180 kbps ABR files as medium preset will often produce bigger files than preset standard with classical works. Especially with some quiet tracks. Maybe not a good idea...The --preset medium, with lame 3.93.1, turns around 150-155 kbps, with my music. Sometimes below 140.
And no, if preset medium is reaching on a specific track xxx bitrate, it should absolutely not produce the same output as --preset xxx. That would totally defeat the purpose of true vbr compared to abr.Btw, I'm still waiting for opinions about this:Which one seems better: medium or medium1?
When will there be a LAME version which will totally improve on version 3.90.2?Hydrogenaudio has been recommending 3.90.2 for ages now... Can we expectanything exciting from the LAME front in the foreseeable future?I'm just asking because I have a mass ripping & encoding session planned andI'm wondering if there's a reason to postpone it in the event of a LAME 3.94release...
Not much reason to postpone if you use --alt-preset standard -Z with 3.90.2.
I've never used -Y or -Z with the --alt-presets before. Is there no down sideto using -Z?
Can -Z be used with ape and api too?
QuoteI've never used -Y or -Z with the --alt-presets before. Is there no down sideto using -Z?No quality down sides with using Lame 3.90.2 --alt-preset standard -Z what so ever, only positive quality effects. But a bit higher bitrate sometimes. And using -Z here is not experimental, Gpsycho has always used noise shaping type 1, which is quality wise safer choice. Noise shaping type 2 is used with nspsytune vbr only because of one reason: to increase quality/size ratio by lowering bitrate, but it does not work 100%. erhu is a good example, where ns-type 2 fails badly.QuoteCan -Z be used with ape and api too?Do not use it with api, since it already use noise shaping 1, and you don't want to switch it back to 2. But it's ok to use it with 3.90.2 ape.
John33At your webpage the link is lame 3.94 alpha 11 bundle with a DATE = 2003-02-16BUT the contained lame.exe has a version output: lame --version as: LAME version 3.94 MMX (alpha 11, Feb 9 2003 11:16:20) (http://www.mp3dev.org/) ; the same as your previous build. The filesize is also the same: 243.200 bytes. Is this a coincidence? Haven't I found the correct link to the new binaries?
I'll do a full recompile and upload again just to avoid confusion. Give me about 10 mins. The recompile will carry today's date, ie. 17 Feb.
Is there any way to make Windows XP display the bitrate of VBR mp3 files correctly?I've encoded many files with the --alt-presets and when I open a folder with mymp3s, the bitrates in the "bitrate" column are all wrong (and exaggerated). Canthis be fixed?
One thing I was a little uneasy about was that to me (again, using ABC/hr) --alt-preset 192 sounded much better than --preset medium... and bearing in mind that I found --preset medium produced many encodes which averaged at around 180, --ap192 is by far the preferable option.