I have the choice of two LAME presets for encoding a sentimentally valuable WAV file:

'2005_nearlossless' or 'paranoid 224 VBR'

Please tell me which is regarded as superior and preferable for sound quality? Is there even any discernable difference between the two?

Out of interest, for a file length of 1:02:38, 2005_nearlossless produced a file size of 104,309KB and paranoid created 104,925KB.

Many thanks for your time and advice.

if you want highest quality file, use --preset insane. (or -b 320)

J.M.

What is '2005_nearlossless' and 'paranoid 224 VBR'?

As jmartis said you can't do better than using cbr 320.
This is the most paranoid (and secure) setting. My own paranoid flavor is --alt-preset 270 (and I prefer 3.90.3).
According to my listening tests 224 kbps is the smallest bitrate to get satisfying results with hard to encode samples, but it's already a bit on the edge.
According to these tests using CBR, ABR, or VBR (VBR is best with Lame version 3.98a3+) doesn't make a serious difference at these high bitrates.

thanks for the advice guys

but 'insane cbr' is 146,826KB, and extra 42,000KB on top of 'nearlossless' or 'paranoid'

is the difference between insane and the others even audible, or is it worth going for the best nonetheless?

I'm not sure where did you get the "nearlossless" and "paranoid" presets, they're not part of any Lame presets.
( --preset xxx)
Especially because you said the wave file is "sentimentally valuable", I would recommend at least --preset insane, or better, lossless.

J.M.

yes, i should probably use 'insane' for something this valuable

i obtained '2005_nearlossless' with the razorlame front-end. (sorry, please tell me if that is bad!)

i obtained the 'paranoid' in the same rlo package download that contained 'insane cbr'. i found it on these forums through google.

please continue to advise

You should not use Razorlame, since it is out of date.

LAME at -V5 should be transparent for most people. More so -V4. Why don't you do some tests, and try to see if you can hear the diference?

If you're using the latest recommended Lame (3.97b2), use --preset fast insane.

The fast presets work better now than the normal ones, FYI.

If you really want to use RazorLame, go to advanced or whatever and set the custom command line to --preset fast insane. Leave everything else unchecked.

Hi there!
Sorry to interrupt you but there is no --preset fast insane.

Have a look at this thread: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=28124
So you should use

or you could try

which is somewhat one of the the most recommended switch here on hydrogenaudio.org.

-V2 --vbr-new is the same as --preset fast standard.
I personally use --preset fast standard for most music, and --preset fast extreme for "security". I don't really find it worthwhile to use 320kbps. But that's just me.

Doh! I always forget that --preset insane is just CBR. Okay, ignore my post above, i'm on crack!

(In my defense I don't use anything over --preset fast standard, because the insane setting is, IMHO, well named).

That depends what you are encoding. On just one harpsicord sample I abxed three parts: 7/8, 7/8 then 8/8 using V3 preset. It was clearly distorted. If one has many such tracks in his/her collection, maybe the mp3 format is not suitable at all.

I can confirm this, and this is the reason why I use mp3 with a high bitrate of 270 kbps on average (disc space isn't a lot of concern nowadays other than with very restricted mobile players for which more effecient formats like vorbis or aac may be more appropriate). Problems like those of harpsichord are solved by a brute force approach like this.
Maybe mp3 is not appropriate for castanets and certain other percussion-like sounds (also in electronic music) for people who are sensitive to pre-echo.

thank you for all the contributions

the first thing that this made me realise, was that i needed to upgrade my lame to 3.97 beta and drop my razorlame in favour of all2lame. i'm now set up properly and i finally realise what '-V 0 --vbr-new' means!

the group of presets bundled with razorlame was the reason i was using some slightly unusual terminology before, so apologies for that. eg 'fast insane' (!)

from reading everyones comments again and taking a fresh look at the wikis and the sq/filesize graph, i have gained a clearer distinction between the vbrs that i should be considering.

i just love this graph!!!


i'm immediately tempted by '-V 0 --vbr-new', but i will continue to investigate this with reference to my personal sq needs.

thanks again for steering an enormously grateful enthusiast in the right direction.

more thoughts or comments still appreciated!

p.s. i cannot tell the difference between v2 and wav!

i think i can hear a small difference between v4 and v2

i can definitely tell the difference between v9 and v2

thank you guys for getting me on the right track!

p.p.s. i would be really interested to know what people think of my test song for suitability for such comparitive listening

ginuwine & timbaland - tell me do you wanna (the bachelor) (1996)

it has been a valuable piece of music for me over the past few years when it's come to invest in several hifis. but i'd really like to know what guys think of it terms of dynamics and acoustics. (pm me if you like.)

thanks

If you want "proof" of what you can and cannot discern you may be interested in taking a blind listening test, either using ABC/HR or the ABX component for foobar. These will allow you to see whether you really can tell the difference, or if you are just guessing.

Capital letters. Heard of them? I'm no expert (in anything actually) but testing with songs that you are familiar with is a good idea. However you should probably test with a variety of songs, and not just one. I will leave someone who knows what they are talking about to suggest a minimum number.

The wiki page on ABX or Blind Tests may be of interest.

I'm not really sure with this. I've been encoding files with Lame 3.96.1 --preset standard, and if i recall correctly, the min. bitrate on frames was always 128kbps (except on silence)
Now i'm using Lame 3.97b2 -V2 and i'm getting some frames of 112, 96, 56 etc. bitrates

am i wrong, or this has changed between 3.96.1 and 3.97b2 ?

--preset fast standard is the same as -V2 --vbr-new. You are right, getting rid of the minimum bitrate is one of the many improvements of Lame 3.97 over older releases.