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.

Most amazing jew boots

-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's nowhere I can't reach.

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.

Most amazing jew boots

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

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).

I was speaking idiomatically.

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".

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Glad to see this thread didn't go into oblivion yet!

To sum up the main points:
- Going with a too low bitrate will degrade the audio.
- Going with a too high bitrate will waste storage space.
- To find which bitrate level to use is a personal process and it should go with our own audition/equipment limits.
- In general, high quality VBR is the best way to go.

The problem is: which high quality VBR setting to use? This goes with the fact that MP3s are being shared among people and not everybody have an identical audition/equipment. Personally, I'm not excited about the idea of downloading files encoded at -V 8 and actually consider -V 0 to be slightly too much. Similarly, there are people who frown on anything lower than -V 0.

Limiting the possibilities to -V 2 and up, the difference between these presets are relatively small, yet there doesn't seem to be a general consensus to attest which one is the best to use. However, many people here are currently using -V 0, yet I'm far from convinced they actually hear a quality difference.

I'd be ready to switch to -V 0 if it's a reality that so many people can discern a difference. Yet if it's 1 out of a million who can hear an artifact on a 1 second cymbal sample and the rest are fooled by their mind, is it worth the filesize increase? In the same line of idea, I'd also be ready to use a lower preset, but kind of consider -V 2 to be the standard (I guess the name creates this effect).

FELIPE NO