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: V2 vs V0 (Read 37847 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

V2 vs V0

Reply #25 –
If I were going to raise the quality from V2, I would use ABR 240/250 or something instead of using V0 (see halb27's threads and one about LAME 3.98a10/11). ABR appears to have better results than VBR at high bitrates.

V2 vs V0

Reply #26 –
One further thought on choosing amount of compression for portables.

Battery life depends largely on amount of hard disc activity.  The hard drive activity depends on how fast you drain the audio cache.  So larger files will drain your battery faster.  (Thirty minutes of WAV files is a lot more disc action than thirty minutes of -V2 mp3 files.)  I'm guessing that battery hours might be inversely proportional to file size.  However, I am no expert on this, and I have not even run experiments with it yet. 

Perhaps others have some direct experience with this, and would like to share it.

I just received an 80G iPod as a gift, and I could easily fit my entire collection on it as WAVs.  But I fear this would run the daylights out of the hard disc.  Encoding at -V0 really squashes size down.  Going to -V2 is a little bit better, but not really substantial.  So, from a battery-life standpoint, I could go with either -V0 or -V2, with probably little difference.

Any thoughts?

V2 vs V0

Reply #27 –
Quote from: Iggy64 on
I just received an 80G iPod as a gift, and I could easily fit my entire collection on it as WAVs.  But I fear this would run the daylights out of the hard disc.  Encoding at -V0 really squashes size down.  Going to -V2 is a little bit better, but not really substantial.  So, from a battery-life standpoint, I could go with either -V0 or -V2, with probably little difference.


How about Apple Lossless as a compromise - all the quality of WAV, 1/2 the size.

One really big iPod battery drain on the hard disk models is shuffle - jumping around on the disk and flushing/refilling the look ahead cache. Playing straight through contiguous sectors (an album) seems to use far less battery.
EAC secure | FLAC  --best -V -b 4096 | LAME 3.97 -V0 -q0 -b32

V2 vs V0

Reply #28 –
Quote from: Iggy64 on
Battery life depends largely on amount of hard disc activity.  The hard drive activity depends on how fast you drain the audio cache.  So larger files will drain your battery faster.  (Thirty minutes of WAV files is a lot more disc action than thirty minutes of -V2 mp3 files.)  I'm guessing that battery hours might be inversely proportional to file size.  However, I am no expert on this, and I have not even run experiments with it yet.

I'm not sure this is true.  MP3 and other compressed formats (both lossy & lossless) must be decoded to PCM for playback, whereas WAV is simply a container for PCM and thus requires no decoding.  I might be wrong here, but I think that the resources used for decoding would have a greater effect on battery life than hard drive activity.

I do agree (and recall reading here at HA) that, when comparing compressed files of the same format, higher bitrates will drain battery life faster than lower ones.

Lastly, I'd just like to voice my opinion that using uncompressed WAV, lossless, or even LAME -V0 on a portable is a plain silly waste of space. 

V2 vs V0

Reply #29 –
The resources required by spinning the drive is a lot higher than the resources required by decoding. That's why iPods have 32/64MB buffers, and why they say that if you skip tracks a lot, you'll greatly reduce the effective battery life.
 

V2 vs V0

Reply #30 –
Quote from: Diow on
Quote from: Jebus on

Generally speaking its overkill. Actually I don't know if anyone has found a sample that is transparent at -V0 but NOT at -V2.


Well I have a lot of samples what I can feel the diference with -V2 and not with -V0.
Songnames:Angra - Spread your fire [begining when the drums come at the the music, there is a lot of pre-echo with V2]
                  Savatage - Visions [ in the this track i can ABX'ing easily all this at V2 and hardly\not can't tell the diference at V0]
                  Queen - I'm Going Slightly Mad [an strange sound at about 20 seconds]
                  Iron Maiden - Purgatory [the guitar's sound at begining before the first beat of drums, the diference is more annoying in the right channel, at V0 all the diferences gone]
                and more.....


Pleeeeeeeeeeease, upload that clips!!!

V2 vs V0

Reply #31 –
Quote from: UrbanVoyeur on
Playing straight through contiguous sectors (an album) seems to use far less battery.

Assuming your album tracks are on contiguous sectors.

What happens when you take albums off and put different albums on, do all the tracks stay contiguous?

V2 vs V0

Reply #32 –
The iPod might be smart and might preload related tracks into the cache regardless of location on the HDD. (I don't actually know, I'm venturing a guess)

V2 vs V0

Reply #33 –
This is almost off topic.. I did som ripping last year and I tried to find the best setting qual/size V0 and V2 compared and I used the -verbose var. and saw the following:
Code: [Select]
                V 8    V 5    V 4    V 3    V 2    V 1    V 0        

type                 4    4    4    4    4    4    4
shape                 10    4    3.5    3    2    1.5    1
adjust type             3    3    3    3    3    3    3
adapt threshhold type         2    2    2    2    2    2    2


And when you read the docs it states that shape 2 is well enough for human ears and that shape 1 was overkill.. But still.. I chose V0.. : )

Edit: I cant seem to get the tabs work properply..

V2 vs V0

Reply #34 –
Quote from: greynol on
Quote from: UrbanVoyeur on
Playing straight through contiguous sectors (an album) seems to use far less battery.

Assuming your album tracks are on contiguous sectors.

What happens when you take albums off and put different albums on, do all the tracks stay contiguous?


The iPod gets fragmented - like most disks and it takes more work to get the next track. As someone else pointed out, skipping tracks is also very costly because it keeps the disk spinning.
EAC secure | FLAC  --best -V -b 4096 | LAME 3.97 -V0 -q0 -b32