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 3.97a11 .... worthwhile switch tweaks? (Read 5019 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

LAME 3.97a11 .... worthwhile switch tweaks?

A few years ago, I originally dabbled with AudioCatalyst and the Xing encoder. It was good, but now I find that I like what I hear about LAME and EAC.

I went through  ALOT of research and went from LAME v3.96.1 .. then 3.90.3 .... now I'm settled on 3.97a11 using EAC to rip the tracks.

I have 60Gb to fill on the player so I can go for a bit more sound quality.

I'd like the iPod to be the source for ALL my music needs, so a bit of extra quality will go to good use.

I don't want to record at --preset insane. Too easy - too big.

I am assuming  "--preset fast standard" is the way to go in v3.97a11 (much tweaking has been done in this area).

My questions are these:
1) is "--preset fast standard" exactly the same as "-V2 --vbr-new"?

2) Can I improve on a good thing (--preset fast standard) by .....
2a) - increasing and enforcing the min bitrate (for example, adding "-b 192 -F" to the commandline)?
2b) - increasing the setting for -q (algorithm quality - from 2 to 1 or 0)?
2c) - using the -athtype 2 switch?
2d) - OR, am I upsetting the balance of the --preset fast standard setting?

3) OR should I go for --preset extreme? As for size considerations between this and the above changes, I can test and make that decision myself - I am after quality mostly.
3a) - Is the --vbr-new (fast) switch safe to use with the --preset extreme setting?

Hmmm, them's a lot o' questions.

LAME 3.97a11 .... worthwhile switch tweaks?

Reply #1 –
Quote
My questions are these:
1) is "--preset fast standard" exactly the same as "-V2 --vbr-new"?

2) Can I improve on a good thing (--preset fast standard) by .....
2a) - increasing and enforcing the min bitrate (for example, adding "-b 192 -F" to the commandline)?
2b) - increasing the setting for -q (algorithm quality - from 2 to 1 or 0)?
2c) - using the -athtype 2 switch?
2d) - OR, am I upsetting the balance of the --preset fast standard setting?

3) OR should I go for --preset extreme? As for size considerations between this and the above changes, I can test and make that decision myself - I am after quality mostly.
3a) - Is the --vbr-new (fast) switch safe to use with the --preset extreme setting?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=323206"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

1) yes
2a) may improve quality, but not recommended because inefficient (little if any gain in quality but huge bitrate increase)
2b) no
2c) by all means, no!
2d) with 2c for sure, 2a & b shouldn't hurt but are not recommended

3) as you said, test for yourself  Most are completely satisfied with "standard", however.
3a) yes, but DON'T use it like that:
--preset extreme --vbr-new [this screws up the preset tunings]
Instead use either:
--preset fast extreme
or -V0 --vbr-new
Proverb for Paranoids: "If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers."
-T. Pynchon (Gravity's Rainbow)

LAME 3.97a11 .... worthwhile switch tweaks?

Reply #2 –
1) Yes

2) see 2D

3) Depends on space. V2 is already very good and lots of people will never be able to tell it apart on most audio. You may also use V1 which is between V2 and V0 (preset extreme).

3a) Yes.

LAME 3.97a11 .... worthwhile switch tweaks?

Reply #3 –
Is --preset standard fast compatible with --vbr-new ?

LAME 3.97a11 .... worthwhile switch tweaks?

Reply #4 –
Quote
Is --preset standard fast compatible with --vbr-new ?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=323256"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

--preset fast standard uses --vbr-new by default (so no need to specify it) ...don't know what you mean by "compatible"
Proverb for Paranoids: "If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers."
-T. Pynchon (Gravity's Rainbow)

LAME 3.97a11 .... worthwhile switch tweaks?

Reply #5 –
Quote
Quote
Is --preset standard fast compatible with --vbr-new ?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=323256"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

--preset fast standard uses --vbr-new by default (so no need to specify it) ...don't know what you mean by "compatible"
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=323283"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Which is to say, as has been said before
--preset fast standard
is exactly the same as
--V2 --vbr-new

I don't think that "--preset standard fast" will do anything, but if it works then the Lame developers were nice enough to set it to the same command as "--preset fast standard."
Also, don't double-specify: "--preset fast standard --vbr-new" will create some inefficiencies, if I remember Gabriel's posting correctly.
God kills a kitten every time you encode with CBR 320
 

LAME 3.97a11 .... worthwhile switch tweaks?

Reply #6 –
Exactly what I wanted to know, thanks.

Documentation or locating that said documentation is very hard

Now I know.