LAME: -V 2 vs. -V 0

The -V 2 and -V 0 presets are popular options when encoding MP3s with LAME 3.97. They replaced '--alt-preset standard' (APS) and '--alt-preset extreme' (APX) respectively, which were used with the earlier versions of LAME.

A few years ago, many people where using APS, notably including #gamemp3s. When v.3.97 was introduced, it seems most of the 'standard' users switched to 'extreme'; some of them instantly, some of them gradually.

A reason why 'standard' was being used instead of the what seemed to be better 'extreme' is because test results show that it is transparent, which means that the majority of people can't discern quality differences between the MP3 and the uncompressed source. Being that the resulting files are smaller than those created with 'extreme', this would then be an advantage because the same sound quality can be stored with less disk space requirement, so less wasted bytes.

Personally, I'm still using -V 2. I can't notice any audible differences between it and -V 0. Plus, I see MP3 as an handy format, meaning that it should be at the best quality while being at the smallest filesize. If I want the best quality only (including the data I can't hear), then I'd use a better-suited codec, like FLAC for example. However, seeing that practically everyone around are now using -V 0, I'm wondering if I missed something that would change my mind about it.

For those who use -V 0, why are you choosing it over -V 2? Do you actually hear any improvement?

For those sticking with -V 2, why aren't you following this new trend?

Also, if anyone have test results which would prove that people can actually discern the audible quality of -V 2 and -V 0, this would be interesting to see.

VBR V0 maxes out what MP3 can give you. Also V0 is a very tuned compression option, so I use V0 whenever I have to encode something with LAME.
However most of the time I choose FLAC for lossless compression and Ogg Vorbis or AAC for lossy compression. Vorbis and AAC are just superior, because they're based on newer and better coding techniques.

The thing I don't quite understand is why so many people keep encoding with CBR 320. Doesn't make any sense to me when you get the same with fewer bits using VBR V0.

-V 0 sure has more potential to max out the result, yet 320 CBR would be even better in that case as it's the absolute best possible result for MP3. Going with the logic that -V 0 would be a better choice since you get the same audible quality while reducing the filesize, why wouldn't -V 2 be an even better choice if the huge majority of people couldn't hear any differences compared to -V 0? For the moment, I see the 320 vs. -V 0 usage to be quite similar to -V 0 vs. -V 2 and I'm under the impression many people chose an overkill setting just to feel more secure while not actually noticing any differences.

I'd go all the way with Vorbis if it wasn't for the fact that it is still less widely supported than MP3.

There is some music that, for whatever reason, does not sound right when ripped to -V 2. I've found it gives some songs a hollow tone. A lot of -V 2 rips sound just fine, but -V 0 rips always sound great. There's barely any increase in file size, so I'm not sure why anyone would prefer -V 2.

Do you have any examples?

Well, there's around a 25% increase in filesize. If someone has only 2 or 3 songs on his computer or portable MP3 player, this is indeed not quite noticeable, yet when someone has 100 GB of music (or more!), then it starts to get quite noticeable. Sure, storage devices cost a lot less today, yet is this really a reason for wasting space by using settings which don't produce any audible improvements?

As written on the poster in Mulder's office in the X-Files: "I want to believe," yet I need some proofs that -V 0 is really worth the 25% increase in filesize.

Here's a track ripped in -V 2.

click

You can hear the static around the edges of the bass.

Originally Posted by LiquidAcid

The thing I don't quite understand is why so many people keep encoding with CBR 320. Doesn't make any sense to me when you get the same with fewer bits using VBR V0.

It's because people on Soulseek tend to rip all of their film score CDs in 320, as they think it's the 'best' quality. Just ask anybody about VBR over at the soundtrack blog sites. Nobody would have a damn clue what VBR is and how it compares to constant bitrate encodes.

Anyhow, I used to rip CDs in -V 2 but I made the switch to -V 0 a few months ago. I wish I could say that I use -V 0 because it produces 'better' sound than -V 2, but I can't, because if I wanted 'better' sound I'd just go for lossless. I'd have to say that whichever preset one uses is based on personal preference. I use -V 0 because I want to listen to the best quality possible, while not wasting bits, in terms of mp3 encoding. Like knkwzrd said, -V 2 may sound different from -V 0 but it happens very rarely. I can discern the difference in quality depending on the preset of a hard rock/heavy metal song, but for music that's more softer-sounding than that, I can't hear anything different from the two presets.

Originally Posted by Rimo

-V 0 sure has more potential to max out the result, yet 320 CBR would be even better in that case as it's the absolute best possible result for MP3.

No, you're wrong here.
"Best" for lossy encodings is determined by perceived audio quality divided by bitstream size.

Letting the encoding engine work with constant bitrate disables all fine-tuned smart algorithms that are used to allocate bits. You're wasting bits in the stream filled with zero information.

The audio data has certain "flaws" when coming out at the end of the transform coding step. The "quantize" process now allocates needed bits for the results from the transform step. This is done the smart way when VBR is enabled, brute-force when constant bitrate is used.

That's like a factory producing objects of different size but only using only package format to ship the objects and filling the rest with padding material. That's not very efficient.

MP3 is not: The more bits you throw at it, the better it gets. Most people think so, but MP3 is already limited by design. And with frame bitrates produced by V0 encodings you're pushing the technology behind MP3 to it's limits.

I think most people here don't know. But MP3 isn't limited to 320kbit/s CBR. You can e.g. tell LAME to produced freeformat bitstreams. There you can push bitrate up to 640kbit/s.
The problem is that the perceived audio quality won't increase. Again because the certain flaws I was speaking of won't go away just by throwing more and more bits at them.
There are some special test signals that are encoded better when the bitrate is that high, but nothing that appears in regular music.

Problem with freeformat streams is that the MP3 standard doesn't say that hardware devices have to be able to play it. The existance is covered by the standard but you can call a device MP3-capable even if freeformat streams are not supported. A reason why they are so rare.
However the very accurate libMAD decoding engine can playback these streams.

Originally Posted by Rimo

Going with the logic that -V 0 would be a better choice since you get the same audible quality while reducing the filesize, why wouldn't -V 2 be an even better choice if the huge majority of people couldn't hear any differences compared to -V 0?

I don't want to answer this question in that form.
You see, I rip all of my discs in FLAC. In case I want to have something on my portable player I can always re-encode the file to a lossy encoding. As the hardware decoder of portables isn't very accurate, the DAC often is crappy and the standard headphones don't reproduce the sound very well - I can even go below V2, e.g. V4 or even lower. I probably won't notice the degraded audio quality at all.
Encoding quality is just good enough to drive this low-end playback chain.

On the other hand when at home and listening to music through my "good" equipment (AKG k701 dyn. headphones, DIY headphone amp and DIY USB-DAC) I'm not that limited and certain flaws (like ringing artifacts when audience is applauding) are now detectable.

Furthermore I get tired when listening to highly compressed (encoded, not the compression as in loudness war - I also get tired of this one) audio. I can listen much longer when playing from the original disc (or a lossless encoding), also it's more relaxing for me.
There is a lot that's destroyed when doing lossy encodings. Stereo imaging, dynamic range, all sorts of artifacts.

I'm not saying that I can always distinguish between a lossy and a lossless encoding. But there are differences, which are annoying when at perceivable level.

Originally Posted by Rimo

For the moment, I see the 320 vs. -V 0 usage to be quite similar to -V 0 vs. -V 2 and I'm under the impression many people chose an overkill setting just to feel more secure while not actually noticing any differences.

See above. I consider CBR deprecated. It should be removed. The only thing why it's still there: old hardware players that have problems with variable bitrates.

Originally Posted by Rimo

I'd go all the way with Vorbis if it wasn't for the fact that it is still less widely supported than MP3.

The fascinating thing is that it's quite easy to implement it on embedded hardware (there is the integer-only imlementation vorbis-tremor, which should work on most ARM processors).
I think it's more a political thing...

Originally Posted by knkwzrd

You can hear the static around the edges of the bass.

I'd be extremely surprised if the fact -V 2 was used is really the reason why there's static in this tune. To me, it sounds more like the track was badly mastered/equalized and it clipped, and then the volume was brought back down, but still showing the damage. I thought the effect of heavy codec compression usually produce a less punchy sound, kind of muted, yet not static noise.

Do you have the same track encoded with -V 0 to compare?

Quote:

I'd have to say that whichever preset one uses is based on personal preference. I use -V 0 because I want to listen to the best quality possible, while not wasting bits, in terms of mp3 encoding.

Indeed. If it was just for my personal listening, I'd stick with -V 2. However, I actually share files I encode myself over the net and am concerned with others' satisfaction. If almost everybody now uses -V 0, I guess there's a good reason behind it and I'd be ready to make the switch as well, yet the reason still seems nebulous. The sound system I use might not be good enough to pick up the quality difference, although it's not a cheap $20 set of PC speakers. The day I'll upgrade it, this might enable me to hear what some claim exists, so I might as well start using -V 0 today. But, what if all of them are wrong and it's only a psychological illusion and an influence of the mass? I wouldn't want to encourage this.

I should add that there is some tool around (python based I think, search hydrogen audio forums for it) that can transcode VBR to CBR and vice versa.

VBR to CBR is easy, just use the biggest package format ever used in the bitstream (see the factory example above). The other way is a bit more complicated, I think the author has some information about it in the thread. Sourcecode is also open AFAIK.

I don't have the same track encoded with -V 0, but I have listened to the same album on CD, and the sound is flawless. It's not the mastering.

Originally Posted by LiquidAcid

"Best" for lossy encodings is determined by perceived audio quality divided by bitstream size.

...

MP3 is already limited by design. And with frame bitrates produced by V0 encodings you're pushing the technology behind MP3 to it's limits.

I agree with this definition of "best". It is also a fact that MP3 is not the best codec around. Yet, is -V 0 really achieving the "best" result for this codec or wouldn't it be a little overkill like 320 CBR is to a greater extent, actually going over the limits of MP3 without any significant improvement?

Originally Posted by knkwzrd

I don't have the same track encoded with -V 0, but I have listened to the same album on CD, and the sound is flawless. It's not the mastering.

Hmm, well it's hard to prove -V 2 is really the cause then. There could have been several types of manipulations of the file (gain adjustement, transcoding, etc.) which could have generated this quality loss. The best way to compare the settings is to start from a clean lossless source, then encode it with -V 2 and -V 0 and then listen to them (ideally while doing a blind test).

It's a proper -V 2 rip with log/cue files. I don't see how it can be anything but the encode.

It's not like this is the only track this has ever happened to, either.

Originally Posted by Rimo

I agree with this definition of "best". It is also a fact that MP3 is not the best codec around. Yet, is -V 0 really achieving the "best" result for this codec or wouldn't it be a little overkill like 320 CBR is to a greater extent, actually going over the limits of MP3 without any significant improvement?

If you want to increase efficiency you have to lift the freeformat limitation. Means the standard had to demand freeformat compatibility for all playback devices. That's not going to happen.
This way you're limited to a maximum frame bitrate of 320kbit/s when VBR V0-encoding, IF that amount of bits is really needed to encode the informaton.

You see, VBR V0 is the end of MP3. You can't get more quality without rewriting the standard. At that's not going to happen.

Originally Posted by knkwzrd

It's a proper -V 2 rip with log/cue files. I don't see how it can be anything but the encode.

It's not like this is the only track this has ever happened to, either.

Not that I don't want to believe you, but to be certain, I'd need to start from the same source and then compare the two encodes produced. If I'd hear static in one and not the other, then this would be a sufficient proof.

Originally Posted by LiquidAcid

If you want to increase efficiency you have to lift the freeformat limitation. Means the standard had to demand freeformat compatibility for all playback devices. That's not going to happen.
This way you're limited to a maximum frame bitrate of 320kbit/s when VBR V0-encoding, IF that amount of bits is really needed to encode the informaton.

You see, VBR V0 is the end of MP3. You can't get more quality without rewriting the standard. At that's not going to happen.

I'm not implying the >320kbps bitrates since they aren't officially part of the standard MP3 format as you mentioned. What I meant is that if 320 CBR is overkill (adding padding material) to achieve the "best" result, why wouldn't -V 0 also do the same compared to -V 2, if both would be transparent to the listener?

I guess that if I could see test results confirming that -V 0 is "better" (perceived quality vs. filesize), then I would be convinced of its true "betterness".

I use 3.98 beta 5, which is considered the best current version of LAME (3.98 b6 was not so good, introduced many bugs).

I use the optimised LAMEDropXpd build. It should be recommended to newbies, it's easy to configure and use (and easy to tell people how to configure and use). I don't see any reason to keep the old dos command line programs (or at least, to recommend them).

I have no idea what "V" quality I use, but I use VBR with an average bitrate of 224 kbps, which is "quality 90" in LAMEDrop.


Using VBR of lower than 192 increases too many artifacts in too many cases, so I don't use it.
On the other hand, the vast majority of people can't hear a difference between 192-320, so it's not worth it to go the whole hog. if you're complaining about artifacts at those bitrates, you shouldn't be using MP3 as a format, you should be using lossless.

Ogg Vorbis: I used to be a major fan, but since it's not supported and very similar to MP3 in terms of quality (although I like the filesize), I only include Ogg downloads in a ZIP at the bottom of soundtrack pages on my game music website.

If I'm going to use lossy, I'll use high quality MP3, otherwise I'll listen to original WAV's on CD or PC.
I strongly feel people talking about differences between 192-320, or 320 CBR, etc, are msising the point.

320 CBR: Waste of filespace. Good VBR settings with a good encoder (nothing before LAME 3.97), with an 192 average bitrate or better, will produce a quicker encoded, audibly the same quality, MP3 file. There's simply no reason to use 320 CBR- if you like good quality audio and are pretty set on it, don't use MP3, use lossless codecs.

MP3 at high bitrate VBR (192-320) will produce very acceptable quality files for common listening.

- Spike

Changelog for the interested user:
LAME Changelog