Optimal Lame lower bitrate settings?

Topic: Optimal Lame lower bitrate settings? (Read 4298 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Optimal Lame lower bitrate settings?

2003-02-25 21:22:01

Can anyone tell me how to set up commands for Lame in EAC that will produce an MP3 with the highest quality MP3 and the smallest file size? I'm thinking of something that might come the closest to approaching Ogg's files that average about 64kbps.

Reviewing the old --r3mix optimized commands:

"--nspsytune --vbr-mtrh -V1 -mj -h -b96 --lowpass 19.5 --athtype 3 --ns-sfb21 2 -Z --scale 0.98 -X0"

I'm wondering if these can be tweaked to accomplish what I'm asking. I'm not that familiar with these commands at all, so I'm not quite sure where to start.

But looking over the info at r3mix.net, it would seem that as they're set above, these qualities all seem they could be used as a foundation to achieve what I’m seeking: psycho acoustic mode [--nspsytune], vbr mode [--vbr-mtrh], joint stereo [-mj], high quality [-h], lowpass, ath type, load distorion [--ns..], pumping switch [-Z], scale, and X disabling switch.

The one switch I wonder about is vbr mode [--vbr-mtrh], and whether this forces a higher bitrate than I’m looking for.

But would it be possible to retain some or all of those switches, and then tweak a few other things like VBR quality [-V], minimal frame size [-b], switches I'm not aware of, or modifications to existing ones to create small files of about 64kbps?

Or am I way off here? Is what I'm proposing not possible with this switch set, or some components?

Thanks,

Shel

Optimal Lame lower bitrate settings?

Reply #1 – 2003-02-25 21:25:00

i think for 64k and below FHG is still the best you can chose with mp3

Optimal Lame lower bitrate settings?

Reply #2 – 2003-02-25 22:12:02

Make that 112kbps or below

Forget those long and obsolete command lines, the only worth parameters in lame are:

Code: [Select]

alt- presets highly tuned for utmost quality via blind listening tests:
  VBR presets for steady quality
    --alt-preset standard
    --alt-preset extreme
    --alt-preset insane
  ABR presets for best quality at a given average bitrate:
    --alt-preset <bitrate value>

Something like: --alt-preset 128 could do.

Otherwise forget lame, or use half sampling rates (such as 16/22.5/24Khz) because at 64kbps... only FHG could barely do.

Of course, the rational choice would be to go with Ogg Vorbis. Good thing we will finally have Ogg Vorbis flash hardware to play with...

Optimal Lame lower bitrate settings?

Reply #3 – 2003-02-25 22:17:17

Quote

Reviewing the old --r3mix optimized commands:

"--nspsytune --vbr-mtrh -V1 -mj -h -b96 --lowpass 19.5 --athtype 3 --ns-sfb21 2 -Z --scale 0.98 -X0"

I'm wondering if these can be tweaked to accomplish what I'm asking. I'm not that familiar with these commands at all, so I'm not quite sure where to start.

-r3mix optimized? ¬¬ . Forget that r3mix crap. NOW!!!.

Good quality at low bitrates is not possible... Stick to --alt-preset standard if you want a good quality-size tradeoff.
No more newbie commandline tweakings please...if what you want is to tweak, use then the "CD quality" ultimate commandline... .

Here you have it, the "warm fuzzy" audiophile command with double intensity underwater Bubblebath©®™ II.1 sound shaping!

-V0 --preset radio --alt-preset insane -k -q9 -b256 -B256 --resample 48 --interch 1 -md -p --noshort --allshort --notemp --nores --strictly-enforce-ISO --nspsytune --athlower -56 --ns-bass 2 --ns-alto 12 --ns-treble 9

NOTE: Don't use that regurarly. It would remove protagonism to FLAC or Monkey's Audio then .

Optimal Lame lower bitrate settings?

Reply #4 – 2003-02-25 22:19:59

That command's quality is what you will end up finding if you start tweaking too much...

Optimal Lame lower bitrate settings?

Reply #5 – 2003-02-26 00:26:35

Syleth, seems you don't like compression... so check this website !

Stay LAME®

Note: trasparency is not a so difficult job !

Optimal Lame lower bitrate settings?

Reply #6 – 2003-02-26 01:14:15

If you want to use LAME at 64kbps, you are going to need to use mono.

Optimal Lame lower bitrate settings?

Reply #7 – 2003-02-26 02:10:01

Mono and a lower sampling rate. Perhaps 32khz? Substep could be useful but not available other than alphas.

If it wasn't mono interchannel masking could be tried.

Edit: I got the best preformance from -mm --resample 32 -b64 with 3.94a11 It automatically puts in a 15.5 lowpass. Any extra tweaking really just messed it up, kinda surprising.

The old adage applies, if it ain't broke don't fix it.

Optimal Lame lower bitrate settings?

Reply #8 – 2003-02-26 04:51:49

It would seem that soul sure wouldn't go starving for feedback in the Hydrogen forums! Maybe I ought to re-phrase just what I'm after here.

First... I need to make MP3 files for a portable MP3 player. Ogg or other file types won't work.

So what I'm looking for is suggestions on just how I might go about getting about the same audio quality out of an stereo MP3 file as I can get out of and Ogg file at: -q 0 -This with the smallest file sizes as possible.

Or is Ogg so far ahead of the pack at making small files with that amount of audio quality that no other encoder can touch it?

Quote

Here you have it, the "warm fuzzy" audiophile command with double intensity underwater Bubblebath©®™ II.1 sound shaping!

-V0 --preset radio --alt-preset insane -k -q9 -b256 -B256 --resample 48 --interch 1 -md -p --noshort --allshort --notemp --nores --strictly-enforce-ISO --nspsytune --athlower -56 --ns-bass 2 --ns-alto 12 --ns-treble 9

As the obvious newbie I am... I'm not sure whether or not to take this seriously. I can confirm the switches, but with --alt-preset insane are the other setting going to end up creating a small file size on the order of Ogg -q 0?

Is he serious folks? I guess all it can do is lock up my system... not that that hasn't happened before.

Quote

Something like: --alt-preset 128 could do.

I'll try it. Will it shrink the file size below the standard 128kbit VBR compression?

Quote

Otherwise forget lame, or use half sampling rates (such as 16/22.5/24Khz)

Okay... I'll experiment a bit

Quote

because at 64kbps... only FHG could barely do

Any suggestions for a set of switches for Fraunhofer? Just 64kbps VBR?

Thanx,

Shel

Optimal Lame lower bitrate settings?

Reply #9 – 2003-02-26 06:53:15

lame --alt-preset <xxx> will give you a bitrate of <xxx>. What commandline is used exactly you can find somewhere here by searching.

You could start at --alt preset 64, compare the result to Ogg Vorbis and raise the bitrate until it sounds equal to you.

Optimal Lame lower bitrate settings?

Reply #10 – 2003-02-26 08:44:04

Why not trying --preset 64 first?
You might also want to check the wma9/mp3 comparison page on mp3-tech.org

Optimal Lame lower bitrate settings?

Reply #11 – 2003-02-26 13:31:55

Quote

Quote
Here you have it, the "warm fuzzy" audiophile command with double intensity underwater Bubblebath©®™ II.1 sound shaping!

-V0 --preset radio --alt-preset insane -k -q9 -b256 -B256 --resample 48 --interch 1 -md -p --noshort --allshort --notemp --nores --strictly-enforce-ISO --nspsytune --athlower -56 --ns-bass 2 --ns-alto 12 --ns-treble 9

As the obvious newbie I am... I'm not sure whether or not to take this seriously. I can confirm the switches, but with --alt-preset insane are the other setting going to end up creating a small file size on the order of Ogg -q 0?

Is he serious folks? I guess all it can do is lock up my system... not that that hasn't happened before.

Of course it is a joke...how didn't you notice it?
That commandline I posted is also called the "Ultimate Command": the worst encoding parameters at the highest bitrate possible (although I couldn't made it to work above pseudo-VBR (truly CBR) 256kbps nowadays )

I posted that command here - And I'd seriously like you to test it!! - , to show what will be the result of severe commandline tweaking. With any speaker / soundcard you use, no matter how shitty it is you'll notice what a catastrophic quality it produces such a command, the contradictions like "--preset radio --alt-preset insane", and "--noshort but --allshort" commands seem to cause LAME to get out of control and waste EVERY bit randomly ....
the real quality commands are --alt-preset standard, --alt-preset extreme and --alt-preset insane, which are pretty simple and shouldn't be tweaked with any more switches...

Optimal Lame lower bitrate settings?

Reply #12 – 2003-02-26 16:13:44

Quote

Here you have it, the "warm fuzzy" audiophile command with double intensity underwater Bubblebath©®™ II.1 sound shaping!

Of course it is a joke...how didn't you notice it?

That commandline I posted is also called the "Ultimate Command": the worst encoding parameters at the highest bitrate possible (although I couldn't made it to work above pseudo-VBR (truly CBR) 256kbps nowadays

I posted that command here - And I'd seriously like you to test it!! - , to show what will be the result of severe commandline tweaking.

I did in fact have a high probability hunch that it was a joke... but being as new to all of this, I couldn't say so with 99% certainty. And as you point out, it >was< in fact a good test to show just how horrible one can screw up such settings. So I have to thank you there... it was a valuable lessen... and I did quite enjoy my. "double intensity underwater Bubblebath©®™ II.1 sound shaping."

Quote

You could start at --alt preset 64, compare the result to Ogg Vorbis and raise the bitrate until it sounds equal to you.

This ended up being the best suggestion. All of my decent computer and audio equipment isn't available to me right now, and I'm not looking for superior audio quality at this point. So I found that --alt-preset 80 and --alt-prest 96 did a pretty good job at creating MP3s that sound the closest to the Ogg files made at -q 0, at a nominal increase in file size.

Quote

You might also want to check the wma9/mp3 comparison page on mp3-tech.org

In fact, I think this MP3 player does support WMA, but I think it"s limited to a 7.x version of it or before. But it might be worth checking into.

Thanx,

Shel

Optimal Lame lower bitrate settings?

Reply #13 – 2003-02-26 20:05:40

Code: [Select]

-V0 --preset radio --alt-preset insane -k -q9 -b256 -B256 --resample 48 --interch 1 -md -p --noshort --allshort --notemp --nores --strictly-enforce-ISO --nspsytune --athlower -56 --ns-bass 2 --ns-alto 12 --ns-treble 9

Just for fun, I tried it in RazorLame, and it didn't work....

Optimal Lame lower bitrate settings?

Reply #14 – 2003-02-26 21:13:39

Quote

So I found that --alt-preset 80 and --alt-prest 96 did a pretty good job at creating MP3s that sound the closest to the Ogg files made at -q 0, at a nominal increase in file size.

When I did some comparisons at low bitrates a few months ago, I also found that LAME --alt-preset 96 produced a sound that was more or less competitive to other codecs at the same bitrate. But going below that limit made things worse very fast in my opinion. By the way, I would not recommend Ogg Vorbis at 64 kbps as a reference sound, but if you like it, then go ahead...

Quote

In fact, I think this MP3 player does support WMA, but I think it"s limited to a 7.x version of it or before. But it might be worth checking into.

WMA9 is one of the best sounding codecs at 64 kbps in my opinion, and if you're sure that your portable can decode WMA, then you should definitely give WMA9 (not 8 or 7) a try. See also http://www.audiocoding.com/wiki/index.php?=wma for some infos and a link to a comprehensive EBU document about WMA9. It also states that the decoding part of WMA has been "frozen" since 4 years now, so if you don't use the new options (Pro and lossless), the portable should play WMA9 files, both CBR and VBR.

Optimal Lame lower bitrate settings?

Reply #15 – 2003-02-27 08:13:02

Quote

Code: [Select]

-V0 --preset radio --alt-preset insane -k -q9 -b256 -B256 --resample 48 --interch 1 -md -p --noshort --allshort --notemp --nores --strictly-enforce-ISO --nspsytune --athlower -56 --ns-bass 2 --ns-alto 12 --ns-treble 9

Just for fun, I tried it in RazorLame, and it didn't work....

If you have EAC, it worked to rip a CD track for me. It really gives you a good idea about just how well distorting artifacts can be produced.

S.

Optimal Lame lower bitrate settings?

Reply #16 – 2003-02-27 08:30:25

Quote

When I did some comparisons at low bitrates a few months ago, I also found that LAME --alt-preset 96 produced a sound that was more or less competitive to other codecs at the same bitrate. But going below that limit made things worse very fast in my opinion.

Okay... thanks for the tip

Quote

By the way, I would not recommend Ogg Vorbis at 64 kbps as a reference sound, but if you like it, then go ahead...

Heh... I was only using it as a reference for the smallest file size Ogg could produce, and how the quality of it compared with the size of MP3s that came the closest to it in size. From there I'll walk my way up and see what the different grades of compression sound like. This basically to be able to suggest encoders and settings for people who have varying demands and tastes for what they'd like in terms of quality and file size for use on portable MP3 players with limited amounts of memory storage.

Quote

WMA9 is one of the best sounding codecs at 64 kbps in my opinion, and if you're sure that your portable can decode WMA, then you should definitely give WMA9 (not 8 or 7) a try. See also http://www.audiocoding.com/wiki/index.php?=wma for some infos and a link to a comprehensive EBU document about WMA9.

Great... thanks again for the tip. I need to start learning more about what the people at MS are up to. They >are< a bit competitive over there.

Quote

It also states that the decoding part of WMA has been "frozen" since 4 years now, so if you don't use the new options (Pro and lossless), the portable should play WMA9 files, both CBR and VBR.

Okay.. that's really good to know.

Bueno!

Shel

Optimal Lame lower bitrate settings?

Reply #17 – 2003-02-27 09:31:18

Quote

Quote
By the way, I would not recommend Ogg Vorbis at 64 kbps as a reference sound, but if you like it, then go ahead...

Heh... I was only using it as a reference for the smallest file size Ogg could produce, and how the quality of it compared with the size of MP3s that came the closest to it in size.

OK, but there are other new codecs that sound better than Ogg Vorbis at 64 kbps in my opinion, so you would not get the "whole picture" of what is possible today. If you try out WMA9 and also mp3PRO, you'll see (or hear) what I mean. By the way, a free encoder/decoder for mp3PRO is available at http://www.mp3prozone.com that is fixed to a CBR of 64 kbps for encodings. I'm using it at the moment for demo tapes uploads to my homepage, so it can't be that bad...

Quote

From there I'll walk my way up and see what the different grades of compression sound like. This basically to be able to suggest encoders and settings for people who have varying demands and tastes for what they'd like in terms of quality and file size for use on portable MP3 players with limited amounts of memory storage.

That's a good idea, but an important question should always be if someone already owns a MP3 portable with no other available formats or if he plans to buy a new one. Then the answers would differ of course, since there are also AAC and mp3PRO portables from Philips (and others) or even an Ogg Vorbis compatible player soon.

Notice