hello gents,
me and a few guys are starting a little rip circle, and being the big techie, i've been placed in charge of finding our standard lame switches. we're using Lame3.90.2-ICL EXE. i think that's the best lame version out there. we were using --alt -preset cbr 192, but it's joint stereo. we need full stereo. i'd love suggestions, especially if anyone knows which switches some ripping groups use, because their files always sound boss. this is my latest switch test, any thoughts?
-b 192 -h -m s --nspsytune --athtype 2 --lowpass 16 --ns-bass -8 --scale 0.93
not exatly sure if that's the best switch, it sounds pretty good.
thanks in advance for all your help!
:spice:
Why do you need pure stereo? Joint Stereo offers a higher quality.
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....T&f=15&t=203&s= (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=15&t=203&s=)
Please read the sticky threads in the mp3 forum.
Why CBR?
--alt-preset standard will give basically the same bitrate depending on genre, with far superior quality to cbr 192.
spicymeatball: I just checked your full list of posts, seeing you had only 7...
And it turns out that a year ago you were doing the same kind of questions...
The answer has not changed:
Joint-stereo in LAME is definitely better than Stereo. It is perfect. No problems at all. Period. Whoever tells you that Joint-Stereo is a problem in LAME has no idea what he is talking about, has not tested, and should not be considered reliable. Are you going to believe him or the guys that develop LAME? Who do you think knows better?
The idea that Joint-Stereo is bad started because years ago, there was a commercial encoder that had a major bug in the way it did Joint-Stereo. But that's not LAME, and it has nothing to do with it.
If you want the best quality at bitrates around 192, use just --alt-preset standard nothing else, nothing more. Yes, it is Joint-Stereo, yes, it is VBR, and yes, it is currently the BEST for that bitrate range in MP3. Those long command lines will only screw things up.
If you need to use CBR (why???), then the best is --alt-preset cbr 192. As above, nothing else, nothing more.
And all of this with Lame 3.90.2, nothing else, nothing more.
especially if anyone knows which switches some ripping groups use, because their files always sound boss.
Interesting. From my experience they usually sound like crap.
well, thank you all for your help. i kind of left myself open and got what i expected. i agree with you all that --alt -preset standard is the best quality. but that's not what i'm trying for. i'm just trying for the best quality at 192 cbr. it seems like stereo is out, and joint it is in. thank you all for that; --alt -preset cbr 192 it is.....
well, thank you all for your help. i kind of left myself open and got what i expected. i agree with you all that --alt -preset standard is the best quality. but that's not what i'm trying for. i'm just trying for the best quality at 192 cbr. it seems like stereo is out, and joint it is in. thank you all for that; --alt -preset cbr 192 it is.....
What
are you "trying for"? You should be after top quality, not what the release groups use (after all, if you are simply copying their actions, why even bother?)
alt-preset standard will give you something around 192kbps fairly consistently and forcing your encodes to 192kpbs CBR will automatically limit the quality. For many tracks, MP3 needs 320kbps blocks for proper short block encoding. alt-preset standard's VBR mode can deliver that; fixed 192kbps cannot. And I don't know anything nowadays that can't handle MP3 VBR.
What are you "trying for"?
i'm just trying for the best quality at 192 cbr
thank you all very much for your expert help. when i'm not ripping things for my group, i'll be using --alt -preset standard.
Why don't you try to convince your group to use --alt-preset standard instead? Why do you have to use CBR and simple stereo? Just because they don't know better?!
I have seen already some "Release Groups" using VBR... --alt-preset standard or even --alt-preset extreme (i think)
If you let the rest of your "Release Group" go on ripping --alt-preset cbr 192, well... you'll be behind the times
Nevertheless it's definitely an improvement over Xing 192 cbr...
But please try your best to get --alt-preset standard
Or even --alt-preset 192!!! (notice the omission of cbr... abr is already an improvement, and will definitely keep your bitrates in the same range...)
I've recently started using --alt-preset 192. I am really starting to like the ABR mode. The predicibilty of the file size is nice.
I have found this setting to be a good compromise (for my ears) that allows me to use the output on portables & real stereo systems.
I have a portable with a few 64MB flash cards and 128MB flash cards. At this setting, most of my olders CD's will fit on the 64MB card, and for the new ones they all will fit on the 128MB card. One CD per card works for me.
The sound quality is good enough for my car MP3 player as well. Yep, I'm a new ABR convert.
I usually settle for --alt-preset 145 for my portable needs
but it's just a matter of taste, really...
EDIT: but that doesn't change the fact that for "professional quality ripping" and "Release Group" purposes, --alt-preset standard is THE way to go!!!!
use --scale 1 if you plan on mp3gaining your files for volume equalization/clipping protection later (which you should be doing)
It is my understanding that MP3 distros tend to block files that are not encoded according to the "MP3 Council" standard: 192 or 256 CBR strict stereo. Yeah, I have tried telling them, but it's like talking to a wall.
cd-rw.org is exactly right. my distribution channels will only abide standards :-(
cd-rw.org is exactly right. my distribution channels will only abide standards :-(
What MP3 "Councils" or ripping groups deem as acceptable are hardly standards. They are instead simply arbitrary decisions a group of ignorant people made without really understanding the basic concepts of the technology they were using.
Sorry if it may seem a little offensive to you, but I don't really understand the point in bothering with trying to find the highest quality settings when from the get go you are limited in what you can use by what these ignorant people are telling you is acceptable and what isn't, and that their decisions are not based in actual quality measurements.
It'd be much more worthwhile to encode for yourself than to worry about catering to the politics of the "scene".
cd-rw.org is exactly right. my distribution channels will only abide standards :-(
What MP3 "Councils" or ripping groups deem as acceptable are hardly standards. They are instead simply arbitrary decisions a group of ignorant people made without really understanding the basic concepts of the technology they were using.
Sorry if it may seem a little offensive to you, but I don't really understand the point in bothering with trying to find the highest quality settings when from the get go you are limited in what you can use by what these ignorant people are telling you is acceptable and what isn't, and that their decisions are not based in actual quality measurements.
It'd be much more worthwhile to encode for yourself than to worry about catering to the politics of the "scene".
As since the "scene" are basically a bunch of pirates, why should they be able to mandate anything? It's like being told you can only steal in certain ways. "Lift all the Tylenol you want, but don't touch the Pepto!!"
haha, consider the can of worms opened.
the standards cater to the lowest common denominator, yes. divx ripping groups are similar, un-willing to adopt the newest methods in favor of more widespread, heavily practiced methods. groups also have bandwidth to consider. anyways, i'd been using presets in my personal rips. --alt-preset standard, in my experience does not produce similar file sizes as 192 cbr; for the record. they almost always have bitrates up towards the 220 max. anyways, thank you all again. i think i've got the information i need
i'll watch this flame burn out from a safe distance..........
haha, consider the can of worms opened.
the standards cater to the lowest common denominator, yes. divx ripping groups are similar, un-willing to adopt the newest methods in favor of more widespread, heavily practiced methods. groups also have bandwidth to consider. anyways, i'd been using presets in my personal rips. --alt-preset standard, in my experience does not produce similar file sizes as 192 cbr; for the record. they almost always have bitrates up towards the 220 max. anyways, thank you all again. i think i've got the information i need
i'll watch this flame burn out from a safe distance..........
DivX Ripping Groups started using ABR audio ca. 1 year ago. Audio Ripping Groups still insist on their ignorant 192cbr standard since almost forever...
yes, many divx groups even use --alt-preset standard, but i didn't clarify that i meant the video compression, as the standard is still DivX 3.11a.
anyways, thanks again guys, my group has decided.
internal release (meant to just be passed between us) will be --alt-preset standard. releases meant for distro will have to be -b 192 -h -m s
p.s. lets not go throwing around the word "pirate" on an mp3 discussion board.....
heh ? why not use --alt-preset cbr 192 -ms then
I'm very well aware that the audio ripping scene does allow JS to be used, so I really don't understand why you eventually chose the typical (but far from perfect) "-b 192 -h -m s" encoding settings. Since it's you that you are the "big techie" of your group and you really do find "--alt preset cbr 192" superior in every way, I just don't understand how your "colleagues" don't realize some simple facts, and don't even take under consideration your technicall knowledge and opinion. IMHO you shouldn't have really taken the trouble to make any kind of research...those guys seem too stubborn and narrow minded. Better find yourself a decent group to participate in...
anyways, i'd been using presets in my personal rips. --alt-preset standard, in my experience does not produce similar file sizes as 192 cbr; for the record. they almost always have bitrates up towards the 220 max.
I've explained many times that it depends on the music you encode. If you're only encoding heavily compress pop music, or loud industrial/ebm or rock/metal, then yes, bitrate will be higher than 200kbps on average. If you're encoding jazz/classical/some quieter IDM or experimental/avantgarde type music, then the bitrate will be lower.
People usually just encode one type of music and then expect the bitrates are going to be the same for everything. With other codecs which are more efficient and do not have problems with loud high frequency content like MP3 does, this might be correct, but with MP3, this is not the case.
In the ripping "scene", I guess there's not much demand for the music in the latter type of genres that I listed.
haha, this is just getting hilarious. goodbye for now
internal release (meant to just be passed between us) will be --alt-preset standard. releases meant for distro will have to be -b 192 -h -m s
p.s. lets not go throwing around the word "pirate" on an mp3 discussion board.....
What group would this be? Remind me to never download anything released by them (
legal releases, of course ).
What group would this be? Remind me to never download anything released by them (legal releases, of course ;)).
Well, don't download anything that is 192k CBR mp3, you won't miss then.
internal release (meant to just be passed between us) will be --alt-preset standard. releases meant for distro will have to be -b 192 -h -m s
What a discrimination? If you don't belong the group, you can't enjoy aps quality? This is how they care about their customers.
yes, many divx groups even use --alt-preset standard, but i didn't clarify that i meant the video compression, as the standard is still DivX 3.11a.
nope. almost all releases I've seen lately (last 2-3 months), from big and small groups, are using xvid.
haha, this is just getting hilarious. goodbye for now
That was an obvious Flamebait. He asked a question when he already had a choice made.
There is no such thing as a "council". If a bunch of idiots don't get it, you quit and start your own group.
For that matter, you can go and offer MPCs only, and if they don't want them, they don't get it, period. Thats how it works. The "Video scene" is diversified, many are using Xvid with ogg vorbis audio, and .ogm instead of .avi, You don't like it? Too bad, go get it elsewhere (if you can). And the same works with audio "distros".
This is the net, not a building filled of bureaucrats. If you don't wan't any advise, DON'T ASK FOR IT.
yes, many divx groups even use --alt-preset standard, but i didn't clarify that i meant the video compression, as the standard is still DivX 3.11a.
nope. almost all releases I've seen lately (last 2-3 months), from big and small groups, are using xvid.
Not only that but who cares anyway what some bunch of pirates use or do? If you want to pirate then you surely don't invest hundreds of hours in testing/beta testing/forum searching/contributing etc.
Sigh, when will this "because the pirates use it it must be good!" thinking be over? Not to mention, there even exist "MP3 release groups"? ROTFL Seems I must dig out my C=64 and read the underground mags, again .
Cheers,
Mijo.
Sigh, when will this "because the pirates use it it must be good!" thinking be over?
Don't you know that when any group of people gets large enough, you start getting bureaucracy in its pure, unadulterated form, which is a bunch of bullsh*t, just as it is in real life, a gang of ignorant bullies who whine and moan because you're not holding to their illusion of an ideal standard "to make things easier" or whatever....
Or I could be completely wrong.... pheer me foo' these haX0rs are 3l33t & will make things hard for you if you do not conform... ya right.
Jeff
internal release (meant to just be passed between us) will be --alt-preset standard. releases meant for distro will have to be -b 192 -h -m s
Just make sure you don't transcode, as people will (sooner or later) stumble upon one of your releases...
It is my understanding that MP3 distros tend to block files that are not encoded according to the "MP3 Council" standard: 192 or 256 CBR strict stereo. Yeah, I have tried telling them, but it's like talking to a wall.
The funny thing is that nothing is changed today