Hello,

- q0 problem still exists ?!

I am using EAC and lame 3.97b2 to encode wav to mp3.
the settings are:

-V 0 --vbr-new -q 0 >>> q val = 0 , Encoding time = 13 sec.
-V 0 --vbr-new >>> q val = 3 , Encoding time = 13 sec.

- b320 - q0 >>> q val = 0 , Encoding time = 43 sec.
- b320 >>> q val = 3 , Encoding time = 13 sec.

-b320 is my favorite setting !!!

NOTE:
1. encoding time for me is neglected.
2. there was no differences in files size.
3. and yes, I did search the forum.

1) If (- q0) improves quality, why it is not recommended?
2) why in (- b320) it takes more time to encode? because of the (- q0) problem? or because it is realy
improves the quality?
3) In what manner does it improve the quality ?
4) what is the differences between - q0 and -q3 ??
5) Or insted to use (- h) switch = (-q 2)
6) why this issue is ignored by lame developers?
7) should I wait for 3.98b ??

thanks

It's fixed since quite some time. The -q switch behaves differently in old & new VBR modes, take a look here.

q0 can cause "ringing". It is especially not desirable at high CBR bitrates (320kbps), because it causes ringing that I was able to ABX.

Interesting, can you provide some more info? LAME version, switches, ABX logs, etc. Or did you already mention it somewhere in another topic?

Thanks for yours reply,

I dont understand:

has it fixed or not?
what are the alternatives: not to use q0 and let lame decide auto?
if it fixed in what manner does it improve qality?
what is the differences between - q0 and -q3 ??????
thx

it is in the Lame problem samples thread. However, the ringing is present at -q 0, -q 1, but also at -q 2, so I recommend encoding at default quality (-q 3)

J.M.

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=39314


Problem: Ringing with bitrates up to 320k. (--preset insane)

Late edit: happens with -q 0, -q 1 and q 2

Spectrograms, that really don't say anything: original sample, Lame --preset insane sample.

WinABX (with Lame3.98a4 --preset insane -h) :CODEWinABX v0.42 test report
05/31/2006 16:30:19

A file: J:\scooter2.wav
B file: J:\scooter2lame.wav

Start position 00:00.0, end position 00:11.3
16:30:44 1/1 p=50.0%
16:30:50 2/2 p=25.0%
16:30:56 3/3 p=12.5%
16:31:02 4/4 p=6.2%
16:31:07 5/5 p=3.1%
16:31:13 6/6 p=1.6%
16:31:18 7/7 p=0.8%
16:31:25 8/8 p=0.4%
16:31:33 9/9 p=0.2%
16:31:42 10/10 p< 0.1%

though I can hear it only in my left ear which is better at high frequencies.

J.M.

thank you for copying my post, hehe

If not to use best quality, then, what is the point of using latest Lame enc. version and EAC. ?

just use commercial software like easy cd da extractor ( witch use lame 3.97).

In --vbr-new mode
q0 ~ q3 <--- It's same.

Best quality at any given bitrate above and at 128 kbps, for the mp3 codec. I don't have to encode at 320 kbps just because I'm using the latest and bestest (i know, best).

ok,
so, why in (- b320) it takes more time to encode? because of the (- q0) problem? or because it is realy
improves the quality?

-b320 isn't the vbr-new mode.
I was saying only about the vbr-new mode.
Anyway...
Each options make different result.
-q2 and -q0 can be different. (except vbr-new mode.)
In CBR mode, -q 0 takes more time. because that uses more
complicate routine maybe.
and sorry~
I'm not sure that makes better quality or not.
But they say q2 is enough. So I just use -q2

so,
vbe new is better than b320 ?

No~
I don't mean that.

You tried vbr-new and CBR.
then you got a result that q0 and q2 take same time in vbr-new mode.
and CBR is different.
I thought you want to know what's difference between q0 and q2 in both modes.
So, I said that q0 ~ q3 don't make any difference in vbr-new mode.

I think you should use just -b320 -h option.(-h = -q2)
That's the way to get best quality and high speed together.

Trying to clarify a few things ( from the lame changelog ) :



So, what does that say?
1) one bug with the -q0 switch was fixed in lame 3.93.1.
2) -q0 is now q1, q1 is now q2, q2 is now q3.. etc..
3) -q0 is now a slower algorithm which can, (but not necessarily) improve quality
4) -h continues to be -q 2, but it's not the one it used to be before the change.

edit: spelling

I am really confused now.

-q0, -q1 had problem, so the recommendation was to use -q2 ?
but they say -q2 has also problem ?

so, to use the defult -q3 ??? for cbr 320 and V0 new ???

ok, thanks.

so, what is best settings for best quality:

-b320 -q3
or
-V0-new -q0=-q1=-q2=-q3

thanks in advance

Hello men, I also think so, but look at these results, that will suprise you.

1. encoding wav file to mp3 using the settings above with EAC, lame 3.97b2
2. NOTE the differences in pink.
3. audio identifier used for the reports
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-V 0 --vbr-new


Tag revision: 0
Version string: 3.97b
Quality: 97 (V0 and q3)
Encoding method: vbr new / vbr mtrh
Lowpass: 19,500Hz
RG track peak: <not stored>
RG track gain: -5.1dB (determined automatically)
RG album gain: <not stored>
nspsytune: yes
nssafejoint: yes
nogap continued: no
nogap continuation: no
ATH type: 4
Bitrate: minimal (-b) bitrate 192
Encoder delay: 576 samples
Padded at end: 2,184 samples
Noise shaping: 1
Stereo mode: stereo
Unwise settings: no
Source sample freq: 44.1kHz
MP3Gain change: <none>
Preset: V0: preset extreme (fast mode)
Surround info: none
Music length: 4,010,075 bytes
Music CRC: 0B35
Actual Music CRC: 0B35
Info tag CRC: 823D
Actual Info Tag CRC: 823D
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-b 320

Tag revision: 0
Version string: 3.97b
Quality: 57 (V4 and q3)
Encoding method: cbr
Lowpass: 20,500Hz
RG track peak: <not stored>
RG track gain: -5.1dB (determined automatically)
RG album gain: <not stored>
nspsytune: yes
nssafejoint: yes
nogap continued: no
nogap continuation: no
ATH type: 4
Bitrate: 255 or higher
Encoder delay: 576 samples
Padded at end: 2,184 samples
Noise shaping: 1
Stereo mode: stereo
Unwise settings: no
Source sample freq: 44.1kHz
MP3Gain change: <none>
Preset: cbr 320
Surround info: none
Music length: 5,512,880 bytes
Music CRC: 5462
Actual Music CRC: 5462
Info tag CRC: C601
Actual Info Tag CRC: C601

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-b 320 -q 0

Tag revision: 0
Version string: 3.97b
Quality: 60 (V4 and q0)Encoding method: cbr
Lowpass: 20,500Hz
RG track peak: <not stored>
RG track gain: -5.1dB (determined automatically)
RG album gain: <not stored>
nspsytune: yes
nssafejoint: yes
nogap continued: no
nogap continuation: no
ATH type: 4
Bitrate: 255 or higher
Encoder delay: 576 samples
Padded at end: 2,184 samples
Noise shaping: 1
Stereo mode: stereo
Unwise settings: no
Source sample freq: 44.1kHz
MP3Gain change: <none>
Preset: cbr 320
Surround info: none
Music length: 5,512,880 bytes
Music CRC: 3EC7
Actual Music CRC: 3EC7
Info tag CRC: A6FA
Actual Info Tag CRC: A6FA

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
now, what do you say, which one is better ?
That is weird, how come -b 320 use v4 ? it should use v0 ?

You should notice that in that Quality measure, it says " V4 ", and you know that it is not a VBR file.
That should just clarify it.

I wasn't aware that quality of MP3's could be measured without the source file...

I would actually answer that one, but I draw the line at five question marks. Please learn to write in a non-annoying way, thank you very much. Sorry if this post goes against some forum guidelines.

Edit: stephanV: Truth! Justice! Freedom! Reasonably priced love! And a hard-boiled egg! ;-)

-b320 is not the -V4.
That number doesn't really mean quality.
If you try
--abr 8 -q0 -V0 (ABR with 8Kbps)
That also shows 100.

--abr 8 and -V0 ? i would say that should obey -V 0 and forget about --abr 8.. (at least it used to be the case with contradictory options).

Anyway, my point was that the Quality entry in the LAME tag was something that was added way back, and that hasn't been reviewed in quite some time. It also used to show values of ~60 for -V 2 , when some comparable CBR option had higher values. It it written by the encoder, and depends on the internal options that the encoder uses ( ath, lowpass filter... etc..)

that is: -V 0 --vbr-new -m s -b 320



Tag revision: 0
Version string: 3.97b
Quality: 97 (V0 and q3)
Encoding method: cbr
Lowpass: 20,500Hz
RG track peak: <not stored>
RG track gain: -5.1dB (determined automatically)
RG album gain: <not stored>
nspsytune: yes
nssafejoint: yes
nogap continued: no
nogap continuation: no
ATH type: 4
Bitrate: 255 or higher
Encoder delay: 576 samples
Padded at end: 2,184 samples
Noise shaping: 1
Stereo mode: stereo
Unwise settings: no
Source sample freq: 44.1kHz
MP3Gain change: <none>
Preset: cbr 320
Surround info: none
Music length: 5,512,880 bytes
Music CRC: 5462
Actual Music CRC: 5462
Info tag CRC: 0EF8
Actual Info Tag CRC: 0EF8


Would anyone has the abilty to check which method is better? or is there any automatic electronic way to compare tracks?

-V 0 --vbr-new -b 320
or: -V 0 --vbr-new
or: -b320


thanks

This must be the weirdest nuttiest thread I've ever read...

Info to yes10: The quality score stored in the Lame tag (like "97") has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with audio quality, it just indicates which encoding mode (VBR, ABR, CBR, q level) was used. A higher number DOES NOT MEAN higher quality. -B 320 offers the highest quality possible, plain and simple.

thank you all for the information.