--alt-preset extreme use the q2 switch, right ? How can I change it to -q0 and perhaps add -k , if it is possible ? "--alt-preset extreme -q 0" doesn' t work !
btw: What do you think about "-m s --noshort -q 0 -b 320 -t -p -k"
for best Quality CBR ?
thx!
Full Version: Question To --alt-preset Extreme
really ugly! you shall not disable short blocks!
Have you read the sticky thread here?
QUOTE (Erbse @ Oct 14 2002 - 11:54 AM)
btw: What do you think about "-m s --noshort -q 0 -b 320 -t -p -k"
for best Quality CBR ?
for best Quality CBR ?
hmmm....that switch produces quality far inferior to "--alt-preset standard", If you want the best CBR quality, --alt-preset cbr XXX (ex 128, 160, 192, 256) is the way to go. I found this link http://users.du.se/~kdo/mpc/mp3misconcept.htm very useful, I'd suggest reading it to aleviate any of those nasty misconceptions you may have (good for the newbies).
B)
Do you think, that when striving for the best possible quality preset, such a detail like the q switch would have been overlooked? q2 is the one that works best atm. Do you think you can hear frequencies above 19kHz in music? You can test this yourself. Encode some music with and without -k. Try to abx the result. Encoding too much high freqeuency content only bloats the file.
For best possible quality @ 320 use --alt-preset insane (= --alt-preset cbr 320).
Are you serious about your command line? Have you even looked at what these switches are doing?
Why would you want to give up on that?
-p, which puts a checksum into each frame, is only usefull for streaming. It actually degrades sound quality a little bit because you sacrifice valuable space in the bitstream. If you want to make sure your files remain intact, use a seperate program to create external checksums.
Short blocks are very usefull to handle sharp attacks. Disabling short blocks will result in more pre-echo.
For best possible quality @ 320 use --alt-preset insane (= --alt-preset cbr 320).
Are you serious about your command line? Have you even looked at what these switches are doing?
QUOTE
-t disable INFO/WAV header
Disable writing of the INFO Tag on encoding.
This tag in embedded in frame 0 of the MP3 file. It includes some information about the encoding options of the file, and in VBR it lets VBR aware players correctly seek and compute playing times of VBR files.
Disable writing of the INFO Tag on encoding.
This tag in embedded in frame 0 of the MP3 file. It includes some information about the encoding options of the file, and in VBR it lets VBR aware players correctly seek and compute playing times of VBR files.
Why would you want to give up on that?
-p, which puts a checksum into each frame, is only usefull for streaming. It actually degrades sound quality a little bit because you sacrifice valuable space in the bitstream. If you want to make sure your files remain intact, use a seperate program to create external checksums.
Short blocks are very usefull to handle sharp attacks. Disabling short blocks will result in more pre-echo.
QUOTE (ErikS @ Oct 14 2002 - 08:23 PM)
Have you read the sticky thread here?
yes, i know the "List of recommended LAME settings" it's just a diskussion on another Board because a guy has some problem compress this Song(http://www.hikey.de/mp3test/) and we try to find the best settings
What is exactly the difference between q0 & q2 ? Only the frequency or render time ?
@ Gecko, this guy can hear the difference between Tracks with / without -k
and other Encoders like MPC is not a solution, because of the Hartware,
so is there a Solution ?
And changing any Value in "--alt -preset xxx" is not possible ?
Thank you for your answers !
@ Gecko, this guy can hear the difference between Tracks with / without -k
and other Encoders like MPC is not a solution, because of the Hartware,
so is there a Solution ?
And changing any Value in "--alt -preset xxx" is not possible ?
Thank you for your answers !
Use --alt-preset insane.
If that doesn't satisfy him, then he is hopeless. NO command line will beat that. And not certainly one with short blocks disabled.
q 2 is the best option currently available.
BTW, I would like to see the thread, and I would specially enjoy finding out how he is able to hear the difference... I would bet a lot of money he is not doing any real ABX tests...
PS: John Lennon - Jealous Guy?
Please, give us the link to that thread, or ask the concerned guy to come around and let us know what part of the song to listen to to find the difference.
Also, make sure you are using Lame 3.92 when encoding...
If that doesn't satisfy him, then he is hopeless. NO command line will beat that. And not certainly one with short blocks disabled.
q 2 is the best option currently available.
BTW, I would like to see the thread, and I would specially enjoy finding out how he is able to hear the difference... I would bet a lot of money he is not doing any real ABX tests...
PS: John Lennon - Jealous Guy?
Please, give us the link to that thread, or ask the concerned guy to come around and let us know what part of the song to listen to to find the difference.
Also, make sure you are using Lame 3.92 when encoding...
Do not ever play with the --alt-preset (except for maybe adding stuff like -y, but that won't really raise the quality), they're the result of code level tweaks! It's quite clear that you do not know one much of what you're actually doing with those switches.
check out: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....c54f685b6e4e54e
check out: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....c54f685b6e4e54e
QUOTE
-q0 and -q1 in LAME do not work properly, yet. I can't say for certain that it really hurts the quality (I don't know enough to make that judgment), but -q0 and -q1 are currently not as good as -q2 or -h
QUOTE
BTW, I would like to see the thread, and I would specially enjoy finding out how he is able to hear the difference... I would bet a lot of money he is not doing any real ABX tests...
like Mulder would say - I have to believe
but i cann't say he is doing an ABX tests - it's his opinion & I accept itQUOTE
It's quite clear that you do not know one much of what you're actually doing with those switches.
you're right ! using ogg & mpc make my life very easy
- all the Lame switches are to much complicated for me and I'm to lazy to test them all...anyway - i want really to say thank you guys
QUOTE (Erbse @ Oct 15 2002 - 03:04 PM)
but i cann't say he is doing an ABX tests - it's his opinion & I accept it
Don't do that, this would only confirm his testing methodes. Tell him that an ABX test is the only acceptable evidence.
QUOTE (Erbse @ Oct 15 2002 - 04:04 PM)
like Mulder would say - I have to believe but i cann't say he is doing an ABX tests - it's his opinion & I accept it
but i cann't say he is doing an ABX tests - it's his opinion & I accept itMulder wants to believe, and so does that other guy. That he can hear a difference between the original and the same sample lowpassed at 19kHz is extremely unlikely.
That said, modifying the lowpass is about the only thing you can do to the presets, that won't break them. It has been suggested to lower the lowpass to reduce bitrate. Perhaps it is also safe to increase the lowpass without causing quality damage.
lame --alt-preset standard --lowpass 20 infile.wav outfile.mp3
QUOTE
you're right ! using ogg & mpc make my life very easy
Yes, absolutely wonderfull!
The alt-presets make living with mp3 quite easy, too though.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.