Hydrogenaudio Forums > "How to encode top-quality audio files" by JT & HZ

Full Version: "How to encode top-quality audio files" by JT & HZ

Hydrogenaudio Forums > Hydrogenaudio Forum > General Audio

Axon

Aug 29 2005, 23:44

QUOTE

LAME, like Ogg Vorbis, is still improving. For a bleeding edge on quality, special commands for certain LAME-versions are often necessary. So, please note that we're only giving you commandlines for use with the lame-release accompanying RazorLame on THIS page. Amazingly high quality (from big to small sized) MP3-files can be created using:

-V2 --vbr-new -q0 --lowpass 19.7 -b96 --cwlimit 10.7 --scale 0.99 --athaa-sensitivity 1
-V3 --vbr-new -q0 --lowpass 19 --cwlimit 10 -b96 --athaa-sensitivity 1

-V5 --vbr-new -q0 --lowpass 18 --cwlimit 10 --athaa-sensitivity 1
-V6 --vbr-new -q0 --lowpass 17 --cwlimit 10 --athaa-sensitivity 1 -b112

QUOTE

Specialized collected presets, like for example the "alt-presets" are called "alt" for a reason; They are alternatives, and tend to go wrong on new versions of LAME. Plus, we like to stay in control of ALL parameters, since we disagree with the trade-offs done for standardized presets. We never follow results from "listening tests", especially not those controlled by people who refuse(d) to let us take part in it (using pathetic IP-blocks and the likes, two can play that game), i.e. everybody involved with (or strongly siding with) certain webfora that feel the need to call all of our writing "misinformation" - stay away from those fools! Quite often they're extremely biased (there's a lot of money involved in MP3, ISDN and APT-X codec sales, digistream and satellite audio uplink equipment and so on) and/or funded by codec-fanboys who are unable to deal with contradicting (often technically superior) opinions on sound. Furthermore results are unrealistic because tests have been done using EVERY random ear out there (as if suddenly expert knowledge would not count). So always check different LAME settings YOURSELVES, don't follow comments written by self-appointed 'experts', and you may decide on *our* expertise in the field by looking here, here or here.

Normally I would just chalk this up to these guys failing the HA School of Hard Knocks, but there is at least one person on Head-Fi who trusts them over HA for the command line settings. I'm sure that I could dig up the relevant threads, but that won't really solve anything. All I'm going to say about this is that as long as guys like these exist there will be no consensus of command line settings on the net, nor will there be a consensus of how codecs should be evaluated.

skelly831

Aug 29 2005, 23:55

This is why HA gets people asking about all those long command lines.

TRUST THE PRESETS PEOPLE!

But, no use yelling this here, we're not the ones spreading BS.

Lyx

Aug 30 2005, 00:05

Obviously, there were very good reasons to ban them.

QUOTE

All I'm going to say about this is that as long as guys like these exist there will be no consensus of command line settings on the net, nor will there be a consensus of how codecs should be evaluated.

Interesting. So you know of one user who trusts them. Large parts of the ripping-scene(who are very reluctant to changes) have switched to the recommended settings. Some known portals have switched to them. And the amount of active users on ha.org if i'm not wrong has increased quite a bit.

Sorry, i'm dont consider such people to be a serious problem. Best way is to ignore them and spent the energy on useful tasks instead of wasting it on such people. Plain simple efficiency: You can achieve much more by dealing with open-minded people, than by trying to "convert" idiots.

Dibrom

Aug 30 2005, 00:38

J (one of the co-authors of that site) has a bit of a history with some of the regulars here. He was quite a troll on the old r3mix boards before HA was setup. Unsurprisingly, he was banned over there because of his childish and offensive behavior. Oftentimes he would resort to name calling or other lame forms of insults.

If I remember correctly, his behavior in that direction started after his moderation status on the board was removed. This happened before I even joined that forum, so I'm not 100% sure on that part, but I believe CiTay or some others probably know. I guess he took it personally, but I believe the reason his status was removed was because of his habit of threatening some of the forum members or something along those lines.

Anyway, since he's been shut out of most of the forums where the serious audio codec discussion takes place, and since he never contributed to LAME in any significant fashion (although he makes it sound as if he does or is going to), I take it that he's become quite jealous and/or bitter. So he resorts to spouting the kind of nonsense you just quoted on his website now, sometimes making vague references to the "bad guys" out there like myself and some of the other old timers.

Sort of sad really.

rjamorim

Aug 30 2005, 03:59

QUOTE (Dibrom @ Aug 29 2005, 08:38 PM)

J (one of the co-authors of that site) has a bit of a history with some of the regulars here.

You can say that again. At the end of every one of my tests, he wrote angry letters trying to point out the inherent errors in their planning.

Darryl and I always got a laugh out of it.

CODE

[00:00:29] Leviathan: OMGOMGOMG! An e-mail from an old friend of
yours!
[00:00:40] Leviathan: "Hi Roberto,

Not to blow it all down, but what encoder settings
did you use with N.D.A. (and how/where did you enter them?)
and what the hell did you do with LAME ?
Because, I'm sorry, but Ogg Vorbis and LAME
both are already WAY better at around 56 kbps
than the mp4 at 22 kHz that Nero's latest Ultra Suite
creates.
Difference is like night and day.

Check the sample (and results) I use here"
[00:00:48] Leviathan: "Note that the Ogg Vorbis file is not only the
smallest, it also sounds the best. Now explain that!
For lame I used our own 3.97 compile and;
-B64 -q0 -V9 -t --lowpass 11 --cwlimit 9
--athlower 32 --scale 0.99 --athaa-sensitivity 1

The mp4's I create with nero sound like total crap
and resampled down to 22 kHz! Either Nero should release
their stuff with better defaults, or your listening test
is everything BUT reliable."
[00:00:57] Leviathan: "I also think it's rather silly to let Vorbis be
tested using a lower sample rate than the others
(as I seems to understand you have been doing).
This will create a completely wrong set of results
that do not make much sense in real world situations."
[00:01:01] miyaguch@esk: julius?
[00:01:09] Leviathan: "> Nero Digital Audio won, tied to
CodingTechnologies' MP3pro.
> Ogg Vorbis, WMA Std., 7kHz lowpass, Real Audio
> and QDesign Music Codec come in second place,
> with Vorbis a little below the others. Lame loses.

Total nonsense. I don't buy into it anyway."
[00:01:56] Leviathan: LOL! YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[00:02:06] miyaguch@esk: that idiot
[00:02:12] Leviathan: How did you find out????
[00:02:21] miyaguch@esk: it sounds just like him

(for the 32kbps test)

timcupery

Aug 30 2005, 04:11

QUOTE

Leviathan: LOL! YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LOL is right, indeed

Thanks for the laugh, Roberto.

dreamliner77

Aug 30 2005, 05:31

QUOTE (Axon @ Aug 29 2005, 06:44 PM)

QUOTE

We never follow results from "listening tests"

That says it all right there.

rjamorim

Aug 30 2005, 05:49

Just a small clarification (not that it is really needed, but...)

QUOTE

We never follow results from "listening tests", especially not those controlled by people who refuse(d) to let us take part in it (using pathetic IP-blocks and the likes, two can play that game)

I never refused anyone to participate in my tests. Heck, you guys could often see me around begging people to participate because I was receiving too few results!

I did refuse some results, but only after screening and noticing the listener made a mess ranking the references. And never based on who was the tester. Such an attempt at tampering could be easily identified if someone missed his results from the list of uploaded result files.

Neither I ever IP-blocked anyone from rjamorim.com. I don't even know Julius' IP block, and I wouldn't know where to start looking for it (I never planned to block Belgium in its entirety, either).

Regards;

R.

Axon

Aug 30 2005, 16:59

So the only conclusion we can draw is that his beef stems back at least five years, and he likes fallacious arguments a lot.

Given how few people (less than two dozen!) actually link to his page, I'm not too worried about this. I think most people who believe them are going to believe us more. His AES "credentials" are laughable.

This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.