Audacity Forum

I agree, the 128kbps CBR setting sounds hollow with a wobbly echo.

If you export as MP3 with the "Standard" pre-set it sounds fine, but I understand that you would like to get sound quality the same as you did with an earlier version at the same bit rate as you used previously (without having to increase the bit rate).

What was the exact version of Lame that worked without the problem at 128kbps?

We need to stop addressing lame as if were one tight, tidy, neat bundle. It's not. This is the instruction page for lame in its native environment...

http://linux.die.net/man/1/lame

So that's, what, fourteen pages of settings and options -- and that's only on my monitor. It should surprise no one if a new version of lame arrived with different settings and assumptions. For the featureless version of lame, somebody went through and chose the least worst options for most users and those became default.

The comments in the above thread were correct that all destructive compressors like this (MPEG4, h.264, MPEG2, MP3, AAC) depend on a perfect perfect show being presented for compression. The tools aren't adaptive. They will not sense that you have a low volume or noisy show and compensate for it. Noise in particular drives them nuts. Constantly changing wide-band noise does not compress and a really good way to destroy your show is to present it as a low volume, hissy production.

I bet if you started out life with a commercially available Music CD (or a clear, quiet live capture) and compressed that, the differences between the two lames would vanish.

If that WAV file was an example of the work you're trying to compress to MP3, then that will be a very difficult battle. If you found a lame that works, it may have been by accident. Worse, the older lame may be considered broken and the newer one is fixed.

Koz

kozikowski wrote:If that WAV file was an example of the work you're trying to compress to MP3, then that will be a very difficult battle. If you found a lame that works, it may have been by accident. Worse, the older lame may be considered broken and the newer one is fixed.

I did think of that, but if the old version can reliably encode at 128kbps in better quality than the new version, then whether it's a fluke, or a result of a programming mistake, or for whatever reason, then the new version must be considered "to have quality issues".

There is a big "IF" in that, which is why I would like to test the old version to see if it really does reliably encode at 128kbps in better quality, or if it just encodes a few specific types of sound in a way that is subjectively better.

From my testing so far (which is far from being comprehensive) it does appear that there is something wrong with the new version when encoding at medium to low bit rates so I don't think it should just be dismissed at this stage.

I'm pretty sure that this is not an Audacity problem as I get the same results with Lame 3.98 it other software. Something that is rather surprising is that I can't find anything on Google about this, so perhaps it is a peculiarity of this audio sample.

Another aspect that drops in here is that CBR is only recommended for usage in streaming situations where the upper bitrate must be strictly enforced. In all other cases the recommendation is to use VBR encoding.

Is ogg vorbis an option? I remember while ago, when there were bandwitdh and harddisk space limitations and 128kbps was the standard for "good quality" mp3, when ogg vorbis came up it would outperform mp3 quality at even slightly lower average bitrates (by then mp3 was cbr and ogg vorbis was vbr, which might have helped...).

Anyway if ogg vorbis is na option give it a try... I believe that at lower bitrates it will probably sound better than mp3...

Udo, are you resampling the MP3s (that is, the sample rate in the track does not match the project rate bottom left of the Audacity window)? What sample rate are people using when they test?

Audacity 1.3.7 and later don't strictly require 3.98, but in practice on Windows and Mac you almost always need a binary built by us (which currently means 3.98).

Steve, are your tests using 3.98.2 or later? We have 3.98.3 for Windows. 3.98.3 has a lot of fixes including for resampling problems, but the Mac installer is still at 3.98.2, while the LAME source is at 3.98.4. Can you try 3.98.3 on Windows, Steve, or are you using 3.98.3 or later on Linux?



Gale

Gale Andrews wrote:Steve, are your tests using 3.98.2

My tests are using 3.98.2
I'll check out 3.98.3 as soon as I get chance to update.

stevethefiddle wrote:

Gale Andrews wrote:Steve, are your tests using 3.98.2

My tests are using 3.98.2
I'll check out 3.98.3 as soon as I get chance to update.

Hi Steve,
Sorry, I was quiet for a while. Strangely enough. I did not receive any emails telling me that the discussion is progressing (what do I have to do to get emails?).

Anyway. I made a typo on the Lame version I am using. It should be read Lame 3.93.1.0. As soon as I use a higher version than Audacity 1.3.7 this lame is not accepted any more, which forces me to use 3.98.2. This is when the bad quality at 128KB CBR starts to occur.

Regards
Udo

kozikowski wrote:We need to stop addressing lame as if were one tight, tidy, neat bundle. It's not. This is the instruction page for lame in its native environment...

So that's, what, fourteen pages of settings and options -- and that's only on my monitor. It should surprise no one if a new version of lame arrived with different settings and assumptions. For the featureless version of lame, somebody went through and chose the least worst options for most users and those became default.
The comments in the above thread were correct that all destructive compressors like this (MPEG4, h.264, MPEG2, MP3, AAC) depend on a perfect perfect show being presented for compression. The tools aren't adaptive. They will not sense that you have a low volume or noisy show and compensate for it. Noise in particular drives them nuts. Constantly changing wide-band noise does not compress and a really good way to destroy your show is to present it as a low volume, hissy production.
I bet if you started out life with a commercially available Music CD (or a clear, quiet live capture) and compressed that, the differences between the two lames would vanish.
If that WAV file was an example of the work you're trying to compress to MP3, then that will be a very difficult battle. If you found a lame that works, it may have been by accident. Worse, the older lame may be considered broken and the newer one is fixed.
Koz

Hi Koz,
Nice justification; but I am using the bit of piano sound to show the difference of the quality with the 3.93.1.0 vs 3.98. I have got a number of properly leveled recordings (without the hiss) from our band, which are so badly distorted because if this issue. However, harder to distinguish when you compare (because of the complexity of several instruments overlaying). Sure I could just go up to 256KBS or more, but that would just cover up the original problem (and uses twice as much space).
I think it should be addressed as an issue. I am staying at the moment with Audacity 1.3.6 that accepts the 3.93.1 Lame. If you allow in the newer versions of Audacity the old Lame version, this may be a solution for the time being.
Regards
Udo

Udo

Udo wrote:I did not receive any emails telling me that the discussion is progressing (what do I have to do to get emails?).

At the bottom of this page click the link that says "Subscribe topic".

If you want to subscribe a topic when you post you can check the "Notify me when a reply is posted" option below the typing text box. If you want that option to be selected by default whenever you reply to a topic go to your User Control Panel (you always have this link at the top of all pages on the forum) and click on the "Board Preferences" tab and on the left menu click "Edit posting defaults" and finally select "Yes" for "Notify me upon replies by default".

bgravato wrote:

Udo wrote:I did not receive any emails telling me that the discussion is progressing (what do I have to do to get emails?).

At the bottom of this page click the link that says "Subscribe topic".

If you want to subscribe a topic when you post you can check the "Notify me when a reply is posted" option below the typing text box. If you want that option to be selected by default whenever you reply to a topic go to your User Control Panel (you always have this link at the top of all pages on the forum) and click on the "Board Preferences" tab and on the left menu click "Edit posting defaults" and finally select "Yes" for "Notify me upon replies by default".

Thank you.
I did have subscribe topic "on". You mai is the first that came through since I have not heard anything. It should send an email whenever someone adds a posting right? Or do you have to address someone?
Rgds
Udo