Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Need Parameters
Hydrogenaudio Forums > Lossy Audio Compression > MP3 > MP3 - Tech
NIN9
Hi, Im using LAME software for years at home.
Now I want i to use it at my own studio. (atm 3.94 b13)
I searched the web for "optimized" quality parameters...
I get only this command line on IRC #efnet...
but it sounds not perfect as it should sad.gif

CODE
-F --nsmsfix 3.5 -m s --verbose -q 0 -b 192 -e c -c -p --nores --resample 48000 -T -d --bitwidth 16 --short --nogaptags -h --nspsytune --athtype 2 --lowpass 16 --ns-bass -8 -b32 -Y --scale 0.93 -qval=0


Is there some better preset like this one ?
A small explantation of this vars would be nice of you guys
guruboolez
Lame 3.94alpha13 : only for tests ! Use the latest stable version for archiving or listening purpose : 3.93.1 or 3.90.2 as recommanded here.

Some better preset ? Yes, here

A small explantation ? http://www.mp3dev.org/mp3/doc/html/switchs.html

Why ? because official presets are highly tuned, and tested by a communauty of users. Problems are noted, and sometimes corrected. A personal command line has only few chances to be equal to the --preset standard, and no chance to be superior.

Other reasons ? http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....act=Search&f=15
CiTay
QUOTE(NIN9 @ Apr 24 2003 - 02:46 AM)
CODE
-F --nsmsfix 3.5 -m s --verbose -q 0 -b 192 -e c -c -p --nores --resample 48000 -T -d --bitwidth 16 --short --nogaptags -h --nspsytune --athtype 2 --lowpass 16 --ns-bass -8 -b32 -Y --scale 0.93 -qval=0

That is total bollocks. I think they were trying to fool you, or they really don't have the slightest idea what they're doing.

Use LAME 3.90.2 with the recommended switches.
Delirium
Remember folks, the more command-line switches, the better the quality!
William
Look at the sticky threads to help yourself make the best sounding MP3:

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?act=SF&f=15
floyd
There are plenty of resources here for getting the best mp3s possible. Check the faqs and search the board.
NIN9
aight its a huge forum....will take some time huh.gif
Amadablam
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....t=ST&f=15&t=203

--alt-preset standard -Z is generally the best all-around LAME parameter for most people. I think I'm the 3rd person to link to this info...just in case you missed it. smile.gif
sony666
QUOTE(NIN9 @ Apr 24 2003 - 01:46 AM)
CODE
-F --nsmsfix 3.5 -m s --verbose -q 0 -b 192 -e c -c -p --nores --resample 48000 -T -d --bitwidth 16 --short --nogaptags -h --nspsytune --athtype 2 --lowpass 16 --ns-bass -8 -b32 -Y --scale 0.93 -qval=0

Arf there is this feeling again... wondering how many of my VBR mp3 were encoded with nutball switches like that ohmy.gif
NIN9
-q 0 -qval=0 -X 0 --substep 2 --cbr -b 192 --resample 44100 --bitwidth 16 -m s -scale 0.93 -h --nspsytune --ns-bass -8 --athtype 2

this sounds good in my ear smile.gif

will try the alt-preset -z soon, have to go to work now *g*

can someone give me more info about these switches:

qval=0
-X 0
--substep 2 <----
Gabriel
You should not use such custom parameters, unless you really know what they are doing.
Some of the parameters you are using are demonstrating that you do not understand what they are doing. This is confirmed by the fact that you are now asking about a parameter that you already included into your command line.

We created presets in order for people to able to use Lame easily without having to learn how it works inside. So you should use the presets, nothing else.
AndyIEG
QUOTE(NIN9 @ May 7 2003 - 02:35 AM)
-q 0 -qval=0 -X 0 --substep 2 --cbr -b 192 --resample 44100 --bitwidth 16 -m s -scale 0.93 -h --nspsytune --ns-bass -8 --athtype 2

this sounds good in my ear smile.gif

will try the alt-preset -z  soon, have to go to work now *g*

can someone give me more info about these switches:

qval=0
-X 0
--substep 2 <----

"--cbr -b 192"

If you dont need cbr mp3 cause of an old player or other things use VBR/ABR cause both will allow Lame to use up to 320kbit for very hard sections. CBR is not uptodate anymore and not needed.

"--resample 44khz" its also not needed cause Lame encode in 44khz with rates over 92kbit

"-scale 0.93" can be used but some dudes use "-scale 1" and use mp3gain tool to fix the clippings

but since it seems u dont need any special switch, i guess u looking for transparent quality aka cd quality in mp3 format?

all u need to use is "--preset standard" or "...insane" that are VBR presets wich every1 here use and wich are the best settings... and belive me those dudes here are paranoid in quality smile.gif

if u looking for a nice portable setting (small size good-very good quality)
"--abr 128 -h --nspsytune --athtype 2 --lowpass 16 --ns-bass -8 -b32 --scale 1"
... change "--lowpass to 17.5 --ns-bass -6" if u hear stuff above 16khz
--scale 0.93 if u dont use mp3gain
fileman
QUOTE(AndyIEG @ May 7 2003 - 03:06 PM)
all u need to use is "--preset standard" or "...insane" that are VBR presets wich every1 here use and wich are the best settings... and belive me those dudes here are paranoid in quality smile.gif

Preset standard is a VBR preset. Preset insane is a CBR preset at 320 kbit/s.

Regards, fileman.
AndyIEG
QUOTE(fileman @ May 7 2003 - 06:18 AM)
QUOTE(AndyIEG @ May 7 2003 - 03:06 PM)
all u need to use is "--preset standard" or "...insane" that are VBR presets wich every1 here use and wich are the best settings... and belive me those dudes here are paranoid in quality smile.gif

Preset standard is a VBR preset. Preset insane is a CBR preset at 320 kbit/s.

Regards, fileman.

tongue.gif

oki preset standard (VBR) for the lesser paranoid dudes and insane (CBR) for the absolut freaks or studio dudes smile.gif

PS: btw one thing realy anoys me if i load a song from those sharing tools/nets most are 192kbit CBR or 128kbit CBR and both sound very very bad often with hearable clicks/artefacts.... most 128kbit are also in stereo and not joint stereo and for me my own encoded --abr 128 listen much much better than those clicking/rumbling 192kbit cbr / stereo... i realy dont know what programms they use but finaly im aware of the quality difference LAME give over the other programms!
n68
QUOTE(Delirium @ Apr 24 2003 - 02:47 AM)
Remember folks, the more command-line switches, the better the quality!

yup...


i assume..
this is a joke...

i theory..:
the more switches.. the worse quality!
but.. better compression rate..

the exeptions from the rule... must be
the "pure tweaking" switches.. and they must "forfill"
each other.. to be logical in use..
and from what i read.. it ain`t so many of them...

either the whole preset is wrong... or simply mp3
isn`t good enough...




ph34r.gif
Andavari
QUOTE(NIN9 @ May 7 2003 - 04:35 AM)
-q 0 -qval=0 -X 0 --substep 2 --cbr -b 192 --resample 44100 --bitwidth 16 -m s -scale 0.93 -h --nspsytune --ns-bass -8 --athtype 2

this sounds good in my ear smile.gif

will try the alt-preset -z  soon, have to go to work now *g*

can someone give me more info about these switches:

qval=0
-X 0
--substep 2 <----

You've obviously not paid any attention to the links that direct you to the recommended presets.

Sure you can try your own parameters however doing so is going to be a waste of time. The --alt-preset switches are available without having to worry about the "is this gonna sound good factor."

Instead of trying out foolish parameters that aren't going to produce the best quality encodings you could have already started encoding using --alt-preset standard -Z or --alt-preset extreme -Z.
NIN9
yup, I have atm no idea of the commandline switches, thatswhy I was asking here.

I was just searching for the best 192 CBR solution, 128kbit files sound somehow crap on my hi-fi. 192 are ok, but I hear some artifacts when there are too much instruments orwhen the sound is too loud. sad.gif
I dont want store 256kbit files coz of my system recourcess.


is there any switch to filter loud noises ?
(I better ask now, before doing any shiznit ro my files)
DickD
Apart from switching format (Musepack .MPC for example), really MP3 is pretty much transparent (i.e. indistinguishable from CD when listening) with

lame --alt-preset standard -Z

(it's also pretty much transparent without the -Z, but that was recently introduced to fix a fairly rare but identifiable stereo-related artifact). Although it's about 192 kbps on average it's variable bitrate so can save bits where it's easy to encode, and use more when the music is tricky (so it's better quality than 192 ABR, which in turn is better than 192 CBR)

With Standard, lame's psychoacoustic model believes it will sound identical to the original file. Extreme, is there for people who feel a need to waste bits "just to be sure", and allows them to do so without worsening quality by using commandline tweaks, according to Dibrom who tuned the presets for 3.90.2. It copes with the placebo effect or ideas such as "my equipment is very good so it needs a little extra quality". In practice, Extreme makes very little difference to the rare artifacts left by Standard - and certainly not an improvement anywhere near commensurate with the extra bits it uses. Still, I'd be happy to listen to an Extreme file, because it usually sounds no different (i.e. no worse) than a standard file usually. Both standard and extreme often still sound pleasant even when they have artifacts, and you may not notice the artifacts if you don't know the music well.

If there are problems with Standard, they are usually limitations of the psymodel and of MP3 as a format. If you can't use Musepack (e.g you need to have hardware support) and have to stick to MP3, then Insane is the best that MP3 can do, and may manage to fix the problems in many cases.

An alternative is that many .MP3 decoders (MPEG-I layer 3) will also decode .MP2 (MPEG-I layer 2), which is not a transform codec but a sub-band codec. Decoders that decode MP2 include Lame --decode, Winamp's MPEG audio plugin, FB2K and reportedly quite a few (possibly most?) hardware MP3 players. MP2 has better transient time resolution (as good as Musepack SV7) but isn't as bitrate efficient or as good at lower bitrates. However, it might do better on much of the music that trips up MP3 when it's used at 192 kbps or above (max=384 kbps), and might still use fewer bits than Lame Insane (=320kbps). MP2 psymodels aren't as finely tuned as Lame's, but with enough bits, they can reach very high quality.

@NIN9: As for filtering loud noises, it could be a number of things that cause the problems:

• You're using 192 kbps CBR. If you must stick pretty rigidly to 192 kbps for some reason, ABR is better quality, use --alt-preset 192 to achieve this, but better still, use Lame --alt-preset standard which is VBR and averages to something like 180-210 kbps over a range of most albums but uses more bits when it needs to and fewer when it doesn't to almost guarantee transparent quality)

• You're running into clipping on the decoder, in which case mp3gain (see my sig) will help avoid this without loss of quality by lowering the volume so it doesn't clip (and allowing you to equalize the volume of all files so they can be shuffle-played comfortably, for example).

• It might also be that you have an old, rather dodgy DAC that distorts badly near full scale, or you're running some amplifier to it's limits and causing clipping or distortion in the analogue domain.

• Also, some modern CDs are mastered near full scale as part of a loudness war, causing distortion, adding harmonics that take more bits to encode properly in MP3 and slightly muffling the sound.

• The other possibility is the placebo effect (which most of us have experienced). If you expect MP3 to have certain types of problems, you might perceive them to be there. If you can test blind - without knowing which is MP3 and which is CD - you might find you can't tell the difference that you were convinced you really heard before. Many of us have been surprised that problems we were sure we could hear vanished when we tried to identify them blind using ABX tools (like WinABX) or ABCHR tools.
Lev
QUOTE
Arf there is this feeling again... wondering how many of my VBR mp3 were encoded with nutball switches like that 

More than half, I reckon.

Why is it people cant trust APS? Why do they feel the urge to muck about with it? Do these people go out and buy a brand new car only to think "Hmmm, I dont trust Renault, I will just go in here and... alter the ignition timing, the valve clearances, the cam timing, the spark plug gap..... oh, hang on... have to get new fuel injectors, dont like the look of these...... etc,..."
Vietwoojagig
QUOTE(Lev @ May 8 2003 - 12:55 AM)
QUOTE
Arf there is this feeling again... wondering how many of my VBR mp3 were encoded with nutball switches like that 

More than half, I reckon.

Why is it people cant trust APS? Why do they feel the urge to muck about with it? Do these people go out and buy a brand new car only to think "Hmmm, I dont trust Renault, I will just go in here and... alter the ignition timing, the valve clearances, the cam timing, the spark plug gap..... oh, hang on... have to get new fuel injectors, dont like the look of these...... etc,..."

Well I can tell you, how I came finally (not directly) to APS and LAME. Maybe other people have similar experiences.
First I read something about EAC in a magazine. The told me to install LAME first, then EAC. OK, done....
The preconfigured switch (APS) produced to big files (I thougth), and so I played a little with the V and q switches to produce files of my desired bitrate (about 175kbit/s). But I was not sure about the quality of thoses files, so I made a littel research in the Internet. After some try's I found --r3mix, and this seem to produce files with my preferred bitrate . And the guy who introduced this settings seems to be confidential.
After some more weeks I found HA and I had to reconsider my decision. OK, now I ripe everything with APS Z, ignoring the fact, that this produces bigger files as desired.

I have to mention one reason, why I tried V and q switches in the first place. Well, the help-file at that days showed me those switches first, the documentation of the presets where not obviously explained.

So, maybe an idea for the next version:

LAME --help
shows help about the presets with warnings, not to use them in conjunction with other switches and with the explanation, that they use interal optimizations, that cannot be simulated with external switches.

LAME --experthelp == LAME --longhelp
with more warnings about some switches (eg. q0 is not better than q2, do not use these switches unless you know what they mean...)

So a newbe will first reach the presets an may have more respect about the switches.
ViPER1313
QUOTE (NIN9 @ May 7 2003 - 02:35 AM)
QUOTE
-q 0 -qval=0 -X 0 --substep 2 --cbr -b 192 --resample 44100 --bitwidth 16 -m s -scale 0.93 -h --nspsytune --ns-bass -8 --athtype 2

this sounds good in my ear

will try the alt-preset -z soon, have to go to work now *g*

can someone give me more info about these switches:

qval=0
-X 0
--substep 2 <----


This command line that you are using that "sounds good in my ear" just shows, very bluntly, that you know little or NOTHING about how to use LAME command line switches. For example:
  • You use both -q 0 and -h in your command line. -h is the same thing as -q 2, so one of the values if overriding the other.
  • --resample 41000 is not needed for bitrates above 96kbps. It is already the default.
  • -m s does NOT increase quality at any bitrate. Even --alt-preset insane uses -m j with --nssafejoint.
  • Your other settings are almost definitely doing more harm than good as well (I have never even used -qval, --substep, -bitwidth, and -X, and I see no reason that you should either.)

Summary: USE --alt-preset standard/extreme/insane command line, and only that command line, with the 3.90.3 build of LAME!!! Don't "question" it. Don't "try" it. USE it if you insist on using MP3.
Garf
QUOTE(Lev @ May 8 2003 - 10:55 AM)
Do these people go out and buy a brand new car only to think "Hmmm, I dont trust Renault, I will just go in here and... alter the ignition timing, the valve clearances, the cam timing, the spark plug gap..... oh, hang on... have to get new fuel injectors, dont like the look of these...... etc,..."

I suppose you were being ironic, but people actually do this.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2009 Invision Power Services, Inc.