#384 low birate compression is better with 3.96

Quality
open
Libraries (86)
6
2011-03-05
2010-10-09
tiger man
No

Hi, i\'m compressing some wavs for a website at 64 kbps and i\'ve just discovered that from lame 3.97 and following compression is worst than 3.96.1
I\'ve attached two mp3, you can clearly hear it on the kick drum, with 3.96 is equal every shot while with 3.98 it changes overtime and it addsl also a little distortion sometimes.
Hope this helps, in the meantime i keep using 3.96.1.
command line is --cbr -q 0 -b 64
thanks for reading.

Discussion

1 2 > >> (Page 1 of 2)
  • tiger man
    tiger man
    2010-10-09

    compressed with 3.96.1

     
    Attachments
  • tiger man
    tiger man
    2010-10-09

    compressed with 3.98.4

     
    Attachments
  • tiger man
    tiger man
    2010-10-09

    • summary: low quality compression is better with 3.96 --> low birate compression is better with 3.96
     
    • labels: --> Libraries
    • milestone: --> Quality
    • priority: 5 --> 6
     
  • Would it be possible to upload the corresponding uncompressed wave file?
    Else, as current CVS has some fix for some other CBR related report, could you try latest 3.99 alpha 14?

     
    • assigned_to: nobody --> robert
     
  • tiger man
    tiger man
    2011-03-11

    Hi, here's the wav, can't upload here because of file size sorry:

    http://rapidshare.com/files/452074419/slice.wav

    I've tried with 3.99 alpha14, in this case it looks much better than previous versions but 3.96 is still better, on this file is barely noticeable but please try this second wav, is the same track but in another point:

    http://rapidshare.com/files/452074437/slice2.wav

    i've tried with 3.96, 3.98.4 and 3.99 alpha14 (all x86) using this command line

    lame.exe --cbr -q 0 -m s -b 80 *.wav

    3.96.1 - no noticeable issues
    3.98.4 - similar to 3.96 but it's less precise and sometimes it loses some high frequencies and gives an effect like a little saturation or "underwater"
    3.99 a14 - probably the worst one, it lose a lot of high frequencies compared to 3.96 and it seems the "underwater" effect is constantly active.

    i've tried compressing at 64kbps with 3.96 and it looks like it's better than 3.99a14 at 80kbps, it has less high frequencies but it does not have that ugly bubbly effect.

    maybe i'm missing something on the command line ?
    Hope this helps and thanks for getting into it

     
  • tiger man
    tiger man
    2011-07-20

    lame 3.96.1 --cbr -b 80 -q 0 -k

     
  • tiger man
    tiger man
    2011-07-20

    lame 3.98.3 --cbr -b 80 -q 0 --highpass 0.01 --lowpass 21.00

     
  • tiger man
    tiger man
    2011-07-20

    high quality vbr, decode to wav for testing

     
1 2 > >> (Page 1 of 2)