LAME, like Ogg Vorbis, is still improving. For a bleeding edge on quality, special commands for certain LAME-versions are often necessary. So, please note that we're only giving you commandlines for use with the lame-release accompanying RazorLame on THIS page. Amazingly high quality (from big to small sized) MP3-files can be created using:

-V2 --vbr-new -q0 --lowpass 19.7 -b96 --cwlimit 10.7 --scale 0.99 --athaa-sensitivity 1
-V3 --vbr-new -q0 --lowpass 19 --cwlimit 10 -b96 --athaa-sensitivity 1

-V5 --vbr-new -q0 --lowpass 18 --cwlimit 10 --athaa-sensitivity 1
-V6 --vbr-new -q0 --lowpass 17 --cwlimit 10 --athaa-sensitivity 1 -b112

Specialized collected presets, like for example the "alt-presets" are called "alt" for a reason; They are alternatives, and tend to go wrong on new versions of LAME. Plus, we like to stay in control of ALL parameters, since we disagree with the trade-offs done for standardized presets. We never follow results from "listening tests", especially not those controlled by people who refuse(d) to let us take part in it (using pathetic IP-blocks and the likes, two can play that game), i.e. everybody involved with (or strongly siding with) certain webfora that feel the need to call all of our writing "misinformation" - stay away from those fools! Quite often they're extremely biased (there's a lot of money involved in MP3, ISDN and APT-X codec sales, digistream and satellite audio uplink equipment and so on) and/or funded by codec-fanboys who are unable to deal with contradicting (often technically superior) opinions on sound. Furthermore results are unrealistic because tests have been done using EVERY random ear out there (as if suddenly expert knowledge would not count). So always check different LAME settings YOURSELVES, don't follow comments written by self-appointed 'experts', and you may decide on *our* expertise in the field by looking here, here or here.

All I'm going to say about this is that as long as guys like these exist there will be no consensus of command line settings on the net, nor will there be a consensus of how codecs should be evaluated.

J (one of the co-authors of that site) has a bit of a history with some of the regulars here.[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=323595"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[00:00:29] Leviathan: OMGOMGOMG! An e-mail from an old friend of
           yours!
[00:00:40] Leviathan: "Hi Roberto,
           
           Not to blow it all down, but what encoder settings
           did you use with N.D.A. (and how/where did you enter them?)
           and what the hell did you do with LAME ?
           Because, I'm sorry, but Ogg Vorbis and LAME
           both are already WAY better at around 56 kbps
           than the mp4 at 22 kHz that Nero's latest Ultra Suite
           creates.
           Difference is like night and day.
           
           Check the sample (and results) I use here"
[00:00:48] Leviathan: "Note that the Ogg Vorbis file is not only the
           smallest, it also sounds the best. Now explain that!
           For lame I used our own 3.97 compile and;
           -B64 -q0 -V9 -t --lowpass 11 --cwlimit 9
           --athlower 32 --scale 0.99 --athaa-sensitivity 1
           
           The mp4's I create with nero sound like total crap
           and resampled down to 22 kHz! Either Nero should release
           their stuff with better defaults, or your listening test
           is everything BUT reliable."
[00:00:57] Leviathan: "I also think it's rather silly to let Vorbis be
           tested using a lower sample rate than the others
           (as I seems to understand you have been doing).
           This will create a completely wrong set of results
           that do not make much sense in real world situations."
[00:01:01] miyaguch@esk: julius?
[00:01:09] Leviathan: "> Nero Digital Audio won, tied to
           CodingTechnologies' MP3pro.
           > Ogg Vorbis, WMA Std., 7kHz lowpass, Real Audio
           > and QDesign Music Codec come in second place,
           > with Vorbis a little below the others. Lame loses.
           
           Total nonsense. I don't buy into it anyway."
[00:01:56] Leviathan: LOL! YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[00:02:06] miyaguch@esk: that idiot
[00:02:12] Leviathan: How did you find out????
[00:02:21] miyaguch@esk: it sounds just like him

Leviathan: LOL! YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote

We never follow results from "listening tests"

[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=323584"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

We never follow results from "listening tests", especially not those controlled by people who refuse(d) to let us take part in it (using pathetic IP-blocks and the likes, two can play that game)