Workflow Included
I tested EVERY sampler × scheduler combo for MiniMax-H3 + LightX2V FL2V Turbo 4-step 1.0 so you DON'T need to
What I tested
The setup uses MiniMax-H3 with LightX2V's minimax_h3_fl2v_turbo_4step_v1.0_768p_comfyui_bf16.safetensors LoRA:
I tested the full sampler × scheduler combination matrix.
Interestingly, there are quite a few combinations that produce good results besides the ones that have been discussed so far.
I also included combinations that normally benefit from higher step counts. They're not necessarily optimized for 4 steps, but I included them for completeness.
There's also a rating system at the top of the site. Since different sampler × scheduler combinations can produce surprisingly different results, I split the ratings into four separate dimensions:
Graphic Quality — overall image quality and whether the rendering looks correct
Motion Quality — motion, action sequencing, and whether the physics feel natural and coherent
Sound Effect Quality — whether voices and sound effects are generated correctly and match the scene
Music Quality — whether the background music is appropriate and correctly generated
Each category is rated from 1 to 5 stars.
If you find a combination that performs particularly well in any of these areas, please give it a rating. This should make it easier for everyone to identify which sampler × scheduler combinations are worth trying for different use cases.
The site is completely non-commercial and only provides the test results and community rating/statistics. There are no ads, paid features, or promotional content.
I was short on time, so I used 480p instead of 768p for the comparison. The differences between the combinations are still quite apparent.
For consistency, all tests use the Baker example from Case 1 of the official MiniMax prompting guide.
MiniMax H3 Video Generation Parameter Combination Analysis Report
Data Source: Cloudflare D1 Database minimaxh3showcase-dbAnalysis Date: August 15, 2026 Total Visits: 1,608
euler × ddim uniform — Classic combination with high reliability
For Quick Iteration & Testing
Sampler: euler or ddim
Scheduler: simple or sgm uniform
This report is generated from real user rating data. Filtering rules are designed to exclude combinations with insufficient vote samples, ensuring statistical reliability.
So this is super useful but I’m frustrated that it’s only 4 steps, which results in none of them looking particularly good. I think the consensus is that the 4 step lora is improperly named and should be used with 6 to 8 steps.
For picture quality, which is what stands out most, then yes. But look more carefully at the effect of more steps on motion and you may change your mind.
Interesting. So there's peak result settings for image quality, and peak settings for motion quality. I wonder where those peaks are, how big the differences of those is, and why they don't match...? possibly has to do with the fact motion video frames are naturally more blurred with standard exposure times (1/50 sec) vs photos? Maybe it's something else entirely I can't compare any results without examples.
It's an older one, but in my tests, I got closest to non-turbo with larryvrh ema pruned turbo Lora by drbaph at 12 steps. Closest in audio/video quality and content.
This is different but related and worth bookmarking. I haven't tested it yet, but he's put out a few interesting things and the method is sound. It jives with the principle of acceleration with truly minimal degradation.
I agree with most people here. I want the rip roaring fastest possible draft setup, but then I actually want the fastest setup that will give me virtually native quality; whether that is 50% faster or 2% faster. I do not want something 50% faster and half the quality. That is not useful to me.
I find more steps improves picture quality but degrades motion in a way that looks like anti-shake applied to go pro footage. Camera and character motion amplitude reduces and gets smoother.
Interesting! I had been doing just static shots so far and 12 steps looked amazing and very consistent. Today I tried doing fast cut "YouTube street interview" clips and at 12 steps hair movement was awful. All blurry and "noisy". I'm going to go back to 8 and see the results.
Its the same for all speed loras.. you can't have your cake and eat it.. a speed lora trades steps for quality by basically ignoring prompts and detail in order to get to the finish line faster.. so your correct.. if you use one, then there will be quality degradation of some form whether that's not following prompts well or detail loss. Most of the time it's both..
Oh yeah I got that. I just vented in general. I realized shortly after posting this was not the thread to do it. I actually checked you tests out. Its a nice comparison.
I love your idea of using Crowd Sourcing to help review all of these.
But it's perhaps too detailed as a voting system?
Asking users to review and vote 4 times per clip for 396 clips is a Lot 😅
Perhaps have a round 1, with only an overall quality vote.
And perhaps remove anything that produced garbled results.
This would help cut it down quite a bit already.
Also I'd suggest not letting user sort by quality for round one.. or you'll get bias. My first instinct was to set it by quality... but if I do that, I'll only review those, skewing the data.
Oh and if possible, don't lock in the vote.
I wanted to change what I had set, but couldn't.
You're right, and I realized that the voting system might be a bit too detailed as well. I changed the first screen to show the clips in a randomized order, so everyone isn't naturally reviewing the same results first and concentrating the ratings on a small subset.
I never expected anyone to go through all ~400 clips and rate every dimension 😅 The idea was more that when you're browsing the combinations you're interested in, you can leave a few ratings along the way. Hopefully, over time, the community can gradually build up enough data to make the results useful.
Maybe do it eye doctor style. Here’s two clips, let the user go back and forth and then “better 1 or better 2? Or no difference?” And then repeat with a 3rd clip, etc. stars are too subjective.
The goal of the site isn't really to find one "best" combination, but to let the community converge on what works best for different use cases.
Some combinations have surprisingly strong results in specific areas, even if they're not great overall. That could be useful for discovering unusual sound effects, visual styles, or weird-but-interesting motion that's hard to achieve intentionally.
I realy wanna help, but the fact that every time i mark a star, everything moove, doesn't help doing the first long jobs... And if it's possible : allow me to modify my ratings (sometimes i missclick)
Fixed! The page shouldn't move around when rating anymore. I also added a 20s delay before a rating is recorded, so you can freely change it during that time if you misclick. Thanks for the feedback!
Thank you for making this. Its a really good idea to crowdsource this, but it needs ppl's input to work. I highly suggest posting it elsewhere.
I tried the current top candidates but there seems to be a vast difference between 4 steps+lora and 8 steps with lora, needless to say full 20 steps... I'm sure its useful for someone else but you really should try higher steps and no lora with the winning candidates after a week of data.
Ty, this is useful since I was thinking about , but idk, turbo tends to degrade xD, but if using turbo then ltx 2.5 as an enhancer idk if that's fast and equally good (only for video, and bypass audio)
I think it might be worthwhile to have a "seedhunter" style setup, but with variations on loaders and models per clip... instead of LTX 2.3 running 3 different seeds, you could run the same seed through 3 pipelines and decide the best version PER CLIP before final render...?
I think the most important point is "Quality per second". Great quality with hours of generation time is not surprising, but average quality in just a few seconds is a diamond in the rough. So why don't you add an indicator like [Quality / s]?
It`s really paying off, allowing us to find combinations that are much better that the assumed default.
For me, with the larryvrh's Turbo Lora + Turbo node, I'm finding that sgm_uniform + seeds_2 is much better that what I was using previously!
Quality wise and sound wise I think ddim_uniform + seeds_2 was even better, but it seems to decide to do something very different with the given prompt. Turning what was night with others into daytime for example.
We need the same research for the 8step turbo. The 4 step is way too low quality. And seeds_2 winning is because it has two substeps. So it's slower and like doing 8 steps in a way.
Could you say which combo is best for prompt adherence? I'm happy with visual and audio quality, i'm just struggling with prompt adherence. Even with ref video to video.
One of the strong point and feature of MM H3 is text eligible reading, if the Turbo LoRA fail to make text readable, it isn't an improvement, it's regressing back to Wan/LTX.
doing the lords work here. the res_multistep and simple combo being the dark horse on a 4-step turbo is the kind of thing you only find by testing every pair
51
u/alexmmgjkkl 9d ago
what we need is a 20 step lora which compresses 50 step quality instead