Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Using -h with ABR/CBR 3.97b1 (Read 4086 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Using -h with ABR/CBR 3.97b1

Scince I started ripping to WavPack lossless, I've gotten more interested in getting the most out of mid-bitrate mp3, so I started messing around with --abr at around 150 to 175kbps and also -b 160, and noticed that adding -h to the command line gives some rather nice quality improvements compared to the same settings w/o -h, but is this option safe to use? am I in risk of some bad artifacting?

Also I noticed that adding -h to --abr at around 160kbps lowers the resulting bitrate as opposed to the same setting w/o -h, is this normal?
we was young an' full of beans

Using -h with ABR/CBR 3.97b1

Reply #1 –
Quote
and noticed that adding -h to the command line gives some rather nice quality improvements compared to the same settings w/o -h,
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=333677"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

What improvements? Can you upload some samples which demonstrate this? It would be very useful because many people keep asking about the -q modes but there has not yet been hard evidence that shows that lower -q values actually improve quality.
Proverb for Paranoids: "If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers."
-T. Pynchon (Gravity's Rainbow)

Using -h with ABR/CBR 3.97b1

Reply #2 –
Quote
Quote
and noticed that adding -h to the command line gives some rather nice quality improvements compared to the same settings w/o -h,
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

What improvements? Can you upload some samples which demonstrate this? It would be very useful because many people keep asking about the -q modes but there has not yet been hard evidence that shows that lower -q values actually improve quality.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=333759"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Here's a [a href="http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=37002&view=findpost&p=326235]sample[/url] that demonstrates just the opposite: -h decreasing quality.  I tried pointing this out in another thread, but nobody responded to it, so I'll try again here, seeing as the -h switch is the main subject.

Try encoding the above sample with 3.97b1 at cbr/abr 128 and 160, with and without the -h switch - adding it doesn't make things better (on the first part of the sample, in particular...I can't hear any significant difference in the second part).  Of course, this is only one sample, hardly conclusive, etc., etc., but it is interesting (especially since 3.96.1 and 3.90.3 don't have this issue).
"Not sure what the question is, but the answer is probably no."

Using -h with ABR/CBR 3.97b1

Reply #3 –
I've uploaded one of the samples that demonstrates the quality differences quite nicely, if you can try it with the same settings i used and some of your own, that would be great.
we was young an' full of beans

Using -h with ABR/CBR 3.97b1

Reply #4 –
I was under the impression that -h was the default in previous LAME versions. Is this in fact not true?

Using -h with ABR/CBR 3.97b1

Reply #5 –
Quote
I've uploaded one of the samples that demonstrates the quality differences quite nicely, if you can try it with the same settings i used and some of your own, that would be great.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=333850"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Hmm, for some reason that clip instantly brings to mind the "Worst mastered CD" thread...anyway, I could hear no difference whatsoever between any of the four LAME settings you suggested (I couldn't even ABX cbr 128), and I did try, although listening to more than a few seconds of this clip was a struggle for me.
"Not sure what the question is, but the answer is probably no."

Using -h with ABR/CBR 3.97b1

Reply #6 –
Quote
Hmm, for some reason that clip instantly brings to mind the "Worst mastered CD" thread...anyway, I could hear no difference whatsoever between any of the four LAME settings you suggested (I couldn't even ABX cbr 128), and I did try, although listening to more than a few seconds of this clip was a struggle for me.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=334076"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I also can't hear any differences for -b 160 vs. -b 160 -h
However, using Encspot pro, I can see that there are differences in the files, the main ones are:
-b 160 -h makes more use of the bit reservoir (= has bigger average reservoir) and it also uses Scalefac a lot more (34.6%) than plain -b 160 (6.5%).
Maybe you can tell us for what to listen WRT to the difference between -h and no -h in this clip?
Proverb for Paranoids: "If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers."
-T. Pynchon (Gravity's Rainbow)

Using -h with ABR/CBR 3.97b1

Reply #7 –
Well, I notice a difference in the cymbal hits throughout the clip, listen for that. I know it's not the best mastering, but it's one of the files that gets the largest bitrate on any VBR mode I use on it.

This is only one sample, the differences are probably minor on most samples, but the encoding time for -h is slower. And also, the encodes I did with -h seem to enforce the 16kHz lowpass more than not using -h at the bitrates i mentioned.
we was young an' full of beans
 

Using -h with ABR/CBR 3.97b1

Reply #8 –
After testing ten samples (excluding the one I uploaded) with:

-b 160 with and w/o -h
--abr 160 with and w/o -h
-V3
-V3 --vbr-new

I can say I can't hear a difference between any encodes done with -b 160, -b 160 -h, --abr 160 and --abr 160 -h, probably because the --abr 160 encodes rarely go above 160kbps, most samples done with --abr 160 ended up in the ~150kbps range and viewing the bitrate fluctuation in foobar confirms this.

I did get better results for my music using -V3 --vbr-new, with most samples ending up in the ~145 to ~ 175kbps range. I also cannot distinguish -V3 from -V3 --vbr-new and vice-versa.
we was young an' full of beans