View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0002073 | MMW v4 | Conversion/Leveling | public | 2005-10-14 02:29 | 2005-12-06 15:26 |
| Reporter | rusty | Assigned To | |||
| Priority | urgent | Severity | minor | Reproducibility | always |
| Status | closed | Resolution | reopened | ||
| Fixed in Version | 2.5 | ||||
| Summary | 0002073: Switch to Lame 3.97 | ||||
| Description | According to the experts at Hydrogen Audio, Lame 3.97 is now the recommended lame encoding engine. See: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?s=a8b4238ce2ea184ee1123ae01984f4a7&showtopic=37574 If we decide to go this route, we'll have to make some small changes to the UI as well since lame 3.97 no longer requires the 'old' presets (it uses a simpler v0-v10 range like Vorbis (but still a bit more complex). Let me know what you think and if you agree, I'll draft a proposed UI. | ||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
| Fixed in build | 921 | ||||
|
|
From what I read there isn't any need to redesign the UI, we can still present user some presets (their list might be slightly modified, but it still applies quite well) and Manual Settings. Btw, the V0-V9 settings aren't new, they can be set in MM if you set VBR mode and then select VBR Quality 10-100%. |
|
|
You're probably right that in the short term we can leave settings almost exactly as is but use the new encoder. My point was that given that _all_ settings are tuned in with Lame 3.97, would _could_ get rid of the pre-tuned settings. Even if we don't, we should make the few simple text changes described below: -------------------------------------------------------- | MP3 Settings -------------------------------------------------------- | (o) Use recommended Settings | . . ___________________________________________^ | ( ) Use Manual Settings | . . Type of Bitrate: __________________________^ | . . Quality/Bitrate: __________________________^ | . . Mode: _____________________________________^ | . . (VBR Method: _______________________________^) | . . [ ] Use advanced settings |-------------------------------------------------------- | . . Sample Rate: _______________________________^ | . . Encoding quality: __________________________^ (Is this still really needed??) | . . Bitrate (min): _____ Bitrate (max): ______ | . . [x] Use bit reservoir [ ] Strict ISO compliance --------------------------------------------------------- Summary of Changes: 1) **Use Pre-tuned settings ---> 'Use recommended settings' 2) **Options for 'Type of Bitrate' are changed to: . Constant Bitrate (CBR - least efficient + most compatible) . Variable Bitrate (VBR - most efficient) . Average Bitrate (ABR - fairly efficient + controlled) - 'Mode' is moved below 'Quality/Bitrate' settings 3) **Quality/Bitrate setting options for VBR are changed to: . V 0 (0000098:0000245 Kbps ='preset extreme') . V 1 (0000111:0000225 Kbps) . V 2 (0000006:0000190 Kbps ='preset standard') . V 3 (0000089:0000175 Kbps) . V 4 (0000091:0000165 Kbps ='preset medium') . V 5 (0000082:0000130 Kbps) . V 6 (0000046:0000115 Kbps) . V 7 (0000071:0000100 Kbps) . V 8 (0000067:0000085 Kbps) . V 9 (0000037:0000065 Kbps) 4) Move VBR method to the main config area 5) **VBR method options are changed: . Default --> Default (slow) . New --> New (faster) 6) - In advanced settings, remove 'Encoding quality' (?? need to discuss this with you--it's confusing because it seems to overlap with other quality settings) |
|
|
Lame 3.97 beta included in build 916. Regarging other suggestions (none implemented yet): 1) In Lame they are called presets, can't we use it too? Word 'recommended' makes me think whether the manual settings aren't recommended? 2) Could we shorten it a little, e.g.: Constant Bitrate (CBR - most compatible) Variable Bitrate (VBR - most efficient) Average Bitrate (ABR - controlled/efficient) 3) We can update the numbers, the current ones are based on my measurements. I updated these measurements for Lame 3.97 and V9 seems to be about 75kbps (they write 65) and V0 is about 200 kbps (they write 245). Shall we use their numbers or simulate it ourselves? As for addition of 'preset' notes - I don't think it's necessary, I'd rather not add them. 4) I think it fits to Advanced sheet better, it's rather a speed related option. 5) Ok, sounds good. 6) This is an useful option. It's related to any type of bitrate control and specifies a compromise between speed and quality (i.e. how Lame internally calculates some things, whether precisely and slowly or approximatelly and faster). |
|
|
1) Your logic is exactly why I wanted to change from 'pre-tuned' (since in the new scheme, all the default settings are tuned). Your suggestion sounds good. i.e. 'Use Presets' 2) I like your suggestions 3) Re. the numbers, if you think your numbers are more accurate, fine. I don't have a problem either way as long as they're reasonably accurate. Re. the preset notes: they're not critical. 4) I think that the VBR speed option should be on the default panel as it is an option that the average user can understand (my rule of thumb about Advanced Options is that anything that the average user doesn't understand belongs there). 5) OK 6) I'm fine with including it as long as it has a descriptor that makes it clear what it does. Currently it seems to conflict directly with the Quality setting that is configured in the non-advanced portion of the panel. |
|
|
Fixed in build 917 except for: 4) It's very similar to enconding quality (see point 6) (in terms of impact of changing this option) and so I think it should stay where it is. 6) We don't have anything better for this yet. |
|
|
10% - 100% should be changed to V 9 - V 0 (to match the new preset names). Setting as immediate because this involves strings. |
|
|
Fixed in build 921. |
|
|
Tested in 919 and encoding works well. Re-opening for a minor tweak: in the manual settings, we should move bitrate above mode (and resize the two combo boxes so that they're the same size). This is because bitrate is often changed, whereas mode almost never is. |
|
|
I'd rather keep it as is. Problem is that combos for CBR and ABR selections (not VBR) would look strange if resized to full-width. Therefore I think it's better this way. Anyway, just a minor issue... |
|
|
Verified 921. Opening a new bug for the remaining issue. |
