioned or already linked to (didn't see it), but this EAC guide and info is very useful.
I'm w/ jaybee, as far as EAC only goes I always recommend that one.
Full Version: [Discussion] List of recommended LAME settings
I'm w/ jaybee, as far as EAC only goes I always recommend that one.
*bitrate ranges:
V1 is now probably in the 200-250kbps range (not 220…260), and V0 in the 230-260kbps range (not 245…285)
*recommended vbr settings table:
I am not sure if there is a need to have lines with Vx and with Vx --vbr-new, as the bitrate ranges are identical.
V1 is now probably in the 200-250kbps range (not 220…260), and V0 in the 230-260kbps range (not 245…285)
*recommended vbr settings table:
I am not sure if there is a need to have lines with Vx and with Vx --vbr-new, as the bitrate ranges are identical.
QUOTE (Gabriel @ Sep 23 2005, 04:10 PM)
*recommended vbr settings table:
I am not sure if there is a need to have lines with Vx and with Vx --vbr-new, as the bitrate ranges are identical.
I am not sure if there is a need to have lines with Vx and with Vx --vbr-new, as the bitrate ranges are identical.
Thanks for the bitrate ranges.
The 2 lines, each with -V x & -V x --vbr-new, were written there to give clearly both alternatives, (until 1 of the vbr modes is proven to be (clearly?) superior than the other).
Is the question, if --vbr-new is superior to default vbr mode, decided ?
(at least for one or more -Vx settings)
In such cases, we remove the inferior commandline.
Because, iirc, now we consider --vbr-new to be (slightly?) better, should I edit the settings table, and write each setting with vbr-new switch above the standard -V setting ?
(because we wrote at top of table, that table goes from highest quality settings to lower quality settings)
Eg.
-V x --vbr-new
-V x
instead of current layout:
-V x
-V x --vbr-new
edit-addon:
Due to the general impression to prefer --vbr-ne qualitywise, I have already carried my above idea, to write --vbr-new presets over the standard -V settings.
The first link on the post goes to a page for 3.98 alpha 2, although the actual download page has a link to 3.97b1. Perhaps it's better to link to rarewares as a default and free-codecs as the alternative?
Why not just mentionning the -V values without --vbr-new in the table, and mentionning that for each -V setting you can choose between --vbr-old and --vbr-new, vbr-old beeing the default setting but vbr-new beeing of slightly higher quality and faster.
I think that you also need to drop a line indicating that vbr-new is faster because of the use of a different algorithm than vbr-old, otherwise many people seem to be suspicious about vbr-new, as in their mind faster == lower quality.
I think that you also need to drop a line indicating that vbr-new is faster because of the use of a different algorithm than vbr-old, otherwise many people seem to be suspicious about vbr-new, as in their mind faster == lower quality.
QUOTE (Gabriel @ Sep 24 2005, 11:25 AM)
otherwise many people seem to be suspicious about vbr-new, as in their mind faster == lower quality.
Well, if you make it the default VBR setting, they won't even notice. I don't see a single countercause. :|
If the new vbr algorithm is now in fact faster and equal or higher quality, it seems like a mistake not to make it the default just because of potential unfounded suspicions. Isn't it most appropriate and logical to send/receive the message that the default settings are the best ones? I see it as punishing the people who use good judgement and trust the default presets, and rewarding the people who would second-guess (think they know better than) the developers.
Not to mention the fact that the speed and quality increase from ---vbr-new may help to attract new audience…
Oh wait.
It's not a commercial project.
Nevermind then. :B
Oh wait.
It's not a commercial project.
Nevermind then. :B
So does --vbr-new provide noticably worse quality than the default VBR mode? I remember seeing some listening tests that implied that there are cases in which --vbr-new outperforms the default. I might be mistaken, however.
as it has been stated before, --vbr-new has shown (particularly by guruboolez, but also by others) to generally have better quality, and generally has been accepted as the higher quality vbr mode. as with many things of this nature, some samples have been found where --vbr-new has some more noticable artifacts than the default, but most of the time, based on the tests of the members here, --vbr-new performs better.
edit: typo
edit: typo
*vbr-new seems to be better overall than vbr-old on the 0-5 range, but at lower quality settings, we are into the unknown world.
*vbr-new will NOT be defaulted in 3.97
*vbr-new will NOT be defaulted in 3.97
QUOTE (Gabriel @ Sep 25 2005, 04:13 AM)
*vbr-new will NOT be defaulted in 3.97
Thank you for this clear statement. Hopefully the rest of us can stop pushing for it, and put this one to bed for now.Anybody who is sufficiently interested in the differences between -old and -new will surely discover how to implement them, and there is no need to default -new. Especially since (as Gabriel has pointed out) many potential implementations of -new are in virgin, relatively untested territory.
Regards,
Madrigal
QUOTE (Gabriel @ Sep 25 2005, 01:13 AM)
*vbr-new seems to be better overall than vbr-old on the 0-5 range, but at lower quality settings, we are into the unknown world.
*vbr-new will NOT be defaulted in 3.97
*vbr-new will NOT be defaulted in 3.97
so why not use it just for --preset standard etc. then?
That's why I had asked for a little insight on what was going to which 'dev0' pasted
some info from 'Robert' on.
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....topic=37276&hl=
some info from 'Robert' on.
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....topic=37276&hl=
Am I the only one who is having problems with the recommended settings for EAC w/regard to the genre tag?
I'm using this
-V 2 --vbr-new --add-id3v2 --pad-id3v2 --ta "%a" --tt "%t" --tl "%g" --ty "%y" --tn "%n" %s %d
Set up as suggested, and LAME never includes the genre tag. Any ideas? I'm using the 3.97 beta.
I'm using this
-V 2 --vbr-new --add-id3v2 --pad-id3v2 --ta "%a" --tt "%t" --tl "%g" --ty "%y" --tn "%n" %s %d
Set up as suggested, and LAME never includes the genre tag. Any ideas? I'm using the 3.97 beta.
Genre is obtained using the following
--tg "%m"
You also need to make sure that the genre is one that is in the drop down list in EAC. Otherwise it will not work.
Edit: Here's my string:
--alt-preset standard --add-id3v2 --pad-id3v2 --ta "%a" --tt "%t" --tl "%g" --ty "%y" --tn "%n" --tg "%m" %s %d
I'm still using 3.90.3, so I haven't switched to the "V" switch yet.
--tg "%m"
You also need to make sure that the genre is one that is in the drop down list in EAC. Otherwise it will not work.
Edit: Here's my string:
--alt-preset standard --add-id3v2 --pad-id3v2 --ta "%a" --tt "%t" --tl "%g" --ty "%y" --tn "%n" --tg "%m" %s %d
I'm still using 3.90.3, so I haven't switched to the "V" switch yet.
Some thoughts:
While I appretiate your effort, user, it doesn't grant you the right to do as you wish.
Modifying the current recommended settings thread (which has been restored by now) without asking the moderation or considering the process of this thread is neither acceptable nor productive.
This thread was ment as a collaborative effort to define the shape of the new recommended settings (or whatever its new name is going to be) thread, while the old one stays in place as long as it has to (originally I planned switching to the new one once 3.97-final is released). Replacing the old one with a piece of smattering (you obviously didn't follow LAME development very closely) while changes are still being discussed here is just another one of your egotistic actions, which don't serve the community at all.
- The --alt-preset/--preset syntax is clearly deprecated. I put --aps is f***** dead in bold red letters on top of the thread for a reason (excuse the language, it was meant as a reference to a song title).
- The new thread should explain why --aps is dead and why the new -V settings are prefered.
- It should also contain a small section assisting users selecting the right -V setting for their use. Still -V 2 should be recommended as "transparent on the majority of samples to the majority of listeners".
- I would really like to recommend --vbr-new, but adding it to the recommended settings now only to remove it a little later when it gets defaulted is only going to cause confusion and misunderstanding. A small paragraph explaining the recent development would probably be a better idea.
- The collection of software/links should be cleaned up/sorted out. Much of it isn't maintained anymore.
While I appretiate your effort, user, it doesn't grant you the right to do as you wish.
Modifying the current recommended settings thread (which has been restored by now) without asking the moderation or considering the process of this thread is neither acceptable nor productive.
This thread was ment as a collaborative effort to define the shape of the new recommended settings (or whatever its new name is going to be) thread, while the old one stays in place as long as it has to (originally I planned switching to the new one once 3.97-final is released). Replacing the old one with a piece of smattering (you obviously didn't follow LAME development very closely) while changes are still being discussed here is just another one of your egotistic actions, which don't serve the community at all.
QUOTE (dev0 @ Sep 27 2005, 07:33 AM)
While I appretiate your effort, user, it doesn't grant you the right to do as you wish.
Modifying the current recommended settings thread (which has been restored by now) without asking the moderation or considering the process of this thread is neither acceptable nor productive.
Modifying the current recommended settings thread (which has been restored by now) without asking the moderation or considering the process of this thread is neither acceptable nor productive.
Explain me how keeping the same four year old recommandation could be considered as "productive" ?
QUOTE
you obviously didn't follow LAME development very closely
Did you? Where are your tests results? You announced some of them in january, but I still can't find any of them.
QUOTE
while changes are still being discussed here is just another one of your egotistic actions, which don't serve the community at all.
The egoistic action comes from HA.org moderation and administration. Not from user. People are not using 3.90.3 anymore. Not even on HA.org, which is -or rather was- the sanctuary of 3.90.3. It has been proved to be outdated, slow, and producing lower quality. There's no reason to keep 3.90.3 (aka 3.90.2 --alt-preset standard -Z) which was never fully tested. People like you are not contributing anymore to making LAME better. Not even ONE single ABX test have been posted by moderation team. LAME developers has checked the code in order to release a beta safe to use. Most people are using this version. Please: forgot this old wreck. It doesn't serve the community for a long time.
Thanks guruboolez,
I just give fact:
I wa sonly able to edit my sticky post with the new content,
because Citay allowed me, because as normal member, i wasn't able to edit the closed topic,
Citay made it unclosed, so that I could work again.
Is Citay a moderator, HA administration, or not ?
Was my work helpful, the new content better than the old , or not ?
Have I built in the ideas, suggestions, which were written inside this work-topic, even by the Lame-developer Gabriel, or not ?
edit-addon:
* The collection of software/links should be cleaned up/sorted out. Much of it isn't maintained anymore.
This is the only critics, which is in my horizon, which can be targeted to me.
of course, others have requested an update of links section also,
and guess, what ?!
I did that! it was long in my ToDo list. Did that also for the sticky MPC topic.
Can dev0 restore the sticky post ?
And by the way, people, who want better uptodate link list, could simply help me, and post here or elsewhere, or PM or email, an own, updated link-list.
has anybody done that ?
all the time before ?
yes, some people, you find them in this topic, helped with some links.
Just with moaning, "link list should be better", there is not much progress, you need somebody with time and the will to do it. Simply. period.
I just give fact:
I wa sonly able to edit my sticky post with the new content,
because Citay allowed me, because as normal member, i wasn't able to edit the closed topic,
Citay made it unclosed, so that I could work again.
Is Citay a moderator, HA administration, or not ?
Was my work helpful, the new content better than the old , or not ?
Have I built in the ideas, suggestions, which were written inside this work-topic, even by the Lame-developer Gabriel, or not ?
edit-addon:
* The collection of software/links should be cleaned up/sorted out. Much of it isn't maintained anymore.
This is the only critics, which is in my horizon, which can be targeted to me.
of course, others have requested an update of links section also,
and guess, what ?!
I did that! it was long in my ToDo list. Did that also for the sticky MPC topic.
Can dev0 restore the sticky post ?
And by the way, people, who want better uptodate link list, could simply help me, and post here or elsewhere, or PM or email, an own, updated link-list.
has anybody done that ?
all the time before ?
yes, some people, you find them in this topic, helped with some links.
Just with moaning, "link list should be better", there is not much progress, you need somebody with time and the will to do it. Simply. period.
QUOTE (kockroach @ Sep 27 2005, 02:12 AM)
Genre is obtained using the following
--tg "%m"
You also need to make sure that the genre is one that is in the drop down list in EAC. Otherwise it will not work.
--tg "%m"
You also need to make sure that the genre is one that is in the drop down list in EAC. Otherwise it will not work.
One of the benefits of the newer LAMEs over 3.90.3 is the inclusion of the --ignore-tag-errors switch. When included, if an unrecognised genre is passed to LAME the genre "Other" is used, instead of execution stopping.
Personally I think this is really useful. If --tg is to be included in a recommended command line I think mention needs to be made of the genre tagging in LAME, and that passing incorrect genres may end in termination unless --ignore-tag-errors is included.
I guess it's not suitable for everyone, as it could be construed as as inaccurate tagging - but I think it's useful to allow encoding, with the option to sort the genre tag later using an alternative tagger. LAME will warn you that the genre was unrecognised and that "Other" has been used in its place.
Edit: Suggested text:
You can specify a genre for the file by using the --tg switch, e.g.: --tg "Rock". LAME recognises 148 genres, which may be specified using the genre name or associated number.
To view an alphabetical list of the genres that LAME recognises use:
LAME.EXE --genre-list
If you pass LAME a genre name or number that is does not recognise execution will halt before any encoding takes place. If you would like to set a genre that LAME does not recognise, or you simply want to ensure that an incorrect genre will not halt your encoding process, you may use the --ignore-tag-errors switch. With this switch in your command line LAME will report that the genre is invalid, and that it will use the genre "Other" in its place, but encoding will still take place. You may then use an alternative ID3 tagging application to amend the genre to something more relevant.
I wasn't aware your action was coordinated with CiTay, so there's a clear need for an excuse from my side.
I assumed you changed the recommended settings thread without asking a moderator, but even if that was the case my reaction would still be immature and impolite. There wasn't a lack of coordination between the moderation and user, but between the moderation and myself. I'm really sorry for attacking you on the base of pure speculation and anger.
There might be consequences regarding my involvment in HA.org, which has been sparse to nonexisting recently anyways, but I need to chill and get my head clear before making any decisions.
I still believe that the old recommended settings thread should be kept as long as it has to, meaning it should be kept as long as there's no semi-complete version of the new one available. I didn't consider user's (or anyone else's) ideas as finished when they were presented in this thread.
Gurboolez, I completely understand your point and, even if you won't believe me, I stronly agree with you when saying that there's no point in beating the dead horse 3.90.3 anymore. However I think the switch should be well prepared and carefully conducted, which is exactly why I started this thread:
To not let a single person define what the next four years are going to look like, but let discourse develop it.
I assumed you changed the recommended settings thread without asking a moderator, but even if that was the case my reaction would still be immature and impolite. There wasn't a lack of coordination between the moderation and user, but between the moderation and myself. I'm really sorry for attacking you on the base of pure speculation and anger.
There might be consequences regarding my involvment in HA.org, which has been sparse to nonexisting recently anyways, but I need to chill and get my head clear before making any decisions.
I still believe that the old recommended settings thread should be kept as long as it has to, meaning it should be kept as long as there's no semi-complete version of the new one available. I didn't consider user's (or anyone else's) ideas as finished when they were presented in this thread.
Gurboolez, I completely understand your point and, even if you won't believe me, I stronly agree with you when saying that there's no point in beating the dead horse 3.90.3 anymore. However I think the switch should be well prepared and carefully conducted, which is exactly why I started this thread:
To not let a single person define what the next four years are going to look like, but let discourse develop it.
Hej, dev0,
I accept your apologies, a misunderstanding, chill out, take some good music.
So, I hope, you can restore the post, with last content.
because, the sticky post was always work-in -progress, and you don't need to worry, that it looks then 4 years again unchanged, if the topic is not closed again.
Inside this topic was the last version of the 3.90.3 list, you "restored" by your accident, and for various reasons, directly at the top of the new 3.97 list, this old content was linked !!!
it reveals more and more, that you haven't read the new topic, you would have got the old 3.90.3 content so easy from the new 3.97 content, both were available.
If i read your thoughts, you have wide overlaps with me regarding content, starting with the common idea, that 3.97 and -V system should start over & that there should be a link to the old 3.90.3 topic, all was there, not so semi-complete.
The new topic was already well thought through, consider all the ideas written inside here.
For this reason, I edited & worked a lot, and so, I don't have the latest copy of the content, the start of the new topic is inside this topic also, and then it was developed step by step.
I can only hope, that you have it, as I don#t know, if I take the time again, to work on it.
Well, there is the wiki eg. where the content of the topic should be presented also, feel free, to use any layout you want, i cannot maintain everything, I concentrated on the forum.
And as it is matter of fact, I am always open for better presentations of layout, I was bad at school at making arts myself, but I am an analyst in science, with a bridge to the broad public, interestingly, my profession is analogue to my role of my hobby music and helping other people to use best thingies.
And so, I have mostly a very good understanding, what looks better, be it painting arts, music, or layouts of presenting knowhow to people.
I accept your apologies, a misunderstanding, chill out, take some good music.
So, I hope, you can restore the post, with last content.
because, the sticky post was always work-in -progress, and you don't need to worry, that it looks then 4 years again unchanged, if the topic is not closed again.
Inside this topic was the last version of the 3.90.3 list, you "restored" by your accident, and for various reasons, directly at the top of the new 3.97 list, this old content was linked !!!
it reveals more and more, that you haven't read the new topic, you would have got the old 3.90.3 content so easy from the new 3.97 content, both were available.
If i read your thoughts, you have wide overlaps with me regarding content, starting with the common idea, that 3.97 and -V system should start over & that there should be a link to the old 3.90.3 topic, all was there, not so semi-complete
.The new topic was already well thought through, consider all the ideas written inside here.
For this reason, I edited & worked a lot, and so, I don't have the latest copy of the content, the start of the new topic is inside this topic also, and then it was developed step by step.
I can only hope, that you have it, as I don#t know, if I take the time again, to work on it.
Well, there is the wiki eg. where the content of the topic should be presented also, feel free, to use any layout you want, i cannot maintain everything, I concentrated on the forum.
And as it is matter of fact, I am always open for better presentations of layout, I was bad at school at making arts myself, but I am an analyst in science, with a bridge to the broad public, interestingly, my profession is analogue to my role of my hobby music and helping other people to use best thingies.
And so, I have mostly a very good understanding, what looks better, be it painting arts, music, or layouts of presenting knowhow to people.
This is basically a collection/remix of the ideas I liked best so far. Links and EAC tutorial are intentionally missing. I really like the clear and concise explanations benc wrote.
Updated 2005-03-12
These settings require Lame 3.95 or later. Lame 3.97 found on this website is the recommended version. (Check here [fixme] to download).
Note: At a given bitrate range, the quality scale usually works to where VBR is higher quality than ABR which is higher quality than CBR (CBR < ABR < VBR in terms of quality). The exception to this is when you choose the highest possible CBR bitrate, which is 320 kbps.
Discussion has been moved here.
The Quick Start:
If you are just getting started with encoding MP3s and are overwhelmed by the amount of settings, chances are -V 2 --vbr-new is the right setting for you. This setting is considered transparent (not discernable from the original) on the majority of samples to the majority of listeners. Of course there are situations where other settings might be more appropiate (portable use or streaming), read about the alternatives below.
VBR (Variable Bitrate)
The VBR settings provide different quality levels, adapted to different configurations/needs. There is no "correct" quality level to use, and the following is only a suggestion to help you get started:
For portables devices with limited storage capacity try V5, V6 or V7.
For normal high quality usages try V3 or V4.
For transparency try V2 or better.
--V n (where n is a number between 0-9)
Example: -V 2
0 is the highest quality and 9 is the lowest. Below is a table showing the approximate bitrate range you can expect with each quality setting:
-V 2 --vbr-new will provide transparent quality for most people. It is a good compromise between file size and sound quality, and is recommended as a starting point for new users.
Remarks:
About the new VBR mode (also referenced as --vbr-new)
The --vbr-new switch enables the new VBR mode. Lame will encode much faster compared to old/default vbr mode. Current knowledge qualitywise comparing default vbr with --vbr-new is, that --vbr-new might even be better qualitywise than the default vbr mode, but there are also reports about artifact, that shows up in --vbr-new compared to default. Though the general impression is, that --vbr-new should be recommended over vbr-default.
The presets from -V0 to -V3 with or without --vbr-new switch and of course -b 320 are considered to be transparent for a majority of people. (That means, most people cannot distinguish the mp3 from the original in a double blindtest)
A little bit of history: The presets (--alt-preset xxx) for the 3.90.X branch of LAME were designed by many of the original members of this site and were exhaustively tested to make sure that they utilized the best possible settings for quality. Subsequent versions of LAME broke compatibility with these presets to allow for many other improvements (faster, bug issues, etc), thus making a temporary regression in quality. A new, more flexible preset system was introduced (the -V switches). LAME 3.96.1 seemed as though it might be about the same quality as 3.90.3 in some of the tests done after it was released. During the development of 3.97 members of this site (especially Guruboolez) conducted many tests to ensure that 3.97 outclasses 3.90.3 and 3.96.1 in quality.
Though there will be nothing wrong if you select either --alt-preset xy, preset xy or corresponding switch xy, you will always get the same (e.g: --alt-preset cbr 320 = --alt-preset insane = --preset insane = -b 320 = --preset 320 = --preset cbr 320).
ABR (Average Bitrate)
ABR mode is a type of VBR mode where you can specify the target bitrate. Files created with the normal VBR mode will be of a higher quality than those created with the ABR mode at the same bitrate. Use ABR mode when bitrate predictability is more important than quality.
--abr n (where n is any number between 8-320)
Example: --abr 173
CBR (Constant Bitrate)
CBR mode uses the same bitrate throughout the file and is the mode that most other MP3 encoders use. It will provide lower quality than ABR mode for a given bitrate, but it can be useful for streaming and when VBR/ABR may cause compatibility problems.
-b n (where n is 8 , 16 , 24 , 32 , 40 , 48 , 64 , 80 , 96 , 112 , 128 , 160 , 192 , 256 or 320)
Example: -b 128
Best possible quality
If you want LAME to encode using the best quality possible use the following switch:
-b 320
This will produce a 320kbps CBR file, and it is the only time when CBR mode is recommended instead of VBR mode for quality.
Updated 2005-03-12
These settings require Lame 3.95 or later. Lame 3.97 found on this website is the recommended version. (Check here [fixme] to download).
Note: At a given bitrate range, the quality scale usually works to where VBR is higher quality than ABR which is higher quality than CBR (CBR < ABR < VBR in terms of quality). The exception to this is when you choose the highest possible CBR bitrate, which is 320 kbps.
Discussion has been moved here.
The Quick Start:
If you are just getting started with encoding MP3s and are overwhelmed by the amount of settings, chances are -V 2 --vbr-new is the right setting for you. This setting is considered transparent (not discernable from the original) on the majority of samples to the majority of listeners. Of course there are situations where other settings might be more appropiate (portable use or streaming), read about the alternatives below.
VBR (Variable Bitrate)
The VBR settings provide different quality levels, adapted to different configurations/needs. There is no "correct" quality level to use, and the following is only a suggestion to help you get started:
For portables devices with limited storage capacity try V5, V6 or V7.
For normal high quality usages try V3 or V4.
For transparency try V2 or better.
--V n (where n is a number between 0-9)
Example: -V 2
0 is the highest quality and 9 is the lowest. Below is a table showing the approximate bitrate range you can expect with each quality setting:
CODE
Switch Bitrate range kbps
-V 0 230…260
-V 1 200…250
-V 2 170…210
-V 3 155…195
-V 4 145…185
-V 5 110…150
-V 6 95…135
-V 7 80…120
-V 8 65…105
-V 9 45…85
-V 0 230…260
-V 1 200…250
-V 2 170…210
-V 3 155…195
-V 4 145…185
-V 5 110…150
-V 6 95…135
-V 7 80…120
-V 8 65…105
-V 9 45…85
-V 2 --vbr-new will provide transparent quality for most people. It is a good compromise between file size and sound quality, and is recommended as a starting point for new users.
Remarks:
About the new VBR mode (also referenced as --vbr-new)
The --vbr-new switch enables the new VBR mode. Lame will encode much faster compared to old/default vbr mode. Current knowledge qualitywise comparing default vbr with --vbr-new is, that --vbr-new might even be better qualitywise than the default vbr mode, but there are also reports about artifact, that shows up in --vbr-new compared to default. Though the general impression is, that --vbr-new should be recommended over vbr-default.
The presets from -V0 to -V3 with or without --vbr-new switch and of course -b 320 are considered to be transparent for a majority of people. (That means, most people cannot distinguish the mp3 from the original in a double blindtest)
A little bit of history: The presets (--alt-preset xxx) for the 3.90.X branch of LAME were designed by many of the original members of this site and were exhaustively tested to make sure that they utilized the best possible settings for quality. Subsequent versions of LAME broke compatibility with these presets to allow for many other improvements (faster, bug issues, etc), thus making a temporary regression in quality. A new, more flexible preset system was introduced (the -V switches). LAME 3.96.1 seemed as though it might be about the same quality as 3.90.3 in some of the tests done after it was released. During the development of 3.97 members of this site (especially Guruboolez) conducted many tests to ensure that 3.97 outclasses 3.90.3 and 3.96.1 in quality.
Though there will be nothing wrong if you select either --alt-preset xy, preset xy or corresponding switch xy, you will always get the same (e.g: --alt-preset cbr 320 = --alt-preset insane = --preset insane = -b 320 = --preset 320 = --preset cbr 320).
ABR (Average Bitrate)
ABR mode is a type of VBR mode where you can specify the target bitrate. Files created with the normal VBR mode will be of a higher quality than those created with the ABR mode at the same bitrate. Use ABR mode when bitrate predictability is more important than quality.
--abr n (where n is any number between 8-320)
Example: --abr 173
CBR (Constant Bitrate)
CBR mode uses the same bitrate throughout the file and is the mode that most other MP3 encoders use. It will provide lower quality than ABR mode for a given bitrate, but it can be useful for streaming and when VBR/ABR may cause compatibility problems.
-b n (where n is 8 , 16 , 24 , 32 , 40 , 48 , 64 , 80 , 96 , 112 , 128 , 160 , 192 , 256 or 320)
Example: -b 128
Best possible quality
If you want LAME to encode using the best quality possible use the following switch:
-b 320
This will produce a 320kbps CBR file, and it is the only time when CBR mode is recommended instead of VBR mode for quality.
QUOTE (dev0 @ Sep 27 2005, 12:02 PM)
--V n (where n is a number between 0-9)
Example: -V 2 --vbr-new
Example: -V 2 --vbr-new
Eh? Where'd the -vbr-new suddenly appear from?
This passage, the first introduction to the -V settings, is supposed to describe what the -V settings do, and suddenly we have a --vbr-new switch in there, with no introduction.
Do I have to use --vbr-new whenever I specify -V?
I'll accept it in the "Quickstart" if that is what HA are recommending, and I guess I'll accept it below the table - but I don't think it should be in the passage above, when the passage is describing the -V switch.
QUOTE (Synthetic Soul @ Sep 27 2005, 12:16 PM)
QUOTE (dev0 @ Sep 27 2005, 12:02 PM)
--V n (where n is a number between 0-9)
Example: -V 2 --vbr-new
Example: -V 2 --vbr-new
Eh? Where'd the -vbr-new suddenly appear from?
This passage, the first introduction to the -V settings, is supposed to describe what the -V settings do, and suddenly we have a --vbr-new switch in there, with no introduction.
I completely agree. Fixed.
Actually I just forget deleting it in the example, since I did delete it in the commandline.
well, indeed,
dev0's suggestion here is lacking too much content, not thought through, illogical.
(referring to what synthetic soul said.)
He Pmed me, he cannot restore my/our work of the last week(s), hours I invested, he made no backup.
He could simply delete it, but not building up.
I can only hope, that he finds somewhere a copy of latest content/backup, then we are lucky.
The attempt of now trying to make now own work, is quite hopeless, doesn#t *repair the damage done.
*citing a song, which is known, and doesn#t contain 4-letter words in the citing
I will make a last attempt to repair a smuch a spossible, I have a backup of the german version of the sticky post dated from 2 days later, so many updates are contained, though it is silly work to restore work, which was already done, for everybody, me, dev0, all the guys who wrote their ideas here, which were all represented in the sticky topic by me, as much as it is possible to represent a lot of opinions.
dev0's suggestion here is lacking too much content, not thought through, illogical.
(referring to what synthetic soul said.)
He Pmed me, he cannot restore my/our work of the last week(s), hours I invested, he made no backup.
He could simply delete it, but not building up.
I can only hope, that he finds somewhere a copy of latest content/backup, then we are lucky.
The attempt of now trying to make now own work, is quite hopeless, doesn#t *repair the damage done.
*citing a song, which is known, and doesn#t contain 4-letter words in the citing
I will make a last attempt to repair a smuch a spossible, I have a backup of the german version of the sticky post dated from 2 days later, so many updates are contained, though it is silly work to restore work, which was already done, for everybody, me, dev0, all the guys who wrote their ideas here, which were all represented in the sticky topic by me, as much as it is possible to represent a lot of opinions.
QUOTE (user @ Sep 27 2005, 12:22 PM)
dev0's suggestion here is lacking too much content, not thought through, illogical.
I'd like to hear other's oppinions about that.
Credit for my suggestions goes mostly to benc and you though.
Thanks.
Apart from that, I like the format.
However, am I being thick? That post explains the different encoding tecniques (VBR/CBR/ABR) of LAME, and has a quickstart stating that -V2 --vbr-new is recommended - but there is no other mention of recommendations.
The current text is, on the whole, an explanation of LAME usage.
Do you/we intend to add more recommendations, or is the thinking that users can make their own conclusions given this information?
Will the new thread contain the EAC recommended command lines (how about foobar) and links to software?
I guess I'm just jumping the gun a bit here.
Edit: NB: written before user's post.
I still like the format - it's clean and easy to follow. I just wonder whether we will be sticking our neck out on "recommendations" more.
Edit 2: Sorry missed this:
Apart from that, I like the format.
However, am I being thick? That post explains the different encoding tecniques (VBR/CBR/ABR) of LAME, and has a quickstart stating that -V2 --vbr-new is recommended - but there is no other mention of recommendations.
The current text is, on the whole, an explanation of LAME usage.
Do you/we intend to add more recommendations, or is the thinking that users can make their own conclusions given this information?
Will the new thread contain the EAC recommended command lines (how about foobar) and links to software?
I guess I'm just jumping the gun a bit here.
Edit: NB: written before user's post.
I still like the format - it's clean and easy to follow. I just wonder whether we will be sticking our neck out on "recommendations" more.
Edit 2: Sorry missed this:
QUOTE (dev0 @ Sep 27 2005, 12:02 PM)
Links and EAC tutorial are intentionally missing.
QUOTE (Synthetic Soul @ Sep 27 2005, 12:30 PM)
However, am I being thick? That post explains the different encoding tecniques (VBR/CBR/ABR) of LAME, and has a quickstart stating that -V2 --vbr-new is recommended - but there is no other mention of recommendations.
The current text is, on the whole, an explanation of LAME usage.
The current text is, on the whole, an explanation of LAME usage.
I understand your concern and I'm thinking about ways to make recommendations, but in the end it's always hard to make a clear recommendation. If you look at the other recommendation threads, you'll see a similiar emphasis there.
As the usage of commandline encoders gets simpler (I consider the -V settings a huge improvment over the old --preset[s]), the need for such threads gets smaller.
As user explained the "recommended settings" thread was started at a time when getting the best quality out of LAME was quite a complex task.
QUOTE
Do you/we intend to add more recommendations, or is the thinking that users can make their own conclusions given this information?
If anybody has any good ideas about how to do this, of course.
QUOTE
Will the new thread contain the EAC recommended command lines (how about foobar) and links to software?
Of course. The EAC part is IMHO one of the most important parts. I just left it out, because everyone seems to be fine with taking over case's wording.
foobar2000 0.9 will feature the recommended settings by default.
Here is the previous one, from Google cache
QUOTE
Major update with Lame 3.97:
Updated 2005-09-16
These settings require Lame 3.97 or later. Lame 3.97beta1 (beta=b) found on this website is the recommended version. (Check here or Rarewares to download).
Do not use alpha (a) versions ! Those are for testing purposes, if you want.
Note: At a given bitrate range, the quality scale is following: VBR is higher quality than ABR which is higher quality than CBR (VBR > ABR > CBR in terms of quality). The exception to this is when you choose the highest possible CBR bitrate, which is 320 kbps (--alt-preset insane).
VBR: variable bitrate mode, the goal is to keep a constant quality and saving bits where possible without lowering the quality.
ABR: average bitrate mode varies bits around a specified target bitrate
CBR: constant bitrate mode is not efficient regarding distributing bitrate to more complex music parts and saving bits where it would be possible without lowering the quality of those music parts.
Note: all modes and settings mentioned in this topic belong to the specifications of the MP3 standard, and the resulting MP3s should be played by every standard-conform MP3-Decoder. If this shouldn't be the case, blame the manufacturer or developer of your MP3-Decoder/device. Neither the hydrogenaudio.org community, HA staff, nor the authors of this post take any responsibility for anything.
Discussion has been moved here.
-------------------------------------------------
Recommended encoder settings:
-------------------------------------------------
The settings, presets are listed beginning with highest possible quality stepping down to lower qualities:
CODE
Switch equals preset target kbit/s Bitrate range kbit/s
-b 320 = --preset insane 320 CBR 320
-V 0 = --preset extreme 240 245…285
-V 0 --vbr-new = --preset fast extreme 240 245…285
-V 1 210 220…260
-V 1 --vbr-new 210 220…260
-V 2 = --preset standard 190 170…210
-V 2 --vbr-new = --preset fast standard 190 170…210
-V 3 175 155…195
-V 3 --vbr-new 175 155…195
-V 4 = --preset medium 165 145…185
-V 4 --vbr-new = --preset fast medium 165 145…185
-V 5 130 110…150
-V 5 --vbr-new 130 110…150
-V 6 115 95…135
-V 6 --vbr-new 115 95…135
-V 7 100 80…120
-V 7 --vbr-new 100 80…120
-V 8 85 65…105
-V 8 - vbr-new 85 65…105
-V 9 65 45…85
-V 9 - vbr-new 65 45…85
If the target is eg. streaming , where you need MP3 in ABR or even CBR mode, there are still the ABR and CBR modes.
You can specify your desired target bitrate:
ABR = Average Bitrate mode:
--abr xxx = --preset xxx
xxx (desired averaged bitrate in kbit/s) can be any value between 8 - 320 , like eg. 9, 17, 80, 128, 133, 200 etc.
Only for 128k ABR:
There was developed an alternative to the --abr 128 preset:
ff123's and Hans' suggestion (http://www.ff123.net/cbr128.html):
--abr 128 -h --nspsytune --athtype 2 --lowpass 16 --ns-bass -8 --scale 0.93
Different people have different tastes regarding artefacts and their behaviour of annoyance, so try out --abr 128 vs. --abr 128 -h --nspsytune --athtype 2 --lowpass 16 --ns-bass -8 --scale 0.93
CBR = Constant Bitrate mode:
-b xxx = --preset cbr xxx
xxx (desired bitrate in kbit/s) can be only: 8 , 16 , 24 , 32 , 40 , 48 , 64 , 80 , 96 , 112 , 128 , 160 , 192 , 256 or 320
Remarks:
the --vbr-new switch enables the new VBR mode. Lame will encode much faster compared to old/default vbr mode. Current knowledge qualitywise comparing vbr with --vbr-new is, that --vbr-new might even be better qualitywise than the default vbr mode, but there are also reports about artefact, which is worse in --vbr-new compared to default. Though the general impression is, that --vbr-new should be recommended over vbr-default.
The presets -V 0 , -V 1 , -V 2 with or without --vbr-new switch and of course -b 320 are considered to be transparent for a majority of people. (transparent = most people cannot distinguish the mp3 from the original in an ABX blindtest)
For high quality on portable MP3 players, you may use -V 4 (--vbr-new)= --preset (fast) medium (around 165 kbit/s).
-V 5 --vbr-new is a very good replacement for 128 kbit/s encodings.
The revolutionary --alt-preset system introduced in lame 3.90, is replaced nowadays by the preset system, which is already substituted by the above explained settings system.
You don't need to worry, if you select nowadays in lame 3.97 either --alt-preset xy , preset xy or corresponding switch xy, you will always get the same.
E.G.: --alt-preset cbr 320 is the exact same thing as --alt-preset insane etc.:
--alt-preset insane = --preset insane = -b 320 = --preset 320 = --preset cbr 320
-------------------------------------------------
Setting up EAC for lame.exe with tagging
-------------------------------------------------
Based on Case's tutorial
Select compression options from EAC menu.
Open 'External Compression' tab.
1. Check 'Use external program for compression'
2. Change 'Parameter passing scheme' to 'User Defined Encoder'
3. Set file extension to .mp3
4. Click 'Browse' and locate 'lame.exe'
5. Change 'Additional command line options' to one of the following commandlines
6. Check 'Delete WAV after compression'
7. Uncheck 'Add ID3 tag'
QUOTE
ID3v1:
-V 2 --vbr-new --id3v1-only --ta "%a" --tt "%t" --tl "%g" --ty "%y" --tn "%n" %s %d
ID3v2:
-V 2 --vbr-new --id3v2-only --pad-id3v2 --ta "%a" --tt "%t" --tl "%g" --ty "%y" --tn "%n" %s %d
ID3v1 and ID3v2:
-V 2 --vbr-new --add-id3v2 --pad-id3v2 --ta "%a" --tt "%t" --tl "%g" --ty "%y" --tn "%n" %s %d
APEv2: (requires wapet.exe)
%d -t "Artist=%a" -t "Title=%t" -t "Album=%g" -t "Year=%y" -t "Track=%n" -t "Genre=%m" lame.exe -V 2 --vbr-new %s %d
(You can change -V 2 --vbr-new to any setting/preset you'd like to use)
These commandlines are generally recommended over EAC's own tagging routines and its LAME encoder parameter passing preset, which is known to cause problems.
The bitrate setting serves a cosmetic purpose and is used for the size display in EAC's main window.
-------------------------------------------------
Useful links
-------------------------------------------------
(Latest LAME compiles)
Dmitry's compiles
Dibrom's compiles
Rarewares.org MP3 section
(MP3 Information sites)
Hydrogen Audio
Decoder test by David Robinson
(MP3 Forums)
Hydrogenaudio MP3 forum
(Exact Audio Copy) - the best CD ripper & encoding (& tagging) to MP3 (or MPC, Ogg Vorbis) during ripping
Official site
Tutorial for EAC
EAC forum
(LAME Frontends)
RazorLame
EasyLAME (german)
HeadAC3he by Dark Avenger : ac3 -> wav DS2 -> mp3, ogg vorbis, mp2
BeSweet by DSPGuru : ac3 -> wav DS2 -> mp3, ogg vorbis, mp2 with batch-possibility
(Renaming / ID3 Tagging / Music Database)
Tag + Tag Frontend
Helium2
Renatager
MPTagger
More tagging information & programs
CDIndexer : for CD-Audio & data-CDs
MAC: Mpeg Audio Collection
(MP3 Gain) - lossless gain change / "normalizing"!
Official site
Basic Guide to avoid clipping
(How to)
Burn an MP3 CD
Reencode mp3 (high bitrate with ID3 tags) to mp3 (low bitrate) and include tags to new mp3 file : Try Monkeys Audio http://www.monkeysaudio.com/, or maybe better: foobar 2000, use the CLI encoder: http://www.saunalahti.fi/cse/html/foobar.html
MPC -> MP3 by MPCxchange
(Analyzing MP3)
EncSpot
ff123's artefact training
Tool for ABXing, Blind listening tests
ff123's site: Discussion of Audio Compression including sites to evaluate your own capability of listening
Training of musically listening good-ear.com
Training of listening to encoder's artefacts pcabx.com
MP3Utility
QuickSFV, SVF and MD5 checksums for files
-------------------------------------------------
Credits
-------------------------------------------------
A big thanks to all LAME developers for making one kickass MP3 codec.
People who took part in suggesting the different settings:
Dibrom, r3mix, ff123, Hans Heijden, kjempen, Benjamin Lebsanft, GeSomeone, Wombat & GuruBoolez for his immense testing.
Creation of the alt preset system and related special code level quality enhancements:
Dibrom, with technical assistance from Robert Hegemann and Naoki Shibata and extensive tuning help and quality verification via listening tests from JohnV and also initial help (--dm-preset era) from Hans Heijden, ff123, Wombat, and others. Test clips, bitrate information, and further listening tests provided by TheBashar, zbutsam, Pio2001, BadDuDeX, r3mix, h, TarX, Hans Heijden, ff123, Wombat, Filburt, Volcano, Garf, MrDrew, TrNSZ, nyaochi, Amadeus93, in no particular order, and many, many others I (Dibrom) probably forgot to mention.. (msg me to be added)
Idea (also exposing the need for a unified preset system), Original post and list of original settings collected by: user
Layout and additional work by: dev0, CiTay, SNYder, Dibrom
And finally...
Thank you ALL in the community for making it what it is, providing interest and discussion and helping to work towards the most concise, well tuned, and most thought out MP3 quality "paradigm" seen yet! biggrin.gif -- Dibrom
Updated 2005-09-16
These settings require Lame 3.97 or later. Lame 3.97beta1 (beta=b) found on this website is the recommended version. (Check here or Rarewares to download).
Do not use alpha (a) versions ! Those are for testing purposes, if you want.
Note: At a given bitrate range, the quality scale is following: VBR is higher quality than ABR which is higher quality than CBR (VBR > ABR > CBR in terms of quality). The exception to this is when you choose the highest possible CBR bitrate, which is 320 kbps (--alt-preset insane).
VBR: variable bitrate mode, the goal is to keep a constant quality and saving bits where possible without lowering the quality.
ABR: average bitrate mode varies bits around a specified target bitrate
CBR: constant bitrate mode is not efficient regarding distributing bitrate to more complex music parts and saving bits where it would be possible without lowering the quality of those music parts.
Note: all modes and settings mentioned in this topic belong to the specifications of the MP3 standard, and the resulting MP3s should be played by every standard-conform MP3-Decoder. If this shouldn't be the case, blame the manufacturer or developer of your MP3-Decoder/device. Neither the hydrogenaudio.org community, HA staff, nor the authors of this post take any responsibility for anything.
Discussion has been moved here.
-------------------------------------------------
Recommended encoder settings:
-------------------------------------------------
The settings, presets are listed beginning with highest possible quality stepping down to lower qualities:
CODE
Switch equals preset target kbit/s Bitrate range kbit/s
-b 320 = --preset insane 320 CBR 320
-V 0 = --preset extreme 240 245…285
-V 0 --vbr-new = --preset fast extreme 240 245…285
-V 1 210 220…260
-V 1 --vbr-new 210 220…260
-V 2 = --preset standard 190 170…210
-V 2 --vbr-new = --preset fast standard 190 170…210
-V 3 175 155…195
-V 3 --vbr-new 175 155…195
-V 4 = --preset medium 165 145…185
-V 4 --vbr-new = --preset fast medium 165 145…185
-V 5 130 110…150
-V 5 --vbr-new 130 110…150
-V 6 115 95…135
-V 6 --vbr-new 115 95…135
-V 7 100 80…120
-V 7 --vbr-new 100 80…120
-V 8 85 65…105
-V 8 - vbr-new 85 65…105
-V 9 65 45…85
-V 9 - vbr-new 65 45…85
If the target is eg. streaming , where you need MP3 in ABR or even CBR mode, there are still the ABR and CBR modes.
You can specify your desired target bitrate:
ABR = Average Bitrate mode:
--abr xxx = --preset xxx
xxx (desired averaged bitrate in kbit/s) can be any value between 8 - 320 , like eg. 9, 17, 80, 128, 133, 200 etc.
Only for 128k ABR:
There was developed an alternative to the --abr 128 preset:
ff123's and Hans' suggestion (http://www.ff123.net/cbr128.html):
--abr 128 -h --nspsytune --athtype 2 --lowpass 16 --ns-bass -8 --scale 0.93
Different people have different tastes regarding artefacts and their behaviour of annoyance, so try out --abr 128 vs. --abr 128 -h --nspsytune --athtype 2 --lowpass 16 --ns-bass -8 --scale 0.93
CBR = Constant Bitrate mode:
-b xxx = --preset cbr xxx
xxx (desired bitrate in kbit/s) can be only: 8 , 16 , 24 , 32 , 40 , 48 , 64 , 80 , 96 , 112 , 128 , 160 , 192 , 256 or 320
Remarks:
the --vbr-new switch enables the new VBR mode. Lame will encode much faster compared to old/default vbr mode. Current knowledge qualitywise comparing vbr with --vbr-new is, that --vbr-new might even be better qualitywise than the default vbr mode, but there are also reports about artefact, which is worse in --vbr-new compared to default. Though the general impression is, that --vbr-new should be recommended over vbr-default.
The presets -V 0 , -V 1 , -V 2 with or without --vbr-new switch and of course -b 320 are considered to be transparent for a majority of people. (transparent = most people cannot distinguish the mp3 from the original in an ABX blindtest)
For high quality on portable MP3 players, you may use -V 4 (--vbr-new)= --preset (fast) medium (around 165 kbit/s).
-V 5 --vbr-new is a very good replacement for 128 kbit/s encodings.
The revolutionary --alt-preset system introduced in lame 3.90, is replaced nowadays by the preset system, which is already substituted by the above explained settings system.
You don't need to worry, if you select nowadays in lame 3.97 either --alt-preset xy , preset xy or corresponding switch xy, you will always get the same.
E.G.: --alt-preset cbr 320 is the exact same thing as --alt-preset insane etc.:
--alt-preset insane = --preset insane = -b 320 = --preset 320 = --preset cbr 320
-------------------------------------------------
Setting up EAC for lame.exe with tagging
-------------------------------------------------
Based on Case's tutorial
Select compression options from EAC menu.
Open 'External Compression' tab.
1. Check 'Use external program for compression'
2. Change 'Parameter passing scheme' to 'User Defined Encoder'
3. Set file extension to .mp3
4. Click 'Browse' and locate 'lame.exe'
5. Change 'Additional command line options' to one of the following commandlines
6. Check 'Delete WAV after compression'
7. Uncheck 'Add ID3 tag'
QUOTE
ID3v1:
-V 2 --vbr-new --id3v1-only --ta "%a" --tt "%t" --tl "%g" --ty "%y" --tn "%n" %s %d
ID3v2:
-V 2 --vbr-new --id3v2-only --pad-id3v2 --ta "%a" --tt "%t" --tl "%g" --ty "%y" --tn "%n" %s %d
ID3v1 and ID3v2:
-V 2 --vbr-new --add-id3v2 --pad-id3v2 --ta "%a" --tt "%t" --tl "%g" --ty "%y" --tn "%n" %s %d
APEv2: (requires wapet.exe)
%d -t "Artist=%a" -t "Title=%t" -t "Album=%g" -t "Year=%y" -t "Track=%n" -t "Genre=%m" lame.exe -V 2 --vbr-new %s %d
(You can change -V 2 --vbr-new to any setting/preset you'd like to use)
These commandlines are generally recommended over EAC's own tagging routines and its LAME encoder parameter passing preset, which is known to cause problems.
The bitrate setting serves a cosmetic purpose and is used for the size display in EAC's main window.
-------------------------------------------------
Useful links
-------------------------------------------------
(Latest LAME compiles)
Dmitry's compiles
Dibrom's compiles
Rarewares.org MP3 section
(MP3 Information sites)
Hydrogen Audio
Decoder test by David Robinson
(MP3 Forums)
Hydrogenaudio MP3 forum
(Exact Audio Copy) - the best CD ripper & encoding (& tagging) to MP3 (or MPC, Ogg Vorbis) during ripping
Official site
Tutorial for EAC
EAC forum
(LAME Frontends)
RazorLame
EasyLAME (german)
HeadAC3he by Dark Avenger : ac3 -> wav DS2 -> mp3, ogg vorbis, mp2
BeSweet by DSPGuru : ac3 -> wav DS2 -> mp3, ogg vorbis, mp2 with batch-possibility
(Renaming / ID3 Tagging / Music Database)
Tag + Tag Frontend
Helium2
Renatager
MPTagger
More tagging information & programs
CDIndexer : for CD-Audio & data-CDs
MAC: Mpeg Audio Collection
(MP3 Gain) - lossless gain change / "normalizing"!
Official site
Basic Guide to avoid clipping
(How to)
Burn an MP3 CD
Reencode mp3 (high bitrate with ID3 tags) to mp3 (low bitrate) and include tags to new mp3 file : Try Monkeys Audio http://www.monkeysaudio.com/, or maybe better: foobar 2000, use the CLI encoder: http://www.saunalahti.fi/cse/html/foobar.html
MPC -> MP3 by MPCxchange
(Analyzing MP3)
EncSpot
ff123's artefact training
Tool for ABXing, Blind listening tests
ff123's site: Discussion of Audio Compression including sites to evaluate your own capability of listening
Training of musically listening good-ear.com
Training of listening to encoder's artefacts pcabx.com
MP3Utility
QuickSFV, SVF and MD5 checksums for files
-------------------------------------------------
Credits
-------------------------------------------------
A big thanks to all LAME developers for making one kickass MP3 codec.
People who took part in suggesting the different settings:
Dibrom, r3mix, ff123, Hans Heijden, kjempen, Benjamin Lebsanft, GeSomeone, Wombat & GuruBoolez for his immense testing.
Creation of the alt preset system and related special code level quality enhancements:
Dibrom, with technical assistance from Robert Hegemann and Naoki Shibata and extensive tuning help and quality verification via listening tests from JohnV and also initial help (--dm-preset era) from Hans Heijden, ff123, Wombat, and others. Test clips, bitrate information, and further listening tests provided by TheBashar, zbutsam, Pio2001, BadDuDeX, r3mix, h, TarX, Hans Heijden, ff123, Wombat, Filburt, Volcano, Garf, MrDrew, TrNSZ, nyaochi, Amadeus93, in no particular order, and many, many others I (Dibrom) probably forgot to mention.. (msg me to be added)
Idea (also exposing the need for a unified preset system), Original post and list of original settings collected by: user
Layout and additional work by: dev0, CiTay, SNYder, Dibrom
And finally...
Thank you ALL in the community for making it what it is, providing interest and discussion and helping to work towards the most concise, well tuned, and most thought out MP3 quality "paradigm" seen yet! biggrin.gif -- Dibrom
The only thing I can think of with regard to recommendations is to additionally recommend a VBR alternative to CBR 128 (presumably -V5 --vbr-new).
I totally agree that recommendations are difficult. I know there is even contention with regard to -V2, as many (non-HA/non-audiophile) users don't really need this level. I'm not suggesting that -V2 is changed - but simply highlighting that a recommendation is always going to be contentious, as we don't all have the same level of hearing. Mine's not brilliant.
I have just seen your edit and agree that the diversity of the -V switches negates the need so much for recommendations.
I wonder whether the correlation between -V and --(alt-)preset would be useful in the table? I've just seen Gabriel's post of the previous content and that table may be useful to help people move from --(alt-)preset to -V.
I noticed late that you had already stated that the EAC guide and links have been left out.
Edit: With regard to the "accusation" of lacking content - I think too much content is just going to be way too confusing for a new user - which this post/thread is supposed to be aimed at! I even think some info - e.g.: the background behind the presets - could be links to other documents, e.g:
If you are interested in reading about the background behind the LAME presets please take a look at this page.
Do new users really care about the background? Spods like me do, but some guy who just wants to rip his "Shitting Grannies" CD for his mate on the 'net couldn't give two hoots.
I totally agree that recommendations are difficult. I know there is even contention with regard to -V2, as many (non-HA/non-audiophile) users don't really need this level. I'm not suggesting that -V2 is changed - but simply highlighting that a recommendation is always going to be contentious, as we don't all have the same level of hearing. Mine's not brilliant.
I have just seen your edit and agree that the diversity of the -V switches negates the need so much for recommendations.
I wonder whether the correlation between -V and --(alt-)preset would be useful in the table? I've just seen Gabriel's post of the previous content and that table may be useful to help people move from --(alt-)preset to -V.
I noticed late that you had already stated that the EAC guide and links have been left out.
Edit: With regard to the "accusation" of lacking content - I think too much content is just going to be way too confusing for a new user - which this post/thread is supposed to be aimed at! I even think some info - e.g.: the background behind the presets - could be links to other documents, e.g:
If you are interested in reading about the background behind the LAME presets please take a look at this page.
Do new users really care about the background? Spods like me do, but some guy who just wants to rip his "Shitting Grannies" CD for his mate on the 'net couldn't give two hoots.
Ah, i had the same idea of google cache but couldn't find it. Mind posting the steps you used to locate it??
Cheers,
Kristian
Cheers,
Kristian
QUOTE (Synthetic Soul @ Sep 27 2005, 12:49 PM)
I wonder whether the correlation between -V and --(alt-)preset would be useful in the table? I've just seen Gabriel's post of the previous content and that table may be useful to help people move from --(alt-)preset to -V.
I think putting the correlating old preset into the table would cause confusion rather than assisting the transition.
I think a link to this thread would suffice for those who want to know.
I'm still bothered by the quick start recommendation. Why V2 and not V3? Or V1?
Originally, recommending --preset standard was easy to understand: there were no other preset (apart --r3mix). Standard was the only choice for transparent/efficient encodings.
But now, situation is different. We have V3, V4 and also V1.
V3 or even V4 may be as transparent as V2 for several people. Using them will help them to save bitrate and to use more efficiently the free space of their portable player.
On the other side, V1 might be a better choice for some critical listeners. In my case, V2 is rarelly transparent (on ABX conditions). V1 is simply better (I'd say "more transparent" if it makes sense).
In other word, I suggest to take advantage of the new VBR scale and to think about possible recommendation of the new VBR "presets".
Originally, recommending --preset standard was easy to understand: there were no other preset (apart --r3mix). Standard was the only choice for transparent/efficient encodings.
But now, situation is different. We have V3, V4 and also V1.
V3 or even V4 may be as transparent as V2 for several people. Using them will help them to save bitrate and to use more efficiently the free space of their portable player.
On the other side, V1 might be a better choice for some critical listeners. In my case, V2 is rarelly transparent (on ABX conditions). V1 is simply better (I'd say "more transparent" if it makes sense).
In other word, I suggest to take advantage of the new VBR scale and to think about possible recommendation of the new VBR "presets".
--my mistake--
QUOTE (guruboolez @ Sep 27 2005, 12:53 PM)
In other word, I suggest to take advantage of the new VBR scale and to think about possible recommendation of the new VBR "presets".
I don't understand.
Are you suggesting that we don't recommend any value, that we change from -V2 to -VX, or that we have multiple recommendations?
I agreed with most of your response, but I was assuming your conclusion would be that we don't make any recommendations.
Edit:
QUOTE (guruboolez @ Sep 27 2005, 12:57 PM)
--my mistake--
I just thought you were in total agreement with yourself
QUOTE (Synthetic Soul @ Sep 27 2005, 12:57 PM)
QUOTE (guruboolez @ Sep 27 2005, 12:53 PM)
In other word, I suggest to take advantage of the new VBR scale and to think about possible recommendation of the new VBR "presets".
I don't understand.
Are you suggesting that we don't recommend any value, that we change from -V2 to -VX, or that we have multiple recommendations?
I suggest to not automatically recommend -V2 because it simply correspond to the old --standard preset. If the "quick start" really have to recommend a transparent setting (i don't really agree with it), it might be -V3 or -V1, or even -V4.
google cashe was a good idea, but unfortunately, as Gabriel found, it shows also the very old content from 2005-09-16, I found in googles cashe 2005-09-17, progress !
I have 2005-09-18 in german, from which I can retranslate again and use layout for restore.
Though that won't be a sperfect, as the stickly post was made during the weekend, dunno, when i made last edit, Sunday or Monday, yesterday.
And yes, now it seems, there is a need to reinvent the wheel again. These discussions, what should be recommended, have already taken place., in this topic, posts above.
I have 2005-09-18 in german, from which I can retranslate again and use layout for restore.
Though that won't be a sperfect, as the stickly post was made during the weekend, dunno, when i made last edit, Sunday or Monday, yesterday.
And yes, now it seems, there is a need to reinvent the wheel again. These discussions, what should be recommended, have already taken place., in this topic, posts above.
QUOTE
Ah, i had the same idea of google cache but couldn't find it. Mind posting the steps you used to locate it??
http://www.google.com/search?q=%5BRFC%5D+L...=utf-8&oe=utf-8
QUOTE (guruboolez @ Sep 27 2005, 01:00 PM)
I suggest to not automatically recommend -V2 because it simply correspond to the old --standard preset. If the "quick start" really have to recommend a transparent setting (i don't really agree with it), it might be -V3 or -V1, or even -V4.
OK, thank you.
It seems to me the best person in the position to make that suggestion is you - or perhaps a vote.
The trouble with a vote is you get idiots like me voting, who think -V5 is overkill.
Tricky.
QUOTE (dev0 @ Sep 27 2005, 03:24 AM)
QUOTE (user @ Sep 27 2005, 12:22 PM)
dev0's suggestion here is lacking too much content, not thought through, illogical.
I'd like to hear other's oppinions about that.
Credit for my suggestions goes mostly to benc and you though.
I actually like dev0's (Post #73) way of presenting the information better. It looks less cluttered, especially the VBR table. I think it's better to restrict it to the -V x modes and to mention the whole preset history in a small footnote below. If someone has been smart enough to use the --presets, he/she will probably know a bit of the correspondence to -V already. New users, OTOH, are likely to be very confused about all this "--preset fast medium equals -V4 --vbr-new stuff". Just my opinion.
QUOTE (user @ Sep 27 2005, 01:03 PM)
And yes, now it seems, there is a need to reinvent the wheel again. These discussions, what should be recommended, have already taken place.
Can you please provide a link, as I have no wish to waste people's time.
I get the distinct impression that it hasn't really been concluded though... if key players like guruboolez are still unconvinced, and dev0 is open for discussion.
Edit: For the record I have no interest in taking part in deciding the recommended setting(s) - I have neither the hearing or the background knowledge. I am keen to see a sensible decision to be reached though, preferably by those who do have those qualities.
QUOTE (Synthetic Soul @ Sep 27 2005, 04:04 AM)
QUOTE (guruboolez @ Sep 27 2005, 01:00 PM)
I suggest to not automatically recommend -V2 because it simply correspond to the old --standard preset. If the "quick start" really have to recommend a transparent setting (i don't really agree with it), it might be -V3 or -V1, or even -V4.
OK, thank you.
It seems to me the best person in the position to make that suggestion is you - or perhaps a vote.
The trouble with a vote is you get idiots like me voting, who think -V5 is overkill.
Tricky.
I don't think a vote is of much use. Maybe one way to present it is as some kind of curve with diminishing returns; i.e. above a certain level, you don't gain much (if any) perceived transparency by using more and more bits. The slope of this curve is different for each listener, but there is usually a point where the trade-off between more bits and more quality is ideal for a certain listener with certain demands (e.g. "transparency" => probably V2/V3 or "for portable use" => probably V4/V5).
It should be pointed out that everybody has to find this ideal point for himself, as general recommendations are impossible for diverse listeners and habits.
QUOTE (Synthetic Soul @ Sep 27 2005, 01:04 PM)
It seems to me the best person in the position to make that suggestion is you - or perhaps a vote.
The trouble with a vote is you get idiots like me voting, who think -V5 is overkill.
The trouble with a vote is you get idiots like me voting, who think -V5 is overkill.
It's precisely why I wouldn't recommand any setting supposed to be transparent and efficient at the same time. -V2 correspond to 180-200 kbps, and it's overkill for many people. As overkill as -V0. -V5 or even -V6 could be as pertinent, but it wouldn't satisfy critical listeners. And extreme listeners wouldn't be 100% pleased with -V2.
Voting wouldn't solve the problem.
Best I'd say is to give the corresponding bitrate of each -V setting, and let people choose their preset based on bitrate or on their own experience.
Agreed.
What about something like:
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 is 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.
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 is 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.
I don't think that not giving any recommendation at all is a good idea.
Think of it like this: What would you tell a (clueless) friend to use when teaching him how to encode MP3s.
Users want to be taken at hand and told what to use. When they have specific needs, they'll try to inform themselves and choose something which fits their need, but there are still a lot of people, who just want to convert their CDs to MP3s without thinking so much about details like which setting accomodates to their hearing.
It certainly isn't. My proposal was just a result of really liking benc's suggestions and spicing it up a bit. I perceive user's proposal as too cluttered and disorganized.
I don't know what you are talking about. Just because there are other options considered and other matters discussed (please point me to the post where -V 2 as the recommendation was discussen and I'll take that back).
I like Gabriel's idea as an addition to the "Quick Start" recommendation.
Think of it like this: What would you tell a (clueless) friend to use when teaching him how to encode MP3s.
Users want to be taken at hand and told what to use. When they have specific needs, they'll try to inform themselves and choose something which fits their need, but there are still a lot of people, who just want to convert their CDs to MP3s without thinking so much about details like which setting accomodates to their hearing.
QUOTE
I get the distinct impression that it hasn't really been concluded though... if key players like guruboolez are still unconvinced, and dev0 is open for discussion.
It certainly isn't. My proposal was just a result of really liking benc's suggestions and spicing it up a bit. I perceive user's proposal as too cluttered and disorganized.
QUOTE
And yes, now it seems, there is a need to reinvent the wheel again. These discussions, what should be recommended, have already taken place.
I don't know what you are talking about. Just because there are other options considered and other matters discussed (please point me to the post where -V 2 as the recommendation was discussen and I'll take that back).
I like Gabriel's idea as an addition to the "Quick Start" recommendation.
QUOTE (dev0 @ Sep 27 2005, 01:36 PM)
I don't think that not giving any recommendation at all is a good idea.
Think of it like this: What would you tell a (clueless) friend to use when teaching him how to encode MP3s.
Think of it like this: What would you tell a (clueless) friend to use when teaching him how to encode MP3s.
It will depend of his hearing and of his own need. The storage capacity of his player could make the decision. I won't recommend -V2 to someone having a 128/256 MB player.
Problem with recommendation is: we are giving a universal answer to people having very different needs. In other words, we're answering to a question without listening to the question. Most often, the recommendation won't be really suited. And -V2 is probably not the best thing nowadays. Such encodings are filling too quickly hardware players (even HD based players).
-V2? For what? Transparency? People really looking for transparency are using lossless nowadays. And probably most people using MP3 are looking for something most efficient that the alt-preset elephant/standard.
QUOTE
Think of it like this: What would you tell a (clueless) friend to use when teaching him how to encode MP3s.
To clueless people, I'd recommand -V4
To people paying attention to the quality I'd recommand -V2
To nitpicking people I'd recommand -V0
In all cases I would not mention vbr-new, as an extra switch would already be too much, risking that new users would get even more confused.
THE question is: whom are you giving recommendations to?
For all those reasons we have the complete table of -Vx settings,
to emphasize -V2 as 1 good solution (which of course does not fit to everybodys needs), we have -V2 --vbr-new as example in the case-Eac tutorial with the remark that it can be replaced.
and to tell people about the targets of -V2, -V4 etc., we have the remarks section, now the important switches coloured, -V2 green, -V4 yellow, -V5 orange.
Gabriels wording is of course somewhat shorter than the previous, suggested by Mooze (sorry for shortening your long complicated nick , I hope we know, whom I mean).
about --vbr-new:
Then i would already recommend, to let the standard -V x away, so that we have only the -V x --vbr-new settings in the table.
to emphasize -V2 as 1 good solution (which of course does not fit to everybodys needs), we have -V2 --vbr-new as example in the case-Eac tutorial with the remark that it can be replaced.
and to tell people about the targets of -V2, -V4 etc., we have the remarks section, now the important switches coloured, -V2 green, -V4 yellow, -V5 orange.
Gabriels wording is of course somewhat shorter than the previous, suggested by Mooze (sorry for shortening your long complicated nick
, I hope we know, whom I mean).about --vbr-new:
Then i would already recommend, to let the standard -V x away, so that we have only the -V x --vbr-new settings in the table.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.