Talk:LAME: Difference between revisions
(The article would benefit from having an explanation of how LAME defines and measures 'quality') |
m (→Define quality: minor edits to previous) |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
Much is made of LAME's "quality" settings, but this term is not really defined. I believe the main definition of quality is inverse of quantization noise (more noise = lower quality). Are there other factors? And it'd be worth remarking on how higher quality is often achieved: by using higher bitrates, using different psychoacoustic models, or simply chopping off the high end. | Much is made of LAME's "quality" settings, but this term is not really defined. I believe the main definition of quality is inverse of quantization noise (more noise = lower quality). Are there other factors? And it'd be worth remarking on how higher quality is often achieved: by using higher bitrates, using different psychoacoustic models, or simply chopping off the high end. | ||
There is also no mention of the tuning that has been done for LAME's presets and default settings at certain bitrates. Much attention has been given to optimizing VBR, ABR, and the common (128 kbps and up) bitrates, but not so much for the CBR lower bitrates. For example, a certain other codec's default setting for 96 kbps CBR stereo output uses about an 11 kHz lowpass filter on the input, as compared to LAME which defaults to about a 12.5 kHz filter. LAME allows for more high end in the audio, but encodes it with more noise (bleepy artifacts), too. For some, it's an even trade, and LAME's definition of "quality" is equivalent to that of the other encoder. But for others, one encoder or the other produces qualitatively inferior output. | There is also no mention of the tuning that has been done for LAME's presets and default settings at certain bitrates. Much attention has been given to optimizing VBR, ABR, and the common (128 kbps and up) bitrates, but not so much for the CBR lower bitrates. For example, as I mentioned at the bottom of the [[CBR]] article, a certain other codec's default setting for 96 kbps CBR stereo output uses about an 11.5 kHz lowpass filter on the input, as compared to LAME which defaults to about a 12.5 kHz filter. LAME allows for more high end in the audio, but encodes it with more noise (bleepy artifacts), too. For some, it's an even trade, and LAME's definition of "quality" is equivalent to that of the other encoder. But for others, one encoder or the other produces qualitatively inferior output. In other words, each encoder has its own definition of ''measurable'' quality, and its own standard of quality for its presets, and each listener has his/her own subjective tolerances and criteria for ''perceived'' quality. So this is why I'd like to see an explanation of exactly which factors are used in LAME's quality settings. -- [[User:Mjb|Mjb]] 04:10, 19 January 2008 (CST) | ||
Revision as of 10:19, 19 January 2008
|
This is the talk page for discussing changes to the LAME article. | |
|---|---|
| |
.png){kind=small}
Page discussion
I propose a major merging with this page. I don't think information about lame should be scattered all over the wiki. I'll think about it this evening and after the merge I'll add a redirect from all Lame related pages to this one.--Beto 15:51, 13 September 2006 (CDT)
Finally I ended the revision :)--Beto 19:14, 14 September 2006 (CDT)
LAME compiles Win32
http://rarewares.org/dancer/dancer.php?f=1 is linked at this Wiki page. But at http://rarewares.org/mp3.html I can only find http://rarewares.org/dancer/dancer.php?f=107 The two archives contain different lame.exe and lame_enc.dll. Why is that? Here's another compile: http://mitiok.maresweb.org/ This is confusing! --Pohli 13:16, 27 September 2006 (CDT)
- IMO we should not give direct link to the downloader; everytime a new build is outed, the direct link becomes outdated. Better to link only to Rareware's MP3 page. --pepoluan (talk | contribs) 13:46, 27 September 2006 (CDT)
- Agree. If noone oposes we should make the change.--Beto (talk | contribs) 15:48, 27 September 2006 (CDT)
- PLUS, LAME binaries are illegal in many countries. It's easy to use google. Elliottmobilehttp://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/images/c/c1/Fishysig.PNG 02:10, 28 September 2006 (CDT)
Define quality
Much is made of LAME's "quality" settings, but this term is not really defined. I believe the main definition of quality is inverse of quantization noise (more noise = lower quality). Are there other factors? And it'd be worth remarking on how higher quality is often achieved: by using higher bitrates, using different psychoacoustic models, or simply chopping off the high end.
There is also no mention of the tuning that has been done for LAME's presets and default settings at certain bitrates. Much attention has been given to optimizing VBR, ABR, and the common (128 kbps and up) bitrates, but not so much for the CBR lower bitrates. For example, as I mentioned at the bottom of the CBR article, a certain other codec's default setting for 96 kbps CBR stereo output uses about an 11.5 kHz lowpass filter on the input, as compared to LAME which defaults to about a 12.5 kHz filter. LAME allows for more high end in the audio, but encodes it with more noise (bleepy artifacts), too. For some, it's an even trade, and LAME's definition of "quality" is equivalent to that of the other encoder. But for others, one encoder or the other produces qualitatively inferior output. In other words, each encoder has its own definition of measurable quality, and its own standard of quality for its presets, and each listener has his/her own subjective tolerances and criteria for perceived quality. So this is why I'd like to see an explanation of exactly which factors are used in LAME's quality settings. -- Mjb 04:10, 19 January 2008 (CST)