Skip to main content

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: LAME fastest encoding(-q 9) gives better quality than the slowest encoding(-q 0) (Read 32281 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: LAME fastest encoding(-q 9) gives better quality than the slowest encoding(-q 0)

Reply #75
That sounds unbelievably bad. Care to share the track and settings that reproduce it?