Skip to main content

Topic: --APE vs. --APS (Read 2385 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • ben
  • [*][*]
--APE vs. --APS
What all differs between --APE and --APS?

Dibrom, you posted that --APE only "theoretically" performs better than --APS.  Is the lowpass point different?  I might re-encode my files with --APS if it -truly- does offer, 99% of the time, "transparency".. I guess I should do some listening tests.

I just find more people use --APE than --APS on file sharing networks.. which is the main reason I started using it.  I just need to be re-assured I'm not losing anything by switching

  • NumLOCK
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
--APE vs. --APS
Reply #1
Hi Ben,

The --APS preset is the one that was really tuned for transparency at reasonable bitrates. What the --APE should provide, is just an increased safety margin for transcodes, etc. Also, I think Dibrom said that on most of the difficult samples where --APS fails, --APE will fail too.

Personally, after encoding many cd's I found the --APS to sound great - incredible work Dibrom !!. Only concern was, in one or two heavy metal cd's, I found some very strong attacks to be very slightly less refined (in treble harmonics I think). Even though the difference was a bit on the edge, after searching for a while, I found the trick: moving the lowpass from 18.5 to 19.5 kHz. So this observation, as well as some concern about (possible) future transcodings, led me to re-encode using --APE.

... and I lived happily ever since.

So now, I'm about in the same situation as you. And, to be honest, I'm expecting to switch to MPC sometime.. which should both decrease bitrate and bring stuff closer to transparency.

[EDIT] I'm 23 years old, in case this matters. [/EDIT]
  • Last Edit: 20 November, 2002, 07:35:46 AM by NumLOCK
Try Leeloo Chat at