Hydrogenaudio Forums

Lossy Audio Compression => MP3 => MP3 - General => Topic started by: user on 28 October, 2001, 01:37:52 PM

Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: user on 28 October, 2001, 01:37:52 PM
The actual list can be found here:

List of recommended LAME settings (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=28124)



This thread is for discussion about the list.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: user on 28 October, 2001, 01:39:22 PM
Hi user

i personaly would like a 128 kbit setting that doesn´t cut hard at 16 kHz.

I suggested something in this thread:

http://66.96.216.160/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?board...&num=1003101945 (http://66.96.216.160/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?board=c&action=display&num=1003101945)

But there wasn´t much feedback

Wombat
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: user on 28 October, 2001, 01:40:34 PM
Added 128 CBR settings.
It would be useful, if somebody would give recommandations which one should be preferred with actual Lame. Perhaps somebody may post an order of quality of that 128 CBR settings.
If decisions are not clear until now, then there is no need to post an order.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: user on 28 October, 2001, 01:41:44 PM
man! what a great idea!  this would help out soooo many people, including me to some degree.

just make sure the title of the thread has the date it was last modified... like (last updated ?/?/??)... and a reply to it as to what was changed, so we can keep up with the changes.

also, make sure you include command lines for streaming audio for 56k's, 28.8's, etc.

once again... great idea.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: user on 28 October, 2001, 01:42:50 PM
Hi,

thanks.
Added current date at top.
If somebody knows settings for streaming audio, eg. 56k's, 28.8's, etc, you may post, please.
Other settings, too.
There are at the moment so many 128 CBR settings above.
Can some of the experts tell us, which one or two are the actual ? Then me or a moderator could edit that line in the first post.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Riggs on 28 October, 2001, 01:57:54 PM
Ugh so many users.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: user on 28 October, 2001, 02:06:52 PM
Hi,
not really !
As you see, i have written who has posted, eg. Wombat, SNYder !

It's just, because I started that thread at r3mix, but I think it's useful anywhere. Let's see, how threads are developing. Since now, I do not copy the posts. I did it just to show the start of this thread and how it works. Eg. Wombat told a bookmark to a thread where 128 CBR settings have been discussed. So me or a moderator adds at first post the useful settings and so on.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: CiTay on 28 October, 2001, 04:38:14 PM
Ummm user, i don't think this reposting is the way to do it... :eyebrow:

Just update your original post and keep it up-to-date, but this "mirroring" of the whole r3mix.net discussion... i don't know. It would be better if you just quoted the other guys and said "setting xy changed, suggested by xy, see thread xy" or the like. It's just a suggestion... but think it through
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: cd-rw.org on 28 October, 2001, 04:41:08 PM
Yes, this is a good idea. I have been planning on writing an article about the presets / good settings, but I am now waiting for the Dibber's new stuff.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: user on 30 October, 2001, 08:59:58 AM
Hi,
done.
Please somebody should read over the settings, if they are allright and the best ones available with current Lame 3.90 alpha 8.

What's the matter with some short forms, like --preset-dm metal ?
If some of the settings in first post could be (partially) replaced by short forms, then post them please.
For EAC eg. it is very useful not to have long command lines.

As you see, after a short time we all have collected a lot useful stuff.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: CiTay on 30 October, 2001, 02:37:46 PM
Hi user, good work.

I corrected a few things, i hope you're not mad. Keep collecting those settings.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: GeSomeone on 30 October, 2001, 03:45:10 PM
Quote
Originally posted by user
160 kbits CBR
-b 160 -m j --nspsytune --lowpass 16 -q 0
suggested by kjempen

As I understand correctly, -q 0 is not such a good idea in combination with --nspsytune . Better leave -q0 out (or replace it by -h == -q 2 which is already default with --nspsytune as is -mj).

Looking at the 128 kbs suggestions, maybe add --ns-bass -4 (or -8) here too. Comments anyone?

So what about this:
-b 160 --nspsytune --lowpass 16 --ns-bass -8 (or -4)

GeSomeone.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: CiTay on 30 October, 2001, 09:23:46 PM
user, you may replace your post with this if you like it: modified posting (code) (http://www.citay.de/links/sumo/code_2.txt).

Credits go to SNYder over at r3mix.net.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: CiTay on 31 October, 2001, 11:19:50 PM
Edited original post.

It's a heavily edited version of user's original post, modified by SNYder from r3mix.net, tweaked some more by me.

It should be much more clearly arranged now.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: mp3fan on 01 November, 2001, 01:30:15 AM
Hmm,

I'd like someone to try "--nsmsfix 1.2" with the 192-CBR commandline.  I think a full joint-stereo setting at that bitrate may allow m/s artifacts.  The nsmsfix setting may help reduce some m/s artifacts by allowing more L/R frames.  Try it and see.  Either that, or I'd recommend --nssafejoint at 192-CBR.  I suppose it comes down to a quality vs artifact preference.  Both give benefits and drawbacks at that strict setting.  I believe it's this point where the --nsmsfix setting can help improve things if set properly. 

mp3
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: CiTay on 01 November, 2001, 10:10:00 AM
Made some changes to the alternative 128 CBR / ABR settings (suggested by Wombat).
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: CiTay on 01 November, 2001, 11:12:31 AM
Added new 320 CBR setting, suggested by Dibrom:

--nspsytune -b320 -h -mj --nssafejoint --lowpass 20 --athtype 2 -X3

This will be the upcoming new "--dm-preset insane" and provides higher quality than the other CBR 320 setting from the list.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: CiTay on 02 November, 2001, 05:47:30 PM
Made some more layout changes.

Also: removed --dm-preset metal: will not be supported in future LAME versions / some changes on the 320 and the 256 kbit CBR settings / added --dm-preset standard as "high quality +".
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: CiTay on 03 November, 2001, 08:31:36 AM
From the r3mix.net board:

Quote
> Should the very high quality be:
> --dm-preset xtreme -X3
> which equals:
> --dm-preset standard --athtype 2 -X3

Hmmm.. i was a bit reluctant to add this.. but you're right, it's even higher quality, due to the lower ATH curve. In fact, "--dm-preset standard --athtype 2 -X3" will become the new "--dm-preset xtreme" when Dibrom finished his modifications. Also, this list will be modified when he incorporates those changes.

I will have to add this as "Very High Quality +" for now... people seem to be disinclined to use such a setting, but for completeness's sake, i'll add it.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: user on 03 November, 2001, 09:17:57 AM
to
How to avoid clipping with mp3gain ?
How to burn Mp3 CD
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Somebody on 03 November, 2001, 11:30:14 AM
great list
suggestion to add
MP3Utility to (Analyzing MP3) section
http://www.geocities.com/mp3utility/ (http://www.geocities.com/mp3utility/)
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: user on 03 November, 2001, 02:48:30 PM
following:
mp3utility
razorlame
renatager
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: CiTay on 04 November, 2001, 10:38:10 PM
Some changes to the 128 kbit ABR lines, suggested by ff123: "--scale 0.93" added, --ns-bass -4 changed to --ns-bass -6 on the second line.

See http://ff123.net/cbr128.html (http://ff123.net/cbr128.html)
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: mp3fan on 05 November, 2001, 12:25:40 AM
Question,

Why not advise people to use normalization at 93%-98% (with EAC) instead of the "--scale" command?  Won't the "--scale" option degrade sound quality more than a normalization pass?

mp3
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Dibrom on 05 November, 2001, 12:36:31 AM
No.  This has been explained before, but basically using --scale in LAME is much more accurate than normalizing with a program like EAC.  Theoretical possible loss in quality would also be present on a normalized file.  Athadjust attempts to compensate for most of this but apparently it is not always entirely effective.  All of this --scale stuff only really seems to be a problem with vbr anyway, since depending on masking calculations and such (which volume can affect), it will use different bitrates... cbr and abr will use the same no matter what.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Dibrom on 05 November, 2001, 02:06:17 AM
I've updated the list of settings to reflect the changes to the --dm-presets which have now been fully added to LAME.  Compiles with these changes should be out within a few hours to a day.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: HansHeijden on 05 November, 2001, 06:37:59 AM
Dibrom,

Great you implemented this preset system! Of course there are things i'm not happy about  so here it goes. Feel free to ignore, anyway I noted that additional switches behind the preset can be added!

The choise of lowpass: too high at low bitrates, too low at high bitrates.
There's a good reason to stay below 16 kHz at 128 k, because at this bitrate nspsytune's default -X1 doesn't encode > 16 kHz well, if at all. It tends to be smeared as well, though I don't recall on what samples. Encoding above 16 kHz is too ambitious period!
I suggest 80k/12.3kHz, 96k/15.3kHz, 112k/16kHz and 128k/16kHz.
For higher bitrates, lame's defaults are just fine:
160k/18.0kHz, 192k/19.5kHz, 224k/20kHz, 256k/21kHz, 320k/22kHz.

At 320k I noticed the use of both -X3 and -Z. Can you explain why the -Z as well? Unlike the combination with -X1, it does not make much difference to me.

I heard that you probably lowered the --ns-bass -8 value in the 128k preset. Clips like 41_30sec, spahm, youcantdothat etc rumble more than they already did. The -8 shall not be touched! :mad:

It would be nice to know where you transition to nssafejoint, -X3 etc.

Hans
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Dibrom on 05 November, 2001, 10:13:14 AM
Quote
Originally posted by HansHeijden
There's a good reason to stay below 16 kHz at 128 k, because at this bitrate nspsytune's default -X1 doesn't encode > 16 kHz well, if at all. It tends to be smeared as well, though I don't recall on what samples. Encoding above 16 kHz is too ambitious period!
[/b]

Wombat disagrees with you on this case.  I think that a lowpass of 16khz is just a little bit too low.  Yes, you won't be able to encode much above that, but in cases when you can, it makes a difference to certain people.

Quote

At 320k I noticed the use of both -X3 and -Z. Can you explain why the -Z as well? Unlike the combination with -X1, it does not make much difference to me.
[/b]

The other day you were talking to me about using -Z even when it makes no audible difference usually but instead because on certain very artificial clips like test.wav or blips.wav it increases quality.  Since we are at 320kbps I decided to just use noise shaping 1 to sound better even in those cases.

Quote
I heard that you probably lowered the --ns-bass -8 value in the 128k preset. Clips like 41_30sec, spahm, youcantdothat etc rumble more than they already did. The -8 shall not be touched! :mad:


Way back when I did listening tests on certain clips I noted that a value of --ns-bass -8 changed the sounds of certain things like cymbals, even if it did improve the rumbling.  I'd rather make a more even trade off with a value of -6 then.

Quote
It would be nice to know where you transition to nssafejoint, -X3 etc.


At 192kbps I start using safejoint with an nsmsfix value of 1.7, at 224 I use 1.25, beyond that I just use the default of 1.  These nsmsfix values probably could use more tuning, I only did some quick and rough testing to decide upon them.  -X3 is turned on at 256kbps and up.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Dibrom on 05 November, 2001, 10:31:40 AM
Hans:

OK, I updated the lowpasses a bit:

  80kbps = 13500
  96kbps = 15300
112kbps = 16000
128kbps = 17500
160kbps = 18000
192kbps = 19500
224kbps = 20000
256kbps = 20500
320kbps = 21000

Also, a quite note about the --ns-bass stuff... if you are using Dmitry's compile, it only has the first set of modification I made included in it, which did NOT include ns-bass at all.  So if things are sounding really bad in that regards, that is why.  His compile came just a little bit too early.  Tomorrow everything should be fine though.  I'm going to go look for compiles which have all the latest changes (except these lowpass modifications of course).. I'll post a link here to the correct one to use today.

Edit2:  I take that back, smpman's compile isn't up to date yet either (no ns-bass tunings).  Looks like one more day..

Also, can you let me know which compile you were using Hans?  I'm just a little bit curious..
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: HansHeijden on 05 November, 2001, 11:50:28 AM
Yes, I used Dmitry's compile, so that explains the huge 'rumble' deterioration I heard. The --ns-bass -6 you use instead of -8 should hardly be noticeable. Indeed --ns-bass takes away a few bits from the highs, but to my taste tackling the rumble is priority. In time, you may hear it more and more easily, because it's an unusual sounding artifact. While we hear HF artifacts immediately by now!

The lowpass table looks better now (except at 128 k  ), but I think there's a little error. At 256k you mention 20500 Hz, but that will give the same filter as 20000 Hz. The next one available is at 21000 Hz.

Forgot to ask, but I suppose you drop the --ns-bass at the same point where -X3 comes in?

Hans
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Dibrom on 05 November, 2001, 12:04:33 PM
Quote
Originally posted by HansHeijden
Indeed --ns-bass takes away a few bits from the highs, but to my taste tackling the rumble is priority. In time, you may hear it more and more easily, because it's an unusual sounding artifact. While we hear HF artifacts immediately by now!


I can hear it, but yes it is a little unusual.  The more watery sounds of the highs tend to bother me more, but as you say, the --ns-bass -6 should work quite well while still allowing a bit more accuracy on the highs.

Quote
The lowpass table looks better now (except at 128 k  ), but I think there's a little error. At 256k you mention 20500 Hz, but that will give the same filter as 20000 Hz. The next one available is at 21000 Hz.


Ah.. forgot about that.  Hrmm, at 256kbps I'll probably drop down to 20000khz then.

Quote
Forgot to ask, but I suppose you drop the --ns-bass at the same point where -X3 comes in?


Actually 1 step before that.  I increase values from 80kbps up to 128kbps, then slowly back down till 224kbps where I stop using it completely, and at 256kbps I switch to X3.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: user on 06 November, 2001, 05:45:20 PM
Updated November 6, 2001

Especially the dm settings should work since latest compile by Dmitry or SMPman of 6th of Nov. 2001 (20011106).

Hi ,

I added that sentence, so it should be clear with which version of lame the new settings work.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: mitiok on 06 November, 2001, 08:07:46 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Dibrom

  80kbps = 13500
  96kbps = 15300
112kbps = 16000
128kbps = 17500
160kbps = 18000


oh... imho lame can't give good quality with such lowpass, i'd like to have at least

  80kbps = 12000
  96kbps = 13500
112kbps = 15000
128kbps = 1600
160kbps = 17500

or even more strong lowpass.....

Quote
Also, a quite note about the --ns-bass stuff... if you are using Dmitry's compile, it only has the first set of modification I made included in it, 
<skip>
His compile came just a little bit too early.
<skip>
Edit2:  I take that back, smpman's compile isn't up to date yet either (no ns-bass tunings).  Looks like one more day..


once again, both smpman and i download sourcecode from ftp://cedric.vabo.cz/pub/linux/apps/lame/ (http://ftp://cedric.vabo.cz/pub/linux/apps/lame/)
so you always may check when Jan Rafaj made snapshot and what was made before snapshot.

Jerry Baker get source code directly from CVS, i did the same during lame3.80 and think that it's worse
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: user on 09 November, 2001, 04:28:42 PM
Added
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: user on 09 November, 2001, 04:36:27 PM
Hi,

I edited the resulting file sizes of VBR presets.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Dibrom on 09 November, 2001, 04:40:22 PM
I'd like to point out that on the r3mix.net version of this thread:

http://66.96.216.160/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?board...4134851&start=0 (http://66.96.216.160/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?board=general&action=display&num=1004134851&start=0)

The changes cd-rw.org made the "average" bitrates is flawed.  The reason ranges should not be given next to bitrates is because if you are to do that, you should do both extreme ends of the bitrate range.  I have tracks which go down to 128kbps with dm-standard, and I've also seen tracks which cause --r3mix to go over 260kbps.  Looking at the ranges on there now, it seems a bit skewed.  Maybe someone would want to comment on that over there, or change it back to averages only.

The original testing I did to determine rough average bitrates for the various presets were across a wide range of music (various forms of metal, various forms of electronic, experimental, ambient, spoken word, music with classical elements, etc) , with at least 20 cd.. this covered a large bitrate spectrum, I gather that the changes made to the presets listed there now are only from picking out a few tracks here and there and assuming particular behavior is common across most files.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: cd-rw.org on 09 November, 2001, 05:00:15 PM
Dibrom,

Yes, the problem is that we can't really define the global average bitrate, in other words the global average for music.

The current figures are very rough estimates based on some average bitrates per album, not just one song. They can and will be finetuned, and now that you have optimized your settings further, some more testing needs to be done. I know that r3mix can go much higher and I know that standard can go much lower.

Still I think that for a popular music album there is a very good change that the bitrate will be inside the fork shown on the list.

EDIT: the list version here doesn't have the estimated bitrate forks, and the 170-200 comment on --r3mix is false since it easily goes much higher per album (see the r3mix forum version).
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Dibrom on 09 November, 2001, 05:11:31 PM
I don't think it is a good idea to try and give ranges because it is impossible for that to be meaningful.  Those ranges are totally useless if someone only encodes classical, or only encodes metal.. 2 forms of music which are bound to cause drastically different bitrates for mp3.  A single average is even pushing it because that doesn't necessarily mean it will hold for the situations I just described.  The only averages I try to list are those had from encoding a very wide range of music and getting an estimate from that.  Single albums at a time should not be used, especially if they are from similar genres.

About the --r3mix range, I didn't create this list, though I'd rather even it would be removed.  The problem is I don't know know a more precise range for --r3mix because I haven't encoded a bunch of albums with it recently.  I'm planning on doing this "test" again though with all of the vbr presets I've created at which point I'll list more accurate figures.

Ranges are a very inaccurage thing with vbr (especially in MP3) and shouldn't be used to describe likely results, and I think having them even on the list on r3mix.net is misleading.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Dibrom on 09 November, 2001, 05:20:54 PM
What I think I'll do since I'm about ready to start reencoding again for average bitrates after some of these changes, is I'll keep the data for each album in the test "set".. and next to each preset I'll include a link to average bitrates across the albums encoded.  For each album in that set I can include a link to list the bitrates for the songs also.

That will give a much more accurate representation of the bitrates in various situations.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: tangent on 10 November, 2001, 02:28:58 AM
The best way to represent a range would be to provide the mean and standard deviation, I think. People know that easier materials will yield lower bitrates, harder materials will yield higher bitrates. What they want to know is how much lower or higher the bitrate would be.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: cd-rw.org on 10 November, 2001, 02:33:50 AM
Dibber: That's an idea but it will give only your average bitrate, so it is just as inaccurate globally.

And the bitrate estimates are nothing fundamental here. They just give a little guideline to the newbies and to how the presets differ. As more data is collected, they will be refined. And since you are on a fast developement pace, things need to be revised soon.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: jord on 14 November, 2001, 08:17:43 PM
Hi,

Let me start by saying that the new Lame settings are GREAT!
Dibrom, thanks a lot!

Secondly, user, Dibrom, are you planning to update the recommended Lame settings of this thread with the new --alt -preset options?

That would really help!
Jord.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Dibrom on 14 November, 2001, 08:40:45 PM
Quote
Originally posted by jord
Secondly, user, Dibrom, are you planning to update the recommended Lame settings of this thread with the new --alt -preset options?


Yep.. I'll be adding the --alt-presets as soon as they are in the mainline LAME which should be fairly soon.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: jord on 14 November, 2001, 09:10:02 PM
Great!

...and you'll add your compile to the mainline LAME as soon as it's final (with athadjust modifications completed), correct?

If so, I can't wait!
Thanks again for your work! :roflmao:
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Kblood on 15 November, 2001, 05:49:28 AM
--dm-preset <bitrate>

Simple question: In this tuned preset, <bitrate> has to be "standard"? Or can I use, for example, "--dm-preset 140"?

Thanks everybody for this thread, really useful, and should have a big red button in the front page!  Keep up the good work!
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: auldyin on 15 November, 2001, 07:19:04 AM
Hi,
I just did.

See auldyin posts

auldyin
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: mp3fan on 23 November, 2001, 01:26:15 PM
Well, here is my offering.  I'd like the developers or Dibrom to consider this command line:

--nspsytune --nsmsfix 1.35 --abr 178 -b160 -m j -h --athtype 2 --lowpass 17.5

IMO, it uses only what it needs to achieve a great size/quality result.  It's not perfect, but IMO, the vast majority of users would be pleased with the quality from a "casual trade" perspective.  This command line has no real artifacts that I can hear, and it's definitely superior to a 192-CBR in my opinion because of it's flexibility.  When VBR bitrates get too bloated, I've been using this setting. 

Also, it uses a lowpass that conforms to most people's hearing ability.  Let's face it, the vast majority of people don't hear much beyond 16 KHz anyway.  I've found a 17.5 lowpass allows that little extra wisp of highs which is enough for even a pair of good ears. 

It all comes down to what you're willing to sacrifice when the bitrates go below about 192 kb/sec.  I put in what I could to maintain quality where it counted in that command line.  IMO, if you're willing to go below 192 kb/sec in bitrate, you're not really looking to preserve ulta-high frequencies anyway.  So, why not use a reasonable 17.5 KHz lowpass?  Makes sense to me.  Especially considering it's ABR, not VBR.

mp3
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: SNYder on 29 November, 2001, 06:47:36 PM
why is every settin on this list still in the --dm format.

i thought it changed to --alt

and --alt-normal replaced the old --dm-standard.

what's the deal?
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Somebody on 29 November, 2001, 08:53:39 PM
Quote
Originally posted by SNYder
why is every settin on this list still in the --dm format.

i thought it changed to --alt

and --alt-normal replaced the old --dm-standard.

what's the deal?

As far as I know, the alt presets have not been submitted officially.
This would be why.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: SNYder on 29 November, 2001, 10:32:01 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Somebody

As far as I know, the alt presets have not been submitted officially.
This would be why.
So then how come --alt is already able to be used in LAME?

And do you ALMIGHT SOMEB0DY think it's fine for me to use --alt-normal over --dm-standard figuring he's done a hand full of stuff that I know are in --alt-normal but I'm not sure about being in --dm-standard? As in, are they the same exactly, and if not and --alt-normal is the latest work by him, is it ok to use that?

nglijzdgvbvg bidxbzvbgdkszbvgsabvkuhjvbls
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: JohnV on 29 November, 2001, 10:53:27 PM
Quote
Originally posted by SNYder So then how come --alt is already able to be used in LAME?
--alt-preset normal and other --alt-preset settings are not in the official source base, therefore no official alpha build has it yet.

Quote
And do you ALMIGHT SOMEB0DY think it's fine for me to use --alt-normal over --dm-standard figuring he's done a hand full of stuff that I know are in --alt-normal but I'm not sure about being in --dm-standard? As in, are they the same exactly, and if not and --alt-normal is the latest work by him, is it ok to use that?
At the moment you gotta use Dibrom's rev6 if you want to use --alt-preset normal or other --alt-preset settings. Those are not the same as --dm-preset settings.

Just to make sure: --alt-normal and --dm-standard do start to encode but do nothing but 128kbps files. You gotta use --alt-preset normal or --dm-preset standard etc..
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Dibrom on 15 December, 2001, 05:35:26 PM
Updated the recommended settings to reflect the latest developments within L.A.M.E.

I also removed some unoptimized settings, including --r3mix.  The reasoning for this is that --r3mix is now outdated and offers no advantages over the new alt presets.  --alt-preset fast standard matches it in speed and bitrate and the quality is still much higher.  This may upset some people, but as we are recommending the highest quality settings here, --r3mix does not belong on that list anymore IMO.  Continuing to recommend an inferior preset that is bested in basically every way by another much higher quality preset would be irresponsible and confusing.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: layer3maniac on 15 December, 2001, 05:54:21 PM
Quote
I also removed some unoptimized settings, including --r3mix. 
Roel's blood pressure probably just shot through the roof...  :insane:
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Dibrom on 15 December, 2001, 06:01:13 PM
Quote
Originally posted by layer3maniac
Roel's blood pressure probably just shot through the roof...  :insane:


Maybe, but remember folks, this isn't personal.. it shouldn't be.  The MP3 scene is already too political as it is.. too many egos and people too willing to ignore objective data in relation to quality.  Look at the recent discussions where some sorely misguided people still think Blade is the best MP3 encoder for example.  My decisions to be honest and truthful (no matter how unimportant some may view it as) , backed up by verifiable and objective data, will not be swayed by this aspect, if people can't handle that.. then too bad.

I've done nearly everything possible to meet the demands of the community on this, working extensively to provide an elaborate unified preset system that should meet the needs of nearly everyone.  Quality related matters have been discussed and continuously tested for months now.  This is something that is very much needed in the somewhat fragmented MP3 "quality" scene.  One single person's wish (despite all available data) to continue to imply their collection of switches as the "best" is irrelevant as harsh as that may sound.

As a future note to possible flames that may erupt over this -- don't make it personal people.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: SNYder on 15 December, 2001, 06:16:13 PM
I think under the 96kbps CBR preset there should be a link to a thread or a page with information on why LAME should not be used for bitrates under 96kbps and where to get a good fhg encoder/program that would provide better quality.  Mabey even have a little explanation on how to get the best quality outa fhg using whatever program you suggest

[edit]spelling/wording
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Dibrom on 15 December, 2001, 06:19:23 PM
Quote
Originally posted by SNYder
I think a link under the 96kbps CBR or whatever should be a link to a thread or a page with information on why LAME should not be used and where to get a good fhg encoder/program that would provide better quality at these bitrates.  Mabey even have a little explanation on how to get the best quality outa fhg using whatever program


This is probably a good idea actually.  I'll have to look into this some.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: SNYder on 15 December, 2001, 06:24:03 PM
fyi:  u have --alt-preset insane under vbr.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Dibrom on 15 December, 2001, 06:34:14 PM
Quote
Originally posted by SNYder
fyi:  u have --alt-preset insane under vbr.


I did that on purpose actually, but since it is a little bit confusing I added a small note underneath explaining why it is there.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Northpack on 15 December, 2001, 06:41:09 PM
Mmh, I don't think that LAME performs bad on ~96kbps. I recently tested different codecs and settings in order to find out the optimal way to go for 1CD-DivX rips. I ended up with the LAME setting:
Code: [Select]
--abr 95 -mj -h --athtype 2 --nspsytune --ns-bass -8 --resample 32 --lowpass 15.5 --scale 0.95
which sounds better than WMA / MP3PRO on comparable bitrates and is definitive competitive with OGG IMHO.

Northpack
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Dibrom on 15 December, 2001, 06:47:57 PM
Out of curiosity, you should give --alt-preset 95 a try with the compile linked to in the first post.  It actually give slightly larger bitrates than your preset probably because the --alt-preset abr mode tries to compensate for the fact that LAME usually slightly undershoots the target bitrate with abr.

Areas where the --alt-preset likely improves upon your setting, --scale .95 is too conservative to eliminate the majority of audible clipping (testing by myself and ff123 on bloodline.wav) and I also think an --ns-bass value of -8 is probably too high for that bitrate, allocating too many bits to that region.  Too high of an --ns-bass value with low bitrates impacts the quality of higher frequencies, and I think that --ns-bass -8 at 128kbps may be a tad too aggressive in that regard already. I have noted slight differences in cymbal sounds with that high of a value even at 128kbps cbr as opposed to using a lower --ns-bass value.  This situation should be worse at a lower bitrate.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: SNYder on 15 December, 2001, 07:29:14 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Dibrom


I did that on purpose actually, but since it is a little bit confusing I added a small note underneath explaining why it is there.
that's what I thought.  just let you know incase.

Why don't you just put it above the VBR title bar like this...

Quote
Highest Quality
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Dibrom on 15 December, 2001, 07:36:55 PM
Good idea, I went ahead and just did that.

I also added small note about the quality relationship between VBR, ABR, and CBR.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Amadeus93 on 15 December, 2001, 08:04:35 PM
One thing about the format: the first three categories are Highest Quality, Even Higher Quality, and Very High Quality.

It looks a little strange to have them in that order - makes it sound like extreme gives "higher than highest" quality.

Just my $.02
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Dibrom on 15 December, 2001, 08:11:25 PM
Fixed.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Dibrom on 15 December, 2001, 10:01:24 PM
Modified the layout some more and added more to the "credits" section.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: jraneses on 16 December, 2001, 01:40:13 AM
Dibrom, can you comment on the differences between using the --dm-preset xtreme from the 12/01 build and the new --alt-preset extreme on the latest build.  I've encoded an album tonight using both encoders and noticed with --alt-preset extreme that my file sizes are jumping up around 3/4 mb each.  I'm not really concerned, but what quality differences can I expect between these two different presets?  If the new alt presets are going to give me better quality (even if it's inaudible to me), I want to make sure I go with the new ones.  I haven't been able to find a good FAQ on exactly what the new presets are supposed to offer overall over the old dm presets.

Thanks,

Jason
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Dibrom on 16 December, 2001, 03:31:22 AM
Quote
Originally posted by jraneses
Dibrom, can you comment on the differences between using the --dm-preset xtreme from the 12/01 build and the new --alt-preset extreme on the latest build.


Hrmm.. well the differences in extreme basically are the same things that were applied to the standard mode.  Basically better short block handling, adaptive noise measuring/shaping, tweaks to joint stereo, etc.

Quote
I've encoded an album tonight using both encoders and noticed with --alt-preset extreme that my file sizes are jumping up around 3/4 mb each.


Hrmm.. that's a pretty big jump in bitrate.  What kind of music was this?  I actually have an idea what might be causing this bitrate increase in this mode now that you mention it.  I'll have to double check.  Maybe you could encode again adding the switch --no-preset-tune and see what that does to the bitrates...

Quote
I'm not really concerned, but what quality differences can I expect between these two different presets?  If the new alt presets are going to give me better quality (even if it's inaudible to me), I want to make sure I go with the new ones.  I haven't been able to find a good FAQ on exactly what the new presets are supposed to offer overall over the old dm presets.


The quality of the extreme mode should be increased, but it's possible the modifications I applied in one area (maybe the joint stereo stuff) was too aggressive in this mode because a difference between a few things it does vs the standard mode.  I'll run some experiments and see.  I did notice larger files in a few cases myself but thought they were circumstancial (I haven't tested bitrates with extreme nearly as much as standard).

As for a list of the general differences, you can see most of them here:

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/showth...s=&threadid=411 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=411)

While most of the discussion is centered around the "standard" mode, many of the improvements still apply... mostly:

- Improved joint stereo usage
- Improved short block usage
- Improved noise shaping/measuring usage

The last one is centered around lowering bitrates and still providing high quality.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Northpack on 16 December, 2001, 07:09:30 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Dibrom
Areas where the --alt-preset likely improves upon your setting, --scale .95 is too conservative to eliminate the majority of audible clipping (testing by myself and ff123 on bloodline.wav) and I also think an --ns-bass value of -8 is probably too high for that bitrate, allocating too many bits to that region.  Too high of an --ns-bass value with low bitrates impacts the quality of higher frequencies, and I think that --ns-bass -8 at 128kbps may be a tad too aggressive in that regard already. I have noted slight differences in cymbal sounds with that high of a value even at 128kbps cbr as opposed to using a lower --ns-bass value.  This situation should be worse at a lower bitrate.


You are fairly right, that in the case of encoding music this setting would be too high, but as I read on various DivX boards, the value of -8 is recommended for movie soundtracks because of the heavy bass-effects in most soundtracks. compared to that high-frequencies claimed to be rather disregardable!? Then again, that was claimed in conjunction with an --abr134 line, so perhaps it makes sense to put in down to, say -6 in this case?

Whether using --alt-preset < 100, is the waveform going to be downsampled to 32 khz? I think I am able to point out an audible difference in quality between a sampling-rate of 44 and 32, whereas 32 sounds clearly better in my ears at such low bitrates...

Another question, Dibrom: as you have replaced now the initial --dm-preset with the new --alt-preset switch, is --dm-metal gone or has it it made into the the new switch?

Northpack
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: john33 on 16 December, 2001, 08:39:44 AM
Dibrom,
I notice the rlo presets file for RazorLame is somewhat out-of-date.

I would have a go myself, but I suspect I would probably get it wrong!

john33
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: user on 16 December, 2001, 09:48:46 AM
Hi,

the presets are designed for the aim that every normal user should be able to use them easily.

The rlo's are not from Dibrom, somebody else should update them, in fact, they are not really important.

Because:

You can click in Razorlame at "Lame options", there you choose "EXPERT" .
There you write your desired preset as written here into "custom options" and activate "use only custom options".

That should do it.
Of course you can name and save that preset by yourself there. Then you don't need that rlo from here anymore.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: user on 16 December, 2001, 09:59:34 AM
Hi,

with alt prset extreme the compiles reslut to the same.

Very well !!

So now the community can use the normal compiles.

And they are even forced to read here and use the new alt presets from now on if they want to use latest and best lame compiles.
Because with lame-20011215 the dm presets dont work anymore.

PS:

I changed preset "alt xtreme" to "alt extreme".
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Dibrom on 16 December, 2001, 12:34:15 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Northpack


You are fairly right, that in the case of encoding music this setting would be too high, but as I read on various DivX boards, the value of -8 is recommended for movie soundtracks because of the heavy bass-effects in most soundtracks. compared to that high-frequencies claimed to be rather disregardable!? Then again, that was claimed in conjunction with an --abr134 line, so perhaps it makes sense to put in down to, say -6 in this case?


Yeah, I think at that bitrate, lowering the value some is just a good idea.. otherwise there really may not be enough bits for the rest of the sound.  Even if the high frequencies as not as present, it could still have an effect on just ambient sounds and other things I'd imagine.

Quote
Whether using --alt-preset < 100, is the waveform going to be downsampled to 32 khz? I think I am able to point out an audible difference in quality between a sampling-rate of 44 and 32, whereas 32 sounds clearly better in my ears at such low bitrates...


The --alt-presets don't resample to 32khz until 80kbps.  It is possible that 32khz might sound better though.. do you have a clip you can provide where you believe this difference is the most audible?  I'd be interested in trying to test this some to provide a better abr line if there is a possibility for improvement.

Quote
Another question, Dibrom: as you have replaced now the initial --dm-preset with the new --alt-preset switch, is --dm-metal gone or has it it made into the the new switch?


Yes, --dm-metal is gone and is replaced with the generic ABR preset.  It just made much more sense for me to do it that way I thought because then people could set whatever bitrate they choose.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Dibrom on 16 December, 2001, 12:34:45 PM
Quote
Originally posted by john33
Dibrom,
I notice the rlo presets file for RazorLame is somewhat out-of-date.

I would have a go myself, but I suspect I would probably get it wrong!

john33


I'm going to try and get this taken care of if I can, thanks for reminding me
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: jraneses on 16 December, 2001, 01:04:57 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Dibrom


Hrmm.. that's a pretty big jump in bitrate.  What kind of music was this?  I actually have an idea what might be causing this bitrate increase in this mode now that you mention it.  I'll have to double check.  Maybe you could encode again adding the switch --no-preset-tune and see what that does to the bitrates...


It's hip hop on this particular album.  With the no-preset-tune switch, the bitrate dropped down to 248 from it's original 267.  The encode using dm-preset xtreme is averaging 248 also.  Like I said, if that jump in bitrate is doing some good to the quality, I'll definately be happy with it.

Any thoughts are appreciated...thanks for awesome work on the encoder.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Dibrom on 16 December, 2001, 01:42:39 PM
Quote
Originally posted by jraneses
It's hip hop on this particular album.  With the no-preset-tune switch, the bitrate dropped down to 248 from it's original 267.  The encode using dm-preset xtreme is averaging 248 also.  Like I said, if that jump in bitrate is doing some good to the quality, I'll definately be happy with it.


I see.  OK, that's not quite as bad as I thought actually.  Last night I did some experimentation though and I may rework the extreme mode to have a lower "higher end bitrate" and a higher "lower end bitrate".. localizing it more basically.  There are a few situations where it goes a little higher in bitrate than I'd like and these modifications (if I make them) should help make the transition from standard to extreme to insane a little bit more linear in bitrate.  We'll see what happens..

Quote
Any thoughts are appreciated...thanks for awesome work on the encoder.


You're welcome
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: SNYder on 16 December, 2001, 01:50:29 PM
Could someone add, in the links section under (Rename/ID3 Tagging), the programs MPTagger (http://surf.to/mptagger (http://surf.to/mptagger)), my favorite, and Helium2 (http://www.helium2.com/ (http://www.helium2.com/)) as they are two of the most well liked and used tagging programs out there.

And add a link under those two to Sawg's great ID3 Tagger lists.
.............
http://forums.winamp.com/showthread.php?threadid=64962 (http://forums.winamp.com/showthread.php?threadid=64962)
.............
p.s.  good job Dibrom on re-organizing the list and your (CBR < ABR < VBR in terms of quality) note.  Makes things just that much more understandable.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: user on 16 December, 2001, 02:09:50 PM
Hi,

done.

Added only the  link to the list, not to helium and mptagger, because then the list becomes to big.
And the newbie would get too much infos at first moment.

If he needs other programs than renatager, he can look at list, where he can find mptagger and helium2, too.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: user on 16 December, 2001, 02:19:13 PM
Hi,

the increasement from 248 to 267 is not much.

I tested with my usual files and found out, that in fact the bitrate from dm xtreme to alt extreme has not changed much.

With a specific file it decreased eg. from 280 to 278.


But some other things have changed. More use of short blocks eg.

That you can read in other post I think.


I would say that dm xtrme and alt exrteme  have  very good resulting bitrates.

Of course they vary a lot , eg. from 220 to 280.
That depends much from your material.
Of course loud hiphop with a lot of dynamic needs more bittrate for same qulaity compared to a other songs which are slower, more quiet.

@Dibrom:
I don't think you need to try to decrease bitrate of extreme .
If you use it over a lot of music it will result in perhaps 250 kbit/s.

You have said by yourself, that quality is the goal of extreme.
Who wants to save bitrate, should try alt standard, or an abr, or cbr setting.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Dibrom on 16 December, 2001, 02:26:43 PM
user,

Well perhaps I won't change too much.  I'm not even sure if I will really change anything yet.  Quality certainly isn't an issue, but maybe the bitrate could be slightly more tuned.  I'm going to encode a few more albums with this mode today and test what kind of averages I get.  I'd like to shoot for a 256kbps average if possible (which as you say, it may already be reaching.. at least some of my data seems to indicate this as well).

So I won't really change anything unless I'm sure there is a need to, so far there probably isn't.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: jraneses on 16 December, 2001, 03:10:47 PM
Thanks for checking into this again...because I really don't know the dynamics that go into your efforts, I was just asking about the differences, not really requesting that you make any changes.  I love the quality and I've noticed some good improvements in some of the tracks.  I was planning on encoding 30 albums today with it that I had already ripped from last week using EAC, so I wanted to make sure everything was kosher before I hit "go".
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: JohnV on 16 December, 2001, 04:42:52 PM
Edited the link list a bit. The link to "Dibrom's Mp3/MP3pro" forum wasn't working, same problem with that link at r3mix's forum list. Also changed it from "MP3/MP3plus" to proper "MP3/Mp3pro"...
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: SNYder on 16 December, 2001, 05:03:00 PM
Quote
Originally posted by user
Hi,

done. 

Added only the  link to the list, not to helium and mptagger, because then the list becomes to big.
And the newbie would get too much infos at first moment.

If he needs other programs than renatager, he can look at list, where he can find mptagger and helium2, too.
The list is already big.  two more lines isn't much.  Just add em.

I'd say it's better to suggest the 3 best ID3Taggers up front so that if renatagger, or whatever they try first, doesnt suit their needs then they don't have to spend hours trying out and downloading every one of those taggers on the list just to find out what the best are... cause we have already told them.  Chances are atleast one of them will tickle their fancy.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: CiTay on 16 December, 2001, 05:42:50 PM
Improved spelling & layout.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: jraneses on 16 December, 2001, 08:44:11 PM
Where is this list you're speaking of?  I haven't been able to find links to any recommended ID3 editors on this site...I tried under downloads and web links but no dice.

Thanks,

Jason
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Amadeus93 on 16 December, 2001, 09:55:36 PM
One more formatting bit:

Under "VBR (variable bitrate) settings", the first line should be changed from "Even Higher Quality" to "Very High Quality +" (as they have it on the r3mix forum).
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Dibrom on 16 December, 2001, 11:32:28 PM
I prefer "even higher quality" personally.  The + part was since --r3mix was originally there.  For that matter though the r3mix.net list isn't completely synched up with here anyway so it's probably not a big deal.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Dibrom on 18 December, 2001, 11:46:52 AM
Updated the bitrate information for "extreme".
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: SNYder on 18 December, 2001, 11:33:37 PM
can someone please just add the 2 ID3Taggers i suggested
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Dibrom on 18 December, 2001, 11:56:25 PM
done
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: SNYder on 19 December, 2001, 12:15:05 AM
thanks buddy

[edit]p.s.

at the top of the list you still have the recomended compiler linking to rev8b.  might wanna update that.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: JohnV on 19 December, 2001, 08:01:13 AM
Quote
Originally posted by SNYder
p.s.

at the top of the list you still have the recomended compiler linking to rev8b.  might wanna update that.
Updated.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: c15zyx on 23 December, 2001, 04:57:41 PM
2 short questions:

1. Why is -q 2 (-h) used instead of -q 0? I know that -q2 is recommended as it is faster and that -q0 doesn't yield significantly better results, but doesn't -q0 results in better quality (which is what we're after here)? Does -q0 cause certain problems by trying to find the 'best' type of noise shaping etc.?

2. Is there an audible difference (for most people) between a lowpass of 19200 Hz (defaulted in preset standard) and 19900 Hz (defaulted in extreme i think)? Would setting the lowpass as 19.5 using preset standard affect the quality much? Just nice to know that the full 20-20k is kept intact.

Thnx.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Dibrom on 23 December, 2001, 05:29:21 PM
Quote
Originally posted by c15zyx
2 short questions:

1. Why is -q 2 (-h) used instead of -q 0? I know that -q2 is recommended as it is faster and that -q0 doesn't yield significantly better results, but doesn't -q0 results in better quality (which is what we're after here)? Does -q0 cause certain problems by trying to find the 'best' type of noise shaping etc.?


No, -q0 does not result in better quality, only slower encoding.  All of the areas for increases in quality which would be "obvious" such as using command line switches, I've already examined and made use of where appropriate.  -q0 also defaults Takehiro's new noise shaping which may allow for more room for error in added noise and the speed hit is around 40% with a bit savings of around 2kbps.  There is no audible difference or increase in quality, and the hit in speed and more room for error are, IMO, unacceptable at this time. 

Quote
2. Is there an audible difference (for most people) between a lowpass of 19200 Hz (defaulted in preset standard) and 19900 Hz (defaulted in extreme i think)?


No.  Especially not in actual music.

Quote
Would setting the lowpass as 19.5 using preset standard affect the quality much? Just nice to know that the full 20-20k is kept intact.


It wouldn't really bring you an increase in quality, just larger sizes.  As I've said before, if you can actually hear up to 20khz clearly on actual music, with a high degree of regularity (this is very rare), then you shouldn't be using MP3 anyway because the quality starts to significantly degrade once you pass 16khz.  In addition, more advanced formats like AAC, MPC, and Vorbis, do not encode up to these frequencies all the time either.. masking plays a role here, and often times even if you *can* hear up to those frequencies in real music (again very rare) sometimes, there are many times that the masking effect is so strong you won't hear them in that particular case anyway.

Ideally, an adaptive lowpass filter would be the best thing to use here, but it'd take some work, and masking of high frequencies would need to be better calculated in LAME than it is currently to really make effective use of this.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: user on 26 December, 2001, 12:21:09 PM
Added link to HOW TO Reencode mp3 to mp3 keeping id3tags
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: user on 30 December, 2001, 12:19:40 PM
added lowpass 16 to ABR 134/128 setting. It was missing there.

I wonder why in alt preset 128 scale 0.93 is implemented.
Clipping can be avoided by mp3gain or mp3trim.

Snelg wants to add an automatic funtion into his mp3gain, so that there will be an one click success deal to get maximized files without clipping.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: ff123 on 30 December, 2001, 03:11:55 PM
Quote
added lowpass 16 to ABR 134/128 setting. It was missing there.


Probably 134 should revert back to 128 if the bitrate problem has been fixed, which it should be according to the history for the 3.90 release.  But to be honest, I haven't checked.  Lowpass 16 is needed if 128 is used, but not needed if 134 is used.

Quote
I wonder why in alt preset 128 scale 0.93 is implemented. 
Clipping can be avoided by mp3gain or mp3trim.

Snelg wants to add an automatic funtion into his mp3gain, so that there will be an one click success deal to get maximized files without clipping.


scale 0.93 is used because probably the majority of lame users who use lower bitrates like 128 won't be as anal about quality as to use a separate utility like mp3gain to adjust the gain after encoding.

ff123
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: sphoid on 30 December, 2001, 04:20:37 PM
Quote
Originally posted by ff123
Probably 134 should revert back to 128 if the bitrate problem has been fixed, which it should be according to the history for the 3.90 release.  But to be honest, I haven't checked.  Lowpass 16 is needed if 128 is used, but not needed if 134 is used.


Since Mark and Gabriel made the tweak to the ABR code, I've removed the code in --alt-preset that attempts to compensate for the bitrate usually falling short of the specified rate.  It seems to be fine now in the short tests that I ran, so at least I'd probably say it's fine to recommend 128 again.

Quote
scale 0.93 is used because probably the majority of lame users who use lower bitrates like 128 won't be as anal about quality as to use a separate utility like mp3gain to adjust the gain after encoding.


Yeah, the majority of LAME users probably don't even know about mp3gain, so until replaygain support is added to --scale (I'm not even sure if there are plans for this though),  I think it's better to just implement scale in the presets, especially since it can easily be overriden with a --scale 1

EDIT:  Oops.. this is Dibrom on Sphoid's PC, didn't realize till I made the post.. lol.

.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Snelg on 30 December, 2001, 06:06:25 PM
Quote
Originally posted by user
Snelg wants to add an automatic funtion into his mp3gain, so that there will be an one click success deal to get maximized files without clipping.


"wants to" isn't exactly correct. It would be more accurate to say, "has, by popular demand, been compelled to"

-Glen
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: user on 31 December, 2001, 04:25:18 AM
"or (ff123's and Hans' suggestion -- http://www.ff123.net/cbr128.html (http://www.ff123.net/cbr128.html)):

-b128 -h --nspsytune --athtype 2 --lowpass 16 --ns-bass -8 "

Is the lowpass switch, I added yesterday to 128 CBR commandline, really needed ?
Or not, if lowpass 16 is a preset of Lame at 128 CBR ?

Then it would be better it is removed again, so that this line becomes as short as possible.

Sorry for my limited knowledge.


What is with ABR 128 / 134 ? Is there lowpass 16 preswitched by lame, too, or not ?


So my last question this year !

Where at those two command lines should be removed lowpass 16 to result in as short command lines as possible ?



@Snelg:

many Thanks for doing great work with mp3gain, I think, I am not the only one who likes your program.

@all:

"Einen guten Rutsch ins Neue Jahr !"

"Have a nice skating into New Year !"

"Skating Away on the thin ice of the new day"
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: ff123 on 31 December, 2001, 10:43:53 AM
Quote
"or (ff123's and Hans' suggestion -- http://www.ff123.net/cbr128.html (http://www.ff123.net/cbr128.html)): 

-b128 -h --nspsytune --athtype 2 --lowpass 16 --ns-bass -8 " 

Is the lowpass switch, I added yesterday to 128 CBR commandline, really needed ? 
Or not, if lowpass 16 is a preset of Lame at 128 CBR ? 

Then it would be better it is removed again, so that this line becomes as short as possible.


At 128, the lowpass 16 is needed, otherwise it defaults to something lower than 16 kHz.  BTW, you forgot the scale in the command line above.

Quote
What is with ABR 128 / 134 ? Is there lowpass 16 preswitched by lame, too, or not ?


At 134, lame defaulted to lowpass 16 -- the bitrate was just high enough for it to do that, I guess.

ff123
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: user on 31 December, 2001, 11:38:26 AM
128 kbit ABR

--alt-preset 128

or (ff123's and Hans' suggestion -- http://www.ff123.net/cbr128.html (http://www.ff123.net/cbr128.html)):

--abr 134 -h --nspsytune --athtype 2 --ns-bass -8 --scale 0.93


128 kbit/s CBR (More Discussion)

--alt-preset cbr 128

or (ff123's and Hans' suggestion -- http://www.ff123.net/cbr128.html (http://www.ff123.net/cbr128.html)):

-h --nspsytune --athtype 2 --lowpass 16 --ns-bass -8 --scale 0.93


So now i edited the abr/cbr sezzings for 128 kbit to the version in this post.

Are they now as short as possible and correct ?
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: ff123 on 31 December, 2001, 11:47:01 AM
Quote
or (ff123's and Hans' suggestion -- http://www.ff123.net/cbr128.html (http://www.ff123.net/cbr128.html)): 

--abr 134 -h --nspsytune --athtype 2 --ns-bass -8 --scale 0.93 


should be:

--abr 128 -h --nspsytune --athtype 2 --lowpass 16 --ns-bass -8 --scale 0.93

The bitrates for ABR should now approach the specified number

ff123
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: user on 31 December, 2001, 12:04:45 PM
Done
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: user on 23 January, 2002, 10:54:26 AM
done
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Jan S. on 26 January, 2002, 10:38:53 AM
Made all the presets for razorLame.

download here: http://powertothepeople.homestead.com/file...enaudio.org.zip (http://powertothepeople.homestead.com/files/hydrogenaudio.org.zip)



Jan.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Jan S. on 12 February, 2002, 02:36:19 PM
Quote
Originally posted by user
Updated January 23, 2002

<i>Note: These settings require Lame 3.90


I thought v3.91 was recommended?
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: CiTay on 12 February, 2002, 03:50:21 PM
The "inofficial" 3.90.2 from this page produces the same output as the official 3.91 version, but it encodes faster.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Delirium on 12 February, 2002, 04:08:12 PM
Quote
Originally posted by CiTay
The "inofficial" 3.90.2 from this page produces the same output as the official 3.91 version, but it encodes faster.
On the other hand, 3.90.2 no longer seems to be available here ("The requested URL /extra/LAME/lame3.90.2-ICL.zip was not found on this server."), so I guess 3.91 it is.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: CiTay on 12 February, 2002, 04:15:53 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Delirium
On the other hand, 3.90.2 no longer seems to be available here ("The requested URL /extra/LAME/lame3.90.2-ICL.zip was not found on this server."), so I guess 3.91 it is.


In this case, use my mirror: http://www.citay.de/lame3.90.2-ICL.zip (http://www.citay.de/lame3.90.2-ICL.zip)

Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: mp3fan on 10 March, 2002, 07:22:10 PM
Dibrom,

This is in regards to the 128 kb/sec preset:
-b128 --nspsytune -mj -h --athtype 2 --ns-bass -8 --lowpass 16 --scale 0.93

I have a few reccommendations here.  I feel it would improve quality for all other frequencies under 16k to put the lowpass down to --lowpass 15.  There should be a significant gain in quality when the entire sfb-21 is removed from even being used here.  A lowpass setting of 16 will trigger sfb-21 to use bits and waste bits that are so important for the lower frequencies here.

The next suggestion that I have is to lower the --scale 0.93.  After some reading and experimenting, I found that a --lowpass of 15 or 16 will generate a higher volume which is shown in soundforge just by using your suggested command line.  Lowering the --scale setting to 0.86 nearly obliterates clipping except in a scant few situations while your current reccommendation of 0.93 is clipping for me so bad that I can clearly hear it hurting quality while 0.86 is clearly superior, especially for these high volume CDs coming out today.

My test song wasn't even the worst example of compression/volume either.  The song I used to determine the best scale setting was Alanis Morissette - Thank U on her 1998 album Supposed Former Infatuation Junkie.  (Most highly compressed pop-rock music you can buy today will be the same)  When using your reccommended --scale 0.93, the last 20 seconds of the song are badly clipped and it's audibly causing saturation in the sound.  Soundforge confirms the heavy clipping.  With --scale 0.86, the clipping is totally gone.  It's obvious that the lowpass is causing this increase in volume and that a lower --scale setting is necessary to offset the saturation.

mp3
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: obazavil on 18 April, 2002, 11:42:28 AM
Hi!

With the new release of LAME 3.92, this thread is going to be updated?
Dibrom is going to make his build, or testing for the best recommended LAME settings using the last build? (or if still 3.90-2 is better, a note about it?)

Thanks!
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Dibrom on 18 April, 2002, 03:59:51 PM
Quote
Originally posted by obazavil
Hi!

With the new release of LAME 3.92, this thread is going to be updated?
Dibrom is going to make his build, or testing for the best recommended LAME settings using the last build? (or if still 3.90-2 is better, a note about it?)

Thanks!


There should be no real difference in quality between 3.92 and 3.90.2.  The code behind the --alt-presets hasn't changed any.  Therefore, it's probably best to just use the latest version, 3.92.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: andrew on 19 April, 2002, 01:29:13 AM
dibrom,

do you have any idea the "best" command line for quality/compression ratio for portable devices?

Thanks a zill!
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: SometimesWarrior on 19 April, 2002, 02:32:03 AM
Quote
Originally posted by andrew
do you have any idea the "best" command line for quality/compression ratio for portable devices?

Maybe I can save Dibrom some time here...

If you just scan the headers in the MP3 forum, you'll probably find your answer. Here are some links to get you started:

Best portable MP3 setting? (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1019)

Best preset for PORTABLE MP3 CD PLAYERS (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=919)

--alt-preset medium (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1529)

Suggest ~160kbps VBR setting. (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1432)

how to get the lower bitrates? (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=780)

Dibrom has suggested adding the -Y switch to --alt-preset standard as a way to lower bitrates (see here (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=780)). This disables the global gain in scalefactor resolution that is used when high frequencies are encoded (see the last link for a better explanation). In English: it means most frequencies over 16KHz are no longer encoded, but some people can't tell the difference anyway (myself included).

Another option that Gabriel mentioned and Dibrom acknowledged (I'm not sure that he "recommended" it though) is to use something like --athaa-sensitivity -11 (more info here (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1529)). Try the -Y switch, though, and see if the bitrates and quality are good enough for you.

And read the links above, since much wiser words have already been said on the subject!
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: user on 02 May, 2002, 05:55:16 PM
Compromising, a little bit lower quality than pure standard, but less bitrate (-Y: usually limited up to 16 kHz) :

--alt-preset standard -Y
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Tinribs on 03 May, 2002, 06:23:56 AM
What would help alot is if someone could set up a simple listening test that was easier to setup than d/l ABX and suitable .wav's.
A one stop dowload that you could run with minimal button pressing that people could test their listening range with ease.They could then choose a suitable setting to encode at.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: ChAoS Overlord on 24 May, 2002, 09:51:28 AM
Where can I find out what the full switches for --alt-preset are?
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Jan S. on 24 May, 2002, 09:56:47 AM
At the start of this thread.
First post.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: rjamorim on 24 May, 2002, 11:30:23 AM
Quote
Originally posted by ChAoS Overlord
Where can I find out what the full switches for --alt-preset are?


--alt-presets aren't simply presets.
They include code-level modifications for better quality.

So, it's impossible to replace --alt-presets with a lenghty string of switches like, say, --r3mix.

Regards;

Roberto.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: theduke on 10 June, 2002, 05:11:28 PM
Why do a lot of ppl want to have the (non-existing) command lines behind the --alt-presets? Does it look better if you use a command line which is about 4 inch instead?
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: user on 12 July, 2002, 12:15:08 PM
(MP3 Decoder tests - which decoders are recommended, which are faulty !)
Decoder test by David Robinson


Even now there has been something to add.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: user on 13 July, 2002, 08:14:24 AM
added links to analyzing mp3.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: user on 13 July, 2002, 08:36:02 AM
http://www.dvdboard.de/forum/showthread.php?threadid=38331 (http://www.dvdboard.de/forum/showthread.php?threadid=38331)


As there are a lot of German language speaking users who are completely without the right knowledge, it would be nice, if the list is translated to German.

As I have not much time, does somebody of the Germans reading here want to do it ?

Please look at link above.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Pio2001 on 13 July, 2002, 06:47:01 PM
In David Robinson's test, Nero5 is reported as cutting the end of MP3s, but it's just cutting the end of ANY file, even uncompressed wav !
This was corected in Nero 5.5.7.8.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: user on 15 July, 2002, 04:22:23 PM
Same list in [span style='font-size:18']German language = Deutsch[/span]  at  dvdboard.de (http://www.dvdboard.de/forum/showthread.php?threadid=38331)
The German translation was carried out by:  user = Anwender



Now there is the german translation.

Let's hope, that it helps to persuade even more people.


Spread the word !


It would be nice, if there would be even more translations of the list in other languages, so that Lame , the alt-presets and following quality are spreaded more and more around the world.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: ezra2323 on 16 July, 2002, 10:06:30 PM
I have  a question on the --alt-preset cbr 256. When I use this on the command line in EAC, LAME encodes the file in joint stereo. I have read in other threads that JS is bad for anything over 160. 192 & up should use stereo.

Is my  alt preset incorrect, or the information on joint stereo? Any help would be appreciated! ???

Also, when I use VBR to encode and then later burn the MP3s to 'music audio' (for friends - I know everone will ask why?) - the files skip and pop like crazy. VBR does not work that great on my Rio 600 either. That is why I use CBR.

Other than file size, can anyone think of a reason why VBR alt preset extreme is better than CBR 256? I have listened to both on my PC (with headphones) and cannot tell the difference. I can tell a big difference however between CBR 128 and 256. 
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: c-prompt on 16 July, 2002, 10:19:19 PM
I believe that the --alt-presets use safe joint stereo, where what you read is referring to the regular js.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: quellcore on 16 July, 2002, 10:24:10 PM
Quote
Originally posted by ezra2323
Is my  alt preset incorrect, or the information on joint stereo?

See this thread (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=260&highlight=joint+stereo+preset) for your question about joint stereo and the 'alt-presets'.
It's safe to use it !!!
Have fun and enjoy your quality mp3's (although i have to admit that i don't like CBR very much, i was convinced by the concept of VBR right from the start when i read about it the first time) !!!

btw: If you have more questions about the presets and how they work please use the search function, you will find answers to nearly every question you could think of about the alt-presets, how they work, issues, problem samples....
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: user on 17 July, 2002, 03:01:30 AM
"VBR does not work that great on my Rio 600 either"

Unfortanetely. then your Riovolt 600 is crappy.

VBR is standard in MP3.

It is a reason for warranty. Your Riovolt is designed for MP3.

If it does not play VBR songs properly, return it and get a real working mp3player.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: user on 17 July, 2002, 03:43:08 AM
HeadAC3he ac3->wav DS2 -> mp3, ogg vorbis, mp2 (http://darkav.de.vu)
BeSweet ac3->wav DS2 -> mp3, ogg vorbis, mp2 with batch-possibility (http://dspguru.notrace.dk/index.html)
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: harryzonker on 23 July, 2002, 10:58:55 AM
What is the reason the --alt-preset settings have, except for digital silence, a floor of 128kbps?
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Hanky on 23 July, 2002, 11:14:31 AM
Quote
Originally posted by harryzonker
What is the reason the --alt-preset settings have, except for digital silence, a floor of 128kbps?


Good question
Mainly for safety reasons. To prevent the VBR algoritm to drop too low where it should not.
However you can lower the the minimal bitrate by adding e.g. "-b 80" after the command line. If you have a source signal that contains very little stereo separation this could be useful. This has been discussed in other threads before.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: harryzonker on 24 July, 2002, 02:59:33 PM
I have a couple of other questions:

Does VBR/ABR use the bit reservoir?

What accounts for the difference in bit rates between ap standard & ap extreme?
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: ezra2323 on 06 August, 2002, 07:35:47 AM
I have read all of the technical analysis regarding the different sound qualities of LAME at varying bit rates. I would like ask some of the audiophiles in this forum, can you actually hear the difference between AP extreme and AP standard while listening to MP3s on: 1) computer with Soundblaster 5.1 and Harmon Kardon speaker system with subwoofer, 2) Car stereo with Sony Xplod MP3 player and 6 speaker system, and 3) Creative Nomad Jukebox with Sennsenheimer headphones.

I am going to encode my collection soon (Right now archiving with Monkeys audio) and these are the 3 primary places I will listen to MP3s.

There is a significant difference in bit rate (file size) between extreme and standard, and unless there is 'noticable' quality loss with standard, I would prefer to encode at this rate for quantity of music per storage unit. However, muffled high ends drive me crazy!!!! (LAME CBR 128 comes to mind).
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: n68 on 08 August, 2002, 09:42:20 AM
yup...


when using lame as a command - line decoder...

(this is taken from the encoder/decoder tests at....http://privatewww.essex.ac.uk/~djmrob/mp3d...oders_lame.html (http://privatewww.essex.ac.uk/~djmrob/mp3decoders/decoders_lame.html))

writen by mark taylor..)

"Then we can just split them equally between encoder and decoder: 528.5
delay for foward polyphayse+MDCT (used by encoder), 528.5 delay for
backward polyphase+MDCT (used by decoder). To align the psycho
acoustics with the MDCT window, LAME adds exactly 48 samples of
padding for a total encoder delay of 576.5.

Mark

I've rounded the decoder delay up to 529 because this is what Lame does in its delay calculation"

is 529 the total decoder delay as of lame 3.92 (3) (div. encoder delay..)
or are there calculated a more precise one...

btw...
do lame do normalising in encoding/decoding..
where i have seen command - lines of lame.. i have not seen any of normalising..

or maybe i simply  have missed it ??

(what about MAD commands.. and normalising..)




Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: grind187 on 09 August, 2002, 01:33:07 PM
Hi, I was wondering whats the best setting to use when wanting to archive mp3s?

is the r3mix  -b 256 -m s --lowpass 19.5 -q 0

still the way to go?

or maybe change it to 320?  -b 320 -m s --lowpass 19.5 -q 0


hard drive space isn't an issue as i have plenty of space

so if you could recommend the HIGHEST possible settings for the BEST encoding
be greatfully appreciated


thanx in advance
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Garf on 09 August, 2002, 01:35:46 PM
For archiving, I'd use lossless. If you really want MP3, probably --alt-preset insane is best.

(=CBR320+alt-preset tunings)

--
GCP
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: David Nordin on 09 August, 2002, 01:37:04 PM
Quote
Originally posted by grind187
Hi, I was wondering whats the best setting to use when wanting to archive mp3s?

is the r3mix  -b 256 -m s --lowpass 19.5 -q 0

still the way to go?

or maybe change it to 320?  -b 320 -m s --lowpass 19.5 -q 0


hard drive space isn't an issue as i have plenty of space

so if you could recommend the HIGHEST possible settings for the BEST encoding
be greatfully appreciated


thanx in advance

Don't[/b] use --R3Mix
Use --alt-preset X
for highest quality LAME(MP3) use --alt-preset insane
but consider other formats, such as MPC, AAC or perhaps OGG.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: grind187 on 09 August, 2002, 01:57:35 PM
okay thanks

should i be using joint stereo or just stereo


and whats the differnce?
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: David Nordin on 09 August, 2002, 02:05:42 PM
Please read old threads.
Short: don't bother, --alt-preset is tuned for best quality.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: ojopaj on 10 August, 2002, 04:27:04 PM
pardon the newbie question.

like quite a few apparently, i just stumbled across the r3mix page, and have just now figured out that's not The Latest Great Thang.

however, at least with the -r3mix stuff, it made a lot of sense in terms of the individual settings it incorporated (like the nspsytune, etc.)

perhaps i'm looking in the wrong places, but i can't find anything in the descriptions of the alt preset stuff which indicates what sort of individual settings are incorporated ... for instance, if i use alt preset standard, does it already include the nspsytune?

thanks for any help.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Garf on 10 August, 2002, 04:41:40 PM
Quote
Originally posted by ojopaj
perhaps i'm looking in the wrong places, but i can't find anything in the descriptions of the alt preset stuff which indicates what sort of individual settings are incorporated ... for instance, if i use alt preset standard, does it already include the nspsytune?

thanks for any help.


--alt-preset standard uses modifications at the code level, so there is no equivalent set of switches.

(but to answer your question: it is based on nspsytune)

--
GCP
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: user on 25 August, 2002, 05:18:10 PM
added mpc -> mp3 MPCxchange
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: user on 27 August, 2002, 06:56:55 PM
I have actualized the links according to this new forum.

I checked some links to r3mix forum, there are some explanations to mp3gain or how to burn a mp3-CD, but they are not working.
Often I cannot access to new r3mix forum.
If somebody has a solution, please give me the working links to r3mix.net forum.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: user on 27 August, 2002, 08:01:35 PM
added DSP Spectrum Tool - WinAmp Plugin - The one and only realistic spectrum analyzer  (http://spectool.mastak.com/)

analyze your mp3
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: dbradley on 31 August, 2002, 05:43:14 PM
I'm starting to encode my whole collection (600 CDs) to mp3 using lame. I only want to do this once and so want reasonably high quality. Disk space is not an issue.

At the minute I'm using "lame --quiet --nohist --vbr-new --alt-preset extreme"

- should I be using "--vbr-new"? Is this assumed by the extreme preset? which is better - vbr-old or vbr-new?

- is there any point in adding a "-b128" option to the list?

- are there any other command line options I should be using?
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: JohnV on 31 August, 2002, 05:59:17 PM
Quote
- should I be using "--vbr-new"? Is this assumed by the extreme preset? which is better - vbr-old or vbr-new?
You could use --alt-preset fast extreme, it uses --vbr-new/mtrh. --vbr-old is marginally better, but depends on the case.. vbr-old is also very much slower.
Quote
- is there any point in adding a "-b128" option to the list?
No, it's used by default anyways.
Quote
- are there any other command line options I should be using?
Depends.. If you want marginally higher quality in very rare cases, but also higher bitrate, you could use -Z. The bitrate in this case may be clearly higher than without -Z.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: dbradley on 31 August, 2002, 09:32:13 PM
Quote
Quote
- should I be using "--vbr-new"? Is this assumed by the extreme preset? which is better - vbr-old or vbr-new?
You could use --alt-preset fast extreme, it uses --vbr-new/mtrh. --vbr-old is marginally better, but depends on the case.. vbr-old is also very much slower.
Quote
- is there any point in adding a "-b128" option to the list?
No, it's used by default anyways.
Quote
- are there any other command line options I should be using?
Depends.. If you want marginally higher quality in very rare cases, but also higher bitrate, you could use -Z. The bitrate in this case may be clearly higher than without -Z.

Quote
You could use --alt-preset fast extreme, it uses --vbr-new/mtrh. --vbr-old is marginally better, but depends on the case.. vbr-old is also very much slower.


I thought I saw the docs say that "--alt-preset fast extreme" was slightly lower quality than "--alt-preset extreme"? I'd prefer quality over speed...

Does "--alt-preset extreme" imply "--vbr-old"?

Quote
If you want marginally higher quality in very rare cases, but also higher bitrate, you could use -Z. The bitrate in this case may be clearly higher than without -Z.


My music collection covers many types (Rock, Ambient, Electronica, etc). I wonder if the results of "-Z" are worth the extra bitrate/disk space...
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Pio2001 on 31 August, 2002, 10:15:44 PM
Quote
I checked some links to r3mix forum, there are some explanations to mp3gain or how to burn a mp3-CD, but they are not working.
Often I cannot access to new r3mix forum.
If somebody has a solution, please give me the working links to r3mix.net forum.

I can't access r3mix forum since more than one week.
I have however backuped the best threads.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Pio2001 on 31 August, 2002, 10:18:20 PM
Quote
I thought I saw the docs say that "--alt-preset fast extreme" was slightly lower quality than "--alt-preset extreme"? I'd prefer quality over speed...

The fast option is more erratic, not worse. I can be better and/or worse.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: guruboolez on 31 August, 2002, 10:18:32 PM
Try this :
http://www.audiofora.com/yabbse/index.php#2 (http://www.audiofora.com/yabbse/index.php#2)

Forum activity is low : many people seems, like you, lost.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: CiTay on 01 September, 2002, 07:08:58 AM
Quote
I can't access r3mix forum since more than one week.
I have however backuped the best threads.

It's at a different address now: http://www.audiofora.com/yabbse/index.php (http://www.audiofora.com/yabbse/index.php)


edit: Oops, this topic had yet another page..    Anyway, many many people seem to have the same problem to find the r3mix forum, since it's almost dead.   

Oh well.. this one is much better anyways...  B)
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: user on 01 September, 2002, 04:14:11 PM
http://www.audio-illumination.org/forums/i...ad89a43a63f0294 (http://www.audio-illumination.org/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=15&t=3274)

Here I have copied the main content of basic guide to maximize and avoide clipping from r3mix to HA.

erm, as Roel/r3mix does not even update his own main page, forum, to the new address of his own forum, it not surprising, that nobody, me included, finds the r3mix forum....
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: dbradley on 01 September, 2002, 09:36:26 PM
Quote
Quote
I thought I saw the docs say that "--alt-preset fast extreme" was slightly lower quality than "--alt-preset extreme"? I'd prefer quality over speed...

The fast option is more erratic, not worse. I can be better and/or worse.

So which is recommended then? --alt-preset extreme or --alt-preset fast extreme
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: user on 09 September, 2002, 05:53:59 AM
I have read (probably written by JohnV), that --alt-preset bitrate (ABR) is now available from 8 - 320 kbit/s.
Previuosly 80 - 320.

I have changed this bitrange in list of settings.

What's the matter with CBR bitrates ?
At the moment this is the text:

"All other CBR bitrates from 80kbps to 320kbps

--alt-preset cbr <bitrate>"

Still correct ?
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Pio2001 on 09 September, 2002, 07:03:05 AM
Quote
erm, as Roel/r3mix does not even update his own main page, forum, to the new address of his own forum, it not surprising, that nobody, me included, finds the r3mix forum....

Yes, even I, moderator of that forum, wasn't informed that it had moved. All I got was "page not found", like everyone else.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Gabriel on 09 September, 2002, 07:07:48 AM
Cbr presets are also available for the whole bitrate range.

(note: with 3.93 I would prefer advocating --preset than --alt-preset)
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: user on 09 September, 2002, 07:19:26 AM
Does the range from 8 - 320 work with 3.92 stable for ABR and CBR ?

If there is 3.93 stable, or another  stable release, of course --preset will be advocated.
(with 3.92stable --preset will not work, I think)
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Gabriel on 09 September, 2002, 07:35:25 AM
8-320 is working with 3.92.

--preset will be only for 3.93 and up
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: user on 09 September, 2002, 03:42:10 PM
So 8 - 320 works for ABR and CBR alt-preset.


With abr preset you can specify any bitrate, like eg. 57 kbit/s , if you wanted.

Is this possible with cbr preset, too ?
Or which are the allowed steps below 80 kbit/s ?
I am asking, as in list of settings there is still following recommendation/explanation:

"All other CBR bitrates from 80kbps to 320kbps

--alt-preset cbr <bitrate>"

That "all" is perhaps misleading, as you can only select 320, 256, 192, 160, 128, 96, 80, if I am correct.


at the moment:

-------------------------------------------------
CBR (constant bitrate) settings:
-------------------------------------------------

320 kbit/s CBR

--alt-preset cbr 320

note: --alt-preset cbr 320 is the exact same thing as --alt-preset insane


256 kbit/s CBR

--alt-preset cbr 256


192 kbit/s CBR

--alt-preset cbr 192


160 kbit/s CBR

--alt-preset cbr 160


128 kbit/s CBR ( More Discussion )

--alt-preset cbr 128

or (ff123's and Hans' suggestion -- http://www.ff123.net/cbr128.html): (http://www.ff123.net/cbr128.html):)

-h --nspsytune --athtype 2 --lowpass 16 --ns-bass -8 --scale 0.93


96 kbit/s CBR

--alt-preset cbr 96

All other CBR bitrates from 80kbps to 320kbps

--alt-preset cbr <bitrate>
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: KajJacob on 11 September, 2002, 08:46:55 AM
Hi

I'm a total newbie and have some question. For high quality encoding (Classical music etc) I normaly use Fhg prof (the very latest release) at 256 hq. Recently I've started to use Lame for popular music using a slightly modified r3mix-setting, and I must say I'm getting to like it more and more. So I tried to use -v0 setting for some tracks and the quality was extraordinary. However, encoding 'Human League - Tell Me when' the stereo collapsed (which is the fact with virtually all encoder but Fhg). I then switched from j-stereo to normal stereo and the result was acceptable. Question: using normal stereo and -v0, what other setting should I worry about? Is there anyone who has the same experience with j-stereo as I have?

Regards from Sweden
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: user on 11 September, 2002, 09:12:56 AM
Welcome to the wisdom inside this great forum !


you started with 256 (probably pure stereo) FHG.
Then you have tried r3mix or related. and you find it better sounding.
Then you experiment with v0, and with joint stereo a collapsing stereo image sometimes.

Please use only the settings of the first post of this long thread.

Try them !


r3mix is outdated.
For you are following switches interesting, as you go for High Quality:

alt-preset standard (aps), extreme (ape) or insane (api).

aps and ape use a very clever (compared to r3mix, or pure -ms (joint stereo) switch) improved stereo/mid-side stereo behaviour.

I am very interested in your opinion regarding stereo image with aps and ape.

If you want the theoretically very best quality, you have waste/invest 320 kbit/s bitrate with api.
api uses --ns-safejoint, which is again one step safer regarding stereo image.

Please tell your observations, but try it blind.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: BigTallVandy on 12 October, 2002, 12:19:59 PM
Quote
If you want the theoretically very best quality, you have waste/invest 320 kbit/s bitrate with api.
api uses --ns-safejoint, which is again one step safer regarding stereo image.

Being a Newbie, please pardon my ignorance of information already provided.  I'm researching this as time permits, and am still confused by some information between this forum and that offered on the r3mix site.

My desire is to achieve the ultimate in quality (space is not a concern).  I don't want clipping or artifacts. I want to retain as much of the original intended dynamics and not lose any stereo 'information'.  Getting the best possible in all respects out of Lame 3.92.

Does "--alt-preset insane" handle all the above?  Would I need to augment with "--scale 0.98" to eliminate clipping?  Would I need to further augment with "-ms" to get the fullest of stereo imaging information, or does "--ns-safejoint" within API (as you mentioned) improve upon my potential use of "-ms".

Can someone elaborate on what command line parameter(s) I should use to achieve my goals?  Many thanks!
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: yq on 12 October, 2002, 01:10:28 PM
Quote
Does "--alt-preset insane" handle all the above?  Would I need to augment with "--scale 0.98" to eliminate clipping?  Would I need to further augment with "-ms" to get the fullest of stereo imaging information, or does "--ns-safejoint" within API (as you mentioned) improve upon my potential use of "-ms".

Can someone elaborate on what command line parameter(s) I should use to achieve my goals?  Many thanks!

--alt-preset insane is all you can get with lame (and mp3)
Don't use --scale at all. Use mp3gain - much better way to handle clipping
And playing with other options with alt presets is *not recommended*  so -m s - bad idea

So --alt-preset insane would be what you want if size doesn't matter. But other altpresets are also very very high in quality and lower in size. It would be a good idea to try other ape or aps and then abx it.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: BigTallVandy on 12 October, 2002, 01:47:27 PM
I'll test the various music with each of APE,APS,APX to get a feel for their sound and probably use them for other purposes.  My plan is to get relatively speaking 'perfect' archives off my CD's and be able to listen to them on different devices of varying playback capability/quality (i.e. winamp, mp3 discman, car audio, home system).  Thus starting with the best in quality at the archive stage will facilitate having the best quality down/across all playback platforms.

So it is correct to assume:
1) API is the best LAME can offer (in v3.92) in ANY qualitative or analytical aspect without regard to space.
2) The rest APE/S/X, are other options that can be used in the context of a quality/size continuim.
3)  There is no other combination of command line parameters that could exceed API.

Thanks for your reply!
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Jan S. on 12 October, 2002, 02:00:58 PM
Yes, api should be the best Lame can offer (theoretically it's always possible that some command-line is better, though highly unlikely without code modification).

2) Short anwer: Yes.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Pio2001 on 12 October, 2002, 09:43:43 PM
Quote
2) The rest APE/S/X, are other options that can be used in the context of a quality/size continuim.

According to what I've read, it is not exactly a quality/size compromize.
If I understood correctly, Alt-preset standard already gives quite the highest quality. Extreme and Insane only provide little improvements, but using very much space compared to standard.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: fewtch on 12 October, 2002, 10:36:59 PM
Quote
Quote
2) The rest APE/S/X, are other options that can be used in the context of a quality/size continuim.

According to what I've read, it is not exactly a quality/size compromize.
If I understood correctly, Alt-preset standard already gives quite the highest quality. Extreme and Insane only provide little improvements, but using very much space compared to standard.

Depends what you're listening to.  For typical music, probably so.  I've found some Moog synthesizer music (using more or less pure waveforms) that sounds distorted with --aps (and even with --api, but much less so).  Maybe when I come across these I should submit them as problem samples, but have been too lazy... 
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Pio2001 on 12 October, 2002, 10:51:23 PM
Yes, I've recently browsed the problem samples, and I found only two causing problems in API : Badvilbel and Drone (two from Autechre !). Even Short sounded good.
So if you found other ones, it could be interesting.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Dibrom on 12 October, 2002, 10:52:40 PM
Quote
Quote
2) The rest APE/S/X, are other options that can be used in the context of a quality/size continuim.

According to what I've read, it is not exactly a quality/size compromize.
If I understood correctly, Alt-preset standard already gives quite the highest quality. Extreme and Insane only provide little improvements, but using very much space compared to standard.


This is pretty much true..

Quote
Quote
Quote
2) The rest APE/S/X, are other options that can be used in the context of a quality/size continuim.

According to what I've read, it is not exactly a quality/size compromize.
If I understood correctly, Alt-preset standard already gives quite the highest quality. Extreme and Insane only provide little improvements, but using very much space compared to standard.

Depends what you're listening to.  For typical music, probably so.  I've found some Moog synthesizer music (using more or less pure waveforms) that sounds distorted with --aps (and even with --api, but much less so).  Maybe when I come across these I should submit them as problem samples, but have been too lazy... 


It is also true that --api is better on some samples than --aps, but in almost every case, these samples are not transparent with --api either.  They are usually due more to the limitations of the format, so I probably wouldn't really use them as an example to judge the quality of the presets by.

The simple answer is that MP3 as a whole is not a very good format for extreme electronic music...  if that's the kind of music someone is encoding regularly, they'd do much better with AAC or especially MPC, and to some extent Vorbis (Vorbis does pretty well on impulse samples but still has some problems with artificial noise sounds and suffers pre-echo on samples with needle transients like "ticking" sounds, etc.. the type of stuff found in a lot of IDM or other experimental electronic music).

Btw, a lot of these samples seem to have been improved on (even with --aps) in Takehiro's latest work.........
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: SNYder on 24 October, 2002, 02:37:34 PM
the link to "how to burn an mp3 cd" is not working.  and i need to know how
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: user on 24 October, 2002, 02:50:09 PM
hmm, I know, it was a thread in old r3mix froum.

even, as it worked, that thread had vanished.

I should write it shortly here in HA.


How to burn an mp3 - CD ?


So, here#s the answer:


1. In generally:

Burn as data CD




2. example Nero:

CD-Rom (ISO)

no multisession (for safety, if you have a player, which is not able to read multisession, or the 2nd, 3rd session...)


Mode 1  -  ISO Level 2 (should work, level 1 is even safer)
advantage of ISO level 2 is : longer file names

ISO 9660  -  Joliet

Disc at once

That's it.

perhaps additionally:

click:  verify burned data
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: user on 24 October, 2002, 02:54:45 PM
done:
link actualized to new thread : how to burn mp3 cd
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: SNYder on 24 October, 2002, 03:34:51 PM
Quote
no multisession (for safety, if you have a player, which is not able to read multisession, or the 2nd, 3rd session...)

mabey that is why my mp3 cd player couldn't read the mp3 cd i made.  i just used windowsXP itself to burn the cd by dropping the mp3s onto the cd and buring as a data cd.  I use Nero for everything but I figured I'd try Windows' burning features out.

I'll see if this fixes the problem.

[edit]  ok.  it worked out fine.  playing the cd right now  thanks a lot!
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: spiral atmosphere on 19 November, 2002, 07:30:48 AM
Hi all

I´m using --alt-preset  extreme to encode my music

any recomended tweaks to this command line ?

I´m using the latest released LAME 3.93
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: AreteOne on 19 November, 2002, 07:51:00 AM
Until reading thru the commentary regarding LAME and the --alt-present settings, I'd been using --r3mix.  In reading thru that website, the argument for using the -V1 setting was made (I felt rather convincingly) as part of its preset.  The --alt-presets use -V2.

I'd like to get some opinions on any possible negative consequences (other than file size) of adding the -V1 switch to --alt-preset.  i'm concerned that doing so might introduce something that conflicts with the code-level tuning implemented for this.

I've done some testing and comparisons of my own, and I haven't heard anything negative so far, but I'm more interested in what the theory of this is.  I noticed above that someone added -V0 and wound up getting some whoosing at the end of some files.

TIA.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: user on 21 November, 2002, 11:24:37 AM
" adding the -V1 switch to --alt-preset. i'm concerned that doing so might introduce something that conflicts with the code-level tuning implemented for this. "


You know it by yourselfs.

The alt-presets are tuned as they are.
Yes, adding -V1 may harm the internal routines, codes. (btw, the informations at r3mix are outdated.)
There is a reason for the use of V2 in alt-presets.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: AreteOne on 21 November, 2002, 01:16:49 PM
Quote
There is a reason for the use of V2 in alt-presets.


Which is?

It may well be that it was decided the best compromise between quality and size was -V2 for the preset, but that if someone wanted to accept the increased file size for the return of the higher average bitrate, it would work.

If the preset is so tuned to -V2 that changing it to -V1 breaks the result, then perhaps the preset should ignore the -V setting.  Perhaps it will do so in a future release.  At this time, it accepts it.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: user on 21 November, 2002, 02:16:23 PM
if you want higher quality than standard (let's say filesize), then select ap extreme. (and guess what, it uses v2, too ?!)
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: KikeG on 22 November, 2002, 03:35:53 AM
Quote
I´m using the latest released LAME 3.93

This is not recommended. Instead, use 3.92, or better the 3.90.2 recommended version. For that preset, 3.90 is fine too (If I'm not wrong).
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: AreteOne on 22 November, 2002, 05:10:48 AM
It was noted over on the MP3Gain thread that -V1 with the --alt-presets is thought to not provide additional quality while at the same time wastes bits and may introduce problems in the 320kbs frames.  I tried to go back to R3Mix site, but it's changed now, it reread its argument for -V1.

If I understand correctly, the R3Mix preset was only a shorthand for LAME options, whereas the --alt-presets combine LAME options with source-level code treaking that produce output no combination of swtiches alone can.  Is that the gist of it?

In some comparisons I did, it seems like --a-ps produces about an additional 10kbs over --r3mix while --a-pe produces 40.

Comments?
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: CiTay on 28 November, 2002, 12:51:17 PM
Corrected some links...

and new: EasyLAME 1.3 (http://www.easylame.de.vu/) (RazorLAME frontend, pre-configured with the alt-presets), now also available in english!
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: sven_Bent on 28 November, 2002, 01:48:03 PM
the -v 0 and -v 1 are experimentalt and not really teste if it really gives high quality  at all.

wheres the alt presets with -v2 have been testet and tweaked over several months by dibrom and other developers. and plus there have been open listening test.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Volcano on 28 November, 2002, 02:58:44 PM
Quote
and new: EasyLAME 1.3 (http://www.easylame.de.vu/) (RazorLAME frontend, pre-configured with the alt-presets), now also available in english!

Thanks, CiTay.

I'd like to encourage anybody involved in the "newbie education process" to promote EasyLAME.  It's like win32LAME (which was highly popular), except for the fact that it is not r3mix-poisoned.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: edekba on 28 November, 2002, 09:48:53 PM
Quote
Of course. Let's not forget though that the cbr and abr modes of the --alt-presets never made use of code level tweaks. They are simply switch aliases (and also have not been tuned even close to that the VBR presets have been). It's no surprise that you can get better quality in some cases then by a different set of switches. VBR is a totally different story though, and I'm much more skeptical about getting better quality than the --alt-preset VBR modes via simple command line switches without very extensive help and motivation from one of the core LAME developers.


That was said by dibrom. I got a question then ... what exactly does -ap cbr <bitrate> do & what do they actually represent code wise? If they do not make use of the code level tweaks ... then they are what just normal code that is just has been shrank so easier to remember & use?

I have always (since ... Jan of this yr when i found out about -r3mix & then later -aps) that the  -aps all make use of the code level tweaks.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: JohnV on 28 November, 2002, 10:35:52 PM
Quote
That was said by dibrom. I got a question then ... what exactly does -ap cbr <bitrate> do & what do they actually represent code wise? If they do not make use of the code level tweaks ... then they are what just normal code that is just has been shrank so easier to remember & use?

cbr/abr modes of alt-presets combine some external switches together.
For example --alt-preset cbr 128 is simply the same as:
-h -b 128 --nspsytune -m j --lowpass 17500 --athtype 2 --ns-bass -6 --scale 0.93
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: edekba on 29 November, 2002, 01:24:08 AM
..... wow I did not know that....

Thanks
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: edekba on 02 December, 2002, 02:18:38 AM
While I was reading http://www.mp3dev.org/mp3/doc/html/presets.html (http://www.mp3dev.org/mp3/doc/html/presets.html) i became confused once again.

are these -preset the same as -alt-preset ??

ie:
--preset standard = -aps
--preset extreme =  -ape


If not should i use the -aps or just --preset?
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Dibrom on 02 December, 2002, 02:22:27 AM
Yes, the --alt-presets can be accessed simply with --preset now.  So --alt-preset standard is the same thing as --preset standard.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: alfa156 on 09 January, 2003, 03:52:27 AM
Quote
Quote
That was said by dibrom. I got a question then ... what exactly does -ap cbr <bitrate> do & what do they actually represent code wise? If they do not make use of the code level tweaks ... then they are what just normal code that is just has been shrank so easier to remember & use?

cbr/abr modes of alt-presets combine some external switches together.
For example --alt-preset cbr 128 is simply the same as:
-h -b 128 --nspsytune -m j --lowpass 17500 --athtype 2 --ns-bass -6 --scale 0.93

what is the switch equivalent of the --alt-preset standard, --alt-preset extreme, --alt-preset insane?

thank you!
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Pearson on 09 January, 2003, 04:14:08 AM
There are no commandline equivalents to those presets.

Read the thread 'Frequently Asked Questions' in the general forum:

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....t=ST&f=1&t=4917 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=1&t=4917)

It has, among other things, a link to this thread:

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....t=ST&f=16&t=593 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=16&t=593)
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: _Shorty on 09 January, 2003, 04:14:34 AM
there is none, alt-preset standard/extreme/insane use code-level tweaks that can't otherwise be accessed, no combination of command line options will give you the same results as those presets
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: alfa156 on 14 January, 2003, 01:02:42 PM
Quote
Quote
and new: EasyLAME 1.3 (http://www.easylame.de.vu/) (RazorLAME frontend, pre-configured with the alt-presets), now also available in english!

Thanks, CiTay.

I'd like to encourage anybody involved in the "newbie education process" to promote EasyLAME.  It's like win32LAME (which was highly popular), except for the fact that it is not r3mix-poisoned.

Q1: I am using razorlame and i encode with --alt-preset standard. I also have downloaded the 3.90.2 lame (exe) that is recommended. Does Easylame offer anything new?

Q2: After you download razorlame and in order to get it to work with lame 3.90.2 you have to overwrite the razorlame.dat file with the one in the lame zip? why is this? what is this razorlame.dat file and what does it do?

thank you
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: CiTay on 14 January, 2003, 02:03:36 PM
A1: Nope, except that you have all the alt-presets as Razorlame presets in EasyLAME.

A2: It has to do with the custom message that lame.exe shows during encoding (the one that points to this forum). Razorlame doesn't recognize that line and stops with an error. The razorlame.dat included in the 3.90.2 zip file adds recognition for that message.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Raptor on 08 February, 2003, 06:20:17 PM
Would it be higher quality to encode with "--alt-preset 320", or with "--alt-preset insane"/"--alt-preset cbr 320"? I'm just curious if the algorithm for abr would be better. Does insane still use joint stereo?
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: _Shorty on 08 February, 2003, 09:13:39 PM
forget about joint stereo, there's nothing wrong with it in lame.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Raptor on 08 February, 2003, 09:20:41 PM
I just did two separate encodes, one with '--alt-preset insane' (supposedly CBR) and the other with '--alt-preset 320' (supposedly ABR). I noticed that the file sizes were practically the same, so I generated CRC-32 and MD5 checksums on one group, and tested them on the other group.. bit-for-bit exact. Should this be happening? Does '--alt-preset 320' switch over to CBR?

I'm using Dibrom's LAME 3.90.2 compile (exe).

When I try anything less than '320' with '--alt-preset', for instance '--alt-preset 319', LAME switches from:

  Encoding as 44.1 kHz 320 kbps j-stereo MPEG-1 Layer III (4.5x) qval=2

(the same as reported for '--alt-preset insane') to:

  Encoding as 44.1 kHz average 319 kbps j-stereo MPEG-1 Layer III (4.6x) qval=2

and shows the ABR graphs as it should. It is rather misleading in the instructions (and on the first page of this site) when it says that '--alt-preset <bitrate>' is also for 320 kbit, when it obviously switches to CBR.

So, my question now is, which is higher quality, '--alt-preset 319' or '--alt-preset insane'? Next, if VBR gives higher quality than ABR at higher bitrates (according to the help files), why isn't there a '--alt-preset vbr <bitrate>'? There should be, since '--alt-preset extreme', according to help, only reaches 220-270 kbit.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Drover's Dog on 08 February, 2003, 10:46:57 PM
Raptor

It stands to reason if you're going to tell LAME to encode at an average bitrate (abr) of 320 and 320 is the maximum bitrate for the encoder, it's only going to encode at 320!  Therefore, this would be the same as setting it at --alt-preset insane or --alt-preset CBR 320 (these are the same).

Use abr settings to encode VBR at the average bitrate you specify, which needs to be significantly less than 320 to derive any benefit from using it, namely smaller files.  If you're not worried about file size, you may as well use 320 CBR.

Try something like --alt-preset 200 if you really want to use ABR.

Regards
DrD
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: john33 on 09 February, 2003, 05:43:49 AM
If you specify --alt-preset 320, it is substituted with --alt-preset insane in the code, so you will get identical results.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Raptor on 10 February, 2003, 06:35:48 PM
Do you people not read posts at all? I realize that it switches to CBR as you can see by this snipped from my previous post:
Quote
It is rather misleading in the instructions (and on the first page of this site) when it says that '--alt-preset <bitrate>' is also for 320 kbit, when it obviously switches to CBR.


My complaint is that this isn't documented and/or the documentation is misleading. Also, could I possibly get an answer to the actual questions from my post?
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: goweropolis on 10 February, 2003, 07:07:15 PM
Quote
So, my question now is, which is higher quality, '--alt-preset 319' or '--alt-preset insane'? Next, if VBR gives higher quality than ABR at higher bitrates (according to the help files), why isn't there a '--alt-preset vbr <bitrate>'? There should be, since '--alt-preset extreme', according to help, only reaches 220-270 kbit.

I would wager that the difference between 319 ABR & 320 CBR is next to nothing. I highly doubt that anyone would be able to tell the difference. Why don't you try some blind comparisons and decide for yourself?

As to your question of VBR at higher bitrates, I'm not sure why there isn't a VBR setting in between APE & API. Again, I feel the difference is probably negligible. Perhaps Dibrom or one of the LAME devs can answer that question.

Also, you might not want to be rude to people who are trying to help you. You'll get a better answer if you just rephrase your question politely. 
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Drover's Dog on 11 February, 2003, 02:42:02 AM
Quote
Do you people not read posts at all? I realize that it switches to CBR as you can see by this snipped from my previous post:
Quote
It is rather misleading in the instructions (and on the first page of this site) when it says that '--alt-preset <bitrate>' is also for 320 kbit, when it obviously switches to CBR.


My complaint is that this isn't documented and/or the documentation is misleading. Also, could I possibly get an answer to the actual questions from my post?

Raptor

LAME will only encode in CBR if you put "cbr" before the bitrate, otherwise it encodes in ABR.

Examples:

  "--alt-preset 192"        is ABR  (VBR with average bitrate of 192 kbit/s)
  "--alt-preset cbr 192"  is CBR

I believe this is documented well enough.

The problem with your exercise was you were attempting to set an ABR of 319 when the maximum bitrate is 320.  319 is the average of 318.5 and 320 - so the encoder has got no room to move and will simply encode all frames at 320 as this is the only primary bitrate available between 318.5 and 320.

Then, perhaps I don't understand the question!

Regards
DrD
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: FinalFn on 11 March, 2003, 01:49:52 PM
I've got one question: What sounds better: 128kbps Joint-Stereo (-m j) or 192kbps Stereo (-m s)?
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: tigre on 11 March, 2003, 03:50:14 PM
Quote
I've got one question: What sounds better: 128kbps Joint-Stereo (-m j) or 192kbps Stereo (-m s)?


What's better?, 192kbps(Stereo) or 128kbps(Joint-Stereo) (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=15&t=7251):
Quote
What sounds better:
192kbps and True Stereo
or 128kbps and Joint-Stereo?


If you haven't got enough answers to your question yet, why don't you ask about the details you missed in your first thread on this topic?
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: user on 11 March, 2003, 05:17:51 PM
--alt-preset standard (nearly same averaged bitrate like 192) better than --alt-preset 192 better than --alt-preset 192 --ms better than --alt-preset 128
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: user on 10 April, 2003, 10:23:53 AM
Added / Changed 2002-04-10

CDIndexer : for CD-Audio & data-CDs (http://www.gdsoftware.dk/)
MAC 2.90 : Mpeg Audio Collection 2.90 : perfect for mpeg, not yet for CD-Audio (http://j-faul.virtualave.net)



reminder:

As latest tests showed,

it is recommended to add -Z to --alt-preset standard and --alt-preset extreme ==>>


Better Now:


--alt-preset extreme -Z


--alt-preset standard -Z



See first Post of this list here !
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: dev0 on 11 April, 2003, 12:24:41 AM
Think about adding -Z to the fast presets too. It should result in a quality gain there too.

dev0
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Vietwoojagig on 13 April, 2003, 08:35:59 AM
Quote
Medium quality, but reduced bitrate (-Y: usually limited to 16 kHz!) :

--alt-preset standard -Y

Why not

--alt-preset standard -Z -Y

for the Medium quality?
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: 384kbps on 25 April, 2003, 05:54:12 PM
Hello !

I have 'combined' these settings here.
One is a 'VBR tuned insane' preset, the ohter quite similar to '--alt-perset extreme -Z'.
I use the longer the more Lame 3.93.1 - as You know surley, it's in that case '--perset ...'.

1 (all in one line) :
Lame392.exe --alt-preset insane -q 1 -V 0 -p -v --vbr-new -F -b 112 -B 320
--lowpass 19.8 --lowpass-width 0.4 --cwlimit 19.5 -Z --ns-sfb21 2 --verbose

2 (all in one line) :
Lame392.exe --nspsytune -q 1 -V 1 -v --vbr-new -p -F -b 112 -B 320
-m j --nssafejoint --cwlimit 19.5 --athtype 2 --ns-sfb21 2 -X 3 --verbose

Two little remark for better understanding...  In both case is:
- value of 'Z' is = 1
- polyphase lowpass filter, transition band: 19383Hz - 19916Hz


You see maybe, that will generate MP3s mostly not suitable for prortable players...
But objective was/is to pay respect to the HiFi standard as far as possible by using
all the painfully developped Lame features.


I hope U may tell me it there is any grave bug in my settings.
Thanks, 384kbps
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: JohnV on 25 April, 2003, 06:20:58 PM
Quote
Two little remark for better understanding...  In both case is:
- value of 'Z' is = 1

Yeah, but you should look at the noise shaping value in verbose, not the "Z"-value. You switch between noise shaping 1 and 2 using the -Z switch. And it's 2 in both of your lines, and it's the worse mode. For the best quality noise shaping mode should be 1. There are several other questional things, like using code-level tweaked CBR switch then changing to vbr-fast, using error checking bits which only takes space (no good unless you are streaming), using -q1 which may not be so good choice etc..

Seriously, if you don't quite know what you are doing, like it looks like considering your commandlines, it's not maybe worth it to post those here.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Pio2001 on 25 April, 2003, 10:31:22 PM
I move here an old post by Tigre from the FAQ thread (5 of march 2003), because the FAQ is going to be redone.

Quote
It's a bit difficult to find information on lame switches using the forum search (3 letters limit), so IMO it would be good to start a thread which could be a mixture of "List of recommended lame settings" and "fb2k 3rd party plugin submission". In this "lame switches" thread there should be short explanations and comments about all switches used by lame that have been subjects of discussion here and links to corresponding threads. IMO it would be good if there are no questions allowed in this thread only recommendations for information/links that sould be added/edited in the 1st post.

So JohnV won't have to explain what -Y does 2 times a month anymore. I respect your patience.

It could look like this:
-----------------------------------------

Lame Switches

[span style='font-size:11pt;line-height:100%']Note: The --alt-presets are well tuned and tested. If it would be possible to improve quality/size ratio easily by adding a switch, the switch in question would be integrated in the --alt-presets already. There are only very few possibilities where using additional switches makes sense. You might prefer using one of the recommended lame settings (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=15&t=203).[/span]


(LAME v. 3.90.2 - 3.92)

-k disables any lowpass filter (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=16&t=2498&st=37)

Using -k is a bad idea, because there'll be bits wasted on inaudible high frequency content that could be used for encoding audible information otherwise. If you don't trust the presets' lowpass settings you could find out how high you can hear (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=1&t=4894&hl=how%20high&st=0).


-Y reduces bits spent on 16kHz+ content (only VBR).

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....4552#entry46392 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=15&t=4552#entry46392)
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....t=703#entry6562 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?s=&act=ST&f=16&t=703#entry6562)


-Z switch noise shaping mode

If you don't use -Z with --alt-preset extreme there's a very slim chance to really damage quality. The reason why -Z is not used by --alt-preset extreme is bitrate saving, not quality. (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=16&t=2498&st=37)

--------------------------------------------
What do you think (... Pio2001)?

BTW, You be wellcome bashing me bat English!
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Jan S. on 12 May, 2003, 04:29:33 PM
Updated list: removed -Z.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: CiTay on 12 May, 2003, 05:25:53 PM
Updated list date and reason for -Z removal.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: 2Bdecided on 13 May, 2003, 06:15:35 AM
Couldn't you say (right here in the FAQ, because it's as far as some people read)

New: -Z added. Read this thread for more.
New: -Z removed again; it's included within "--alt-preset standard" with the new 3.90.3 compile.
[span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%']DO NOT ADD MANUALLY -Z WHEN USING 3.90.3 BECAUSE THAT WILL REVERSE THE GOOD EFFECT
[/span]

or something like that. When I tried to type it I realised that it's difficult to phrase accurately in a few words. Basically, that wth 3.90.2 people should add -Z to aps and ape, but with 3.90.3 they don't need to because it's been added for them, and adding it a second time will reverse the effect.

cheers,
David.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: CiTay on 13 May, 2003, 06:53:22 AM
Quote
Couldn't you say (right here in the FAQ, because it's as far as some people read)

New: -Z added. Read this thread for more.
New: -Z removed again; it's included within "--alt-preset standard" with the new 3.90.3 compile.
[span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%']DO NOT ADD MANUALLY -Z WHEN USING 3.90.3 BECAUSE THAT WILL REVERSE THE GOOD EFFECT
[/span]

or something like that. When I tried to type it I realised that it's difficult to phrase accurately in a few words. Basically, that wth 3.90.2 people should add -Z to aps and ape, but with 3.90.3 they don't need to because it's been added for them, and adding it a second time will reverse the effect.

That's not necessary. Try using APS -Z with 3.90.3 and you'll see what i mean. 
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: CiTay on 13 May, 2003, 07:22:29 AM
And in fact, -Z is now used with --alt-preset standard and --alt-preset extreme (in addition to --api). I'll make note of that in the "compiles" thread, too. I wanted to merge those two threads a while ago, so that it'll be like the MPC thread, but Dibrom hasn't responded to my PM yet. Guess i'll just do it soon.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: magic75 on 26 May, 2003, 07:28:10 AM
Quote
Note: These settings require Lame 3.90 or later.  Lame 3.90.3 found on this website is the recommended version. 

ABR Setting tuned from 320 kbps down to 8 kbps

--alt-preset <bitrate>

I thought that ABR presets below 80 kbps only worked with 3.92 and later? (At least it didn't work for me yesterday with 3.90.3.)
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: john33 on 26 May, 2003, 07:47:57 AM
Quote
Quote
Note: These settings require Lame 3.90 or later.  Lame 3.90.3 found on this website is the recommended version. 

ABR Setting tuned from 320 kbps down to 8 kbps

--alt-preset <bitrate>

I thought that ABR presets below 80 kbps only worked with 3.92 and later? (At least it didn't work for me yesterday with 3.90.3.)

If you use the 3.90.3 Modified d/l from Rarewares, you'll find it does work as quoted and also supports Gabriel's Medium presets. These modifications only expand the options, they produce bit identical results with the unmodifed version.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: ezra2323 on 26 May, 2003, 10:28:56 AM
Quote
If you use the 3.90.3 Modified d/l from Rarewares, you'll find it does work as quoted and also supports Gabriel's Medium presets


3.90.3 does? I thought only 3.93 supported the medium preset. What is the command line for the medium preset? Last I read it did not seem to recieve positive feedback. Has it improved?
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: john33 on 27 May, 2003, 04:20:13 AM
Quote
3.90.3 does?

Because I amended it to do so. 
Quote
I thought only 3.93 supported the medium preset.

It did, but I added it 3.90.3
Quote
What is the command line for the medium preset?

--preset medium, or fast medium.
Quote
Last I read it did not seem to recieve positive feedback. Has it improved?

Last time I tried it, it sounded OK to me, but that was hardly an exhaustive test!! The only argument I would have with it is that it was pretty slow, IIRC.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: SiMo X on 31 May, 2003, 03:49:53 PM
On the EasyLAME website, it says that as of April 27th, they've included the LAME 3.90.3 compile to the program. On this sticky thread though, LAME 3.90.3 was added much later on May 12th. My question is; are both LAME compiles exactly the same and would it be ideal for me to just go ahead and download EasyLAME 1.4 which includes this compile -OR- download RazorLame 1.1.5 from the RazorLAME website and point it to the LAME compile that's available on this sticky thread? Everything is set and ready for encoding in EasyLAME, right? Which way should I go?

I posted this in the wrong sticky... 
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Volcano on 01 June, 2003, 05:46:32 AM
I used john33's first 3.90.3 compile he released (I don't think there were any other updates or re-compiles after that - please correct me if I'm wrong!), which was a few days before I compiled EasyLAME 1.4.

Blah, you caught me out there.  Let's try if I can explain this. john33 released his 3.90.3 compile after the huge discussions regarding the -Z switch. I did follow most of the discussion (I think), and since everybody was saying that "this should become the new official compile" (even Dibrom did when he thanked john33 for compiling 3.90.3), I didn't bother to check the sticky thread if that really was the case, I just assumed it. So I updated EasyLAME and the website, but because I was busy with school and just plain lazy, I didn't upload it yet.

Then, a week or so later, I wanted to do so, but then realized that the sticky thread I linked to didn't even recommend 3.90.3 yet. Too lazy to write an explanation why I'm including a compile that's not officially recommended, I didn't post the update yet again.

And then at some point, I noticed that 3.90.3 was now recommended in the sticky thread, and just uploaded the whole damn thing without changing the date.

So now you know  EasyLAME is safe to use, the dates are just slightly confusing because I'm disorganized and lazy.

Edit: I just re-downloaded john33's LAME 3.90.3 compile, and it's dated 2003-05-09, so it must have been re-compiled after I updated EasyLAME. Oops. I'm kinda out of touch, it seems.

I'll update EasyLAME with this one, I guess (perhaps silently, dunno).

Edit2: And I replied in the wrong sticky... I had both threads open, but caught the wrong window...
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: SiMo X on 01 June, 2003, 10:41:22 PM
HaHa, ok cool, thanks for the reply Volcano!  Just let me know whenever you update it with the May compile. Will using EasyLAME then give me the same -=exact=- results as downloading the most recent RazorLAME and just pointing it the the May compile on this sticky?
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: CiTay on 10 June, 2003, 09:42:08 AM
Redesign of the recommended settings to make it more obvious that --alt-preset standard should be anyone's first choice.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: amano on 10 June, 2003, 05:29:22 PM
why not recommend the 3.90.3 modified compile? who has objections? I just see positive things about it.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Pio2001 on 11 June, 2003, 06:59:52 AM
I see it already recommended in both the recommended settings and recommended compiles threads.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: amano on 11 June, 2003, 07:49:40 AM
no, I mean john33s special variant of 3.90.3 that accepts the new switches (--preset, even --preset medium).
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: magic75 on 11 June, 2003, 08:38:48 AM
There is a slight mismatch currently between the "recommended compile" thread and the "recommended settings" thread:

Quote
ABR Setting tuned from 320 kbps down to 8 kbps

--alt-preset <bitrate>


but this is only valid for John33:s modified compile. The non-modifed compile only works down to 80 kbps I think.

So either you could do as amano suggests and change the recommended compile, or add a note to the abr settings in this thread. Either way is OK for me.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: AutumnRain on 16 June, 2003, 10:39:12 PM
Hi.

Isn't the documentation included in the reccomended compile anymore...?...

3.90.3

Also...just a question...
In the thread(1st Post) 'List of recommended LAME settings (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=15&t=203&)' , I read...
Quote
BTW:
MPC is the most advanced format for Hifi and Audiophile needs. For more information click here.

Is it 'so' official in all respects...that ;...that info was included in the Post ?
- kind of, makes you feel odd when d/loading the compile..  :-)
I think when I last read the post , that bit of info was not there...

--------------------
Autumnrain.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: CiTay on 17 June, 2003, 11:41:13 AM
Quote
Isn't the documentation included in the reccomended compile anymore...?...

Obviously not. I said something along these lines in the recommended compiles (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=15&t=478&st=125&) thread. Maybe someone finally add the necessary files to this package...


Quote
I think when I last read the post , that bit of info was not there...


It's there as long as i can remember. User added it someday, i guess.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: john33 on 17 June, 2003, 01:34:03 PM
I just added all the html docs to all the 3.90.3 downloads.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: AutumnRain on 17 June, 2003, 09:45:04 PM
 

H e y ......... Thanks! :-)

~~~~~~~~~~
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: dihappy on 12 July, 2003, 04:44:01 AM
OK, Im a bit confused.

Ive been searching looking for the best settings and i read that 3.90.3 has a
"--alt-preset fast standard" but that it has "potentially" less quality than just
"--alt-preset standard"

Is this true?  maybe i should just go with "insane"??

Thanks!
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: kjoonlee on 12 July, 2003, 04:53:09 AM
While it is true that --alt-preset fast standard sacrifices a little quality for some increase in encoding speed, the difference might be small enough for you to not notice.

Try listening to --alt-preset fast standard and --alt-preset standard yourself, and find what's best for you.

There's some chance that --alt-preset insane would be overkill for you. I would urge you to try standard or fast standard before checking insane out.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Echizen on 12 July, 2003, 05:16:05 AM
don't forget --alt-preset extreme
it's like insane - just vbr, which saves a few bits
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: dihappy on 12 July, 2003, 05:53:46 AM
Thanks guys!!

Ill try a combination of them.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: user on 12 July, 2003, 06:49:57 AM
no, a combination is not possible (inside 1 track / during encoding...)


of course you could use aps for not so important albums, ape or api for more important music.

or aps, for portable eg.


btw, ape is not like api with more bits:


Only api uses --nssafejoint. A safer stereo image.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: kjoonlee on 12 July, 2003, 07:13:51 AM
That sounds funny. I think I've seen Dibrom mention that all the --alt-preset VBR presets never sacrifice the stereo image. IIRC he even mentioned that the stereo image when using all --alt-preset files should be "more intact" than when merely using --nssafejoint.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: CiTay on 12 July, 2003, 08:04:15 AM
--aps/ape/api all use --nssafejoint.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Pio2001 on 17 July, 2003, 09:54:47 AM
Other topic split to http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=11408 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=11408)
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: music_man_mpc on 25 July, 2003, 10:04:27 PM
I have always used -V 0 -b 128.  How does this compare to the presets?  Is it pretty much the same as --alt-preset extreme??
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: tigre on 26 July, 2003, 02:19:07 AM
Quote
I have always used -V 0 -b 128.  How does this compare to the presets?  Is it pretty much the same as --alt-preset extreme??

No. Add the --verbose switch to both commandlines and (many of) the settings used will be shown in DOS window.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: CiTay on 26 July, 2003, 06:34:25 AM
Quote
Quote
I have always used -V 0 -b 128.  How does this compare to the presets?  Is it pretty much the same as --alt-preset extreme??

No. Add the --verbose switch to both commandlines and (many of) the settings used will be shown in DOS window.

More importantly, -V0 -b128 doesn't have the --alt-preset code-level tunings.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: NoXFeR on 04 August, 2003, 07:46:40 PM
Just posting this here, as well, as it is related.

Quote
I have noticed when using the alt-preset standard with lame 3.90.3, that the quality setting is rated at 2, which is equivalent to the -h-switch. Would it improve quality to override this with the -q 0-switch?

I wonder because it has been said on numerous occasions that one "should not mess with the alt-presets" and that only the one that has created them fully understands them.


Quote
Tried the following:

File:

R.E.M. - New Adventures in Hi-Fi - 06 - That's What Keeps Me Down.wav (77 147 996 bytes)

Using --alt-preset standard it gave this file

R.E.M. - New Adventures in Hi-Fi - 06 - That's What Keeps Me Down.mp3 (12 274 191 bytes)

Using --alt-preset standard -q 0 gave this file

R.E.M. - New Adventures in Hi-Fi - 06 - That's What Keeps Me Down.mp3 (12 254 269 bytes)


So as you can see, the no -q 0 was larger (but not much).


I'm trusting the --alt-presets, I'm just wondering why --alt-preset standard would be better than --alt-preset standard -q 0?

According to the description in the .htmls enclosed in Dibrom's own compilation (and every other lame-compilation to my knowledge) it says:

-q 0..9 algorithm quality selection
Bitrate is of course the main influence on quality. The higher the bitrate, the higher the quality. But for a given bitrate, we have a choice of algorithms to determine the best scalefactors and huffman encoding (noise shaping).

-q 0: use slowest & best possible version of all algorithms. -q 0 and -q 1 are slow and may not produce significantly higher quality.

-q 2: recommended. Same as -h.

-q 5: default value. Good speed, reasonable quality.

-q 7: same as -f. Very fast, ok quality. (psycho acoustics are used for pre-echo & M/S, but no noise shaping is done.

-q 9: disables almost all algorithms including psy-model. poor quality.


NOTE: I didn't hear differences between the two, and the -q 0 was much slower, but if quality is what one wants, which does one choose?


Erlend
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: TJA on 07 August, 2003, 01:17:25 PM
Quote
I'm trusting the --alt-presets, I'm just wondering why --alt-preset standard would be better than --alt-preset standard -q 0?


Why should that be???

"-q 0" ist just smaller, so better compressed, that´s all ...
Size does not *always* mean quality!

*grin*

BTW, "-q 0" is not supposed to add quality when used together with the presets - those presets are optimized around "-q 2" and changing this can even *reduce* quality!

(Quoting from memory, cannot provide you with a link - but is´s from Dibrom or JohnV, when i recall correctly)

Have Fun
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Oge_user on 25 August, 2003, 01:08:05 PM
Quote
(How to)
Reencode mp3 (high bitrate with ID3 tags) to mp3 (low bitrate) and include tags to new mp3 file (http://www.monkeysaudio.com/)

I hope I'm not OT, but the page linked is ,http://www.monkeysaudio.com; (http://www.monkeysaudio.com) is this right? 
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: AtaqueEG on 25 August, 2003, 01:41:19 PM
Quote
NOTE: I didn't hear differences between the two, and the -q 0 was much slower, but if quality is what one wants, which does one choose?


Erlend

That one was just ONE example.
I seriously doubt that Dibrom encoded one song only once and then figured out "2" was better than "0"
Again, my friend, the alt presets have gone through more testing than you could imagine, and with quality as the main concern. Not speed or size. Trust them the way they are.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: user on 26 August, 2003, 11:23:51 AM
Quote
Quote
(How to)
Reencode mp3 (high bitrate with ID3 tags) to mp3 (low bitrate) and include tags to new mp3 file (http://www.monkeysaudio.com/)

I hope I'm not OT, but the page linked is ,http://www.monkeysaudio.com; (http://www.monkeysaudio.com) is this right? 

of course it is right.

Monkeys audio did the trick for me.

(reencoding HQ mp3 to 130 kbit/s mp3 with keeping tags.)

just configure it.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Oge_user on 26 August, 2003, 01:15:22 PM
Ok, thanks for the info
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Pio2001 on 31 August, 2003, 10:25:07 AM
Zeb Smith's Command line discussion splitted there :

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....howtopic=12790& (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=12790&)

This thread should only be used to notify changes in the list of recommended settings.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Jan S. on 11 September, 2003, 04:08:17 PM
You can now find the list in the wiki:
http://doc.hydrogenaudio.org/wikis/hydroge...RecommendedLAME (http://doc.hydrogenaudio.org/wikis/hydrogenaudio/RecommendedLAME)

Perhaps this thread should just redirect to the wiki?
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: user on 12 September, 2003, 04:50:15 AM
in wiki the links are missing, the wiki contains only the pure lame settings.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Jan S. on 12 September, 2003, 05:36:37 PM
Quote
in wiki the links are missing, the wiki contains only the pure lame settings.

Correct since these links should be in the relevant pages around the wiki.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Pio2001 on 20 September, 2003, 10:29:34 AM
Why is the Wiki list sorted differently ? It is much clearer here. Can I change it so that AltPreset standard is recommended as better quality / size ratio ?
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Jan S. on 20 September, 2003, 10:36:04 AM
How is it better sorted here?
It should be a direct copy...
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Pio2001 on 20 September, 2003, 10:58:10 AM
Here :
Recommended encoder settings (APS green, APE yellow , API red)
ABR settings
CBR settings

APS is on top, in green in the recommended section.

In the Wiki ( http://doc.hydrogenaudio.org/wikis/hydroge...RecommendedLAME (http://doc.hydrogenaudio.org/wikis/hydrogenaudio/RecommendedLAME) ) :

CBR best : API
VBR (APE, then APS)
ABR Settings
CBR Settings

API appears as the best, then, for the one who understands than VBR is superior to ABR and CBR, APE, and then only APS
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Jan S. on 20 September, 2003, 11:03:54 AM
ah yes... Yes that should be changed...

edit: problem is that with current css there no difference between <h1>, <h2> and <hX>...
So we'd have to use bold or something now...
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Pio2001 on 20 September, 2003, 11:07:38 AM
OK, I must go shopping right now, I'll take care of it within 24 hours if it is not done in the meantime.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Jore on 21 September, 2003, 07:29:18 PM
Stupid question (must be my work with user-related stuff):

Why recommeded settings aren't distributed with lame distribution files?

It is quite funny that in HA Forums developers say "don't use this or that swithc, use presets" but with the distro comes with "Full command line switch reference" which guarantees the newbies to either
a) "Run! This is for nerds!" or
b) to completely screw up their mp3's

If there is a higher reason for not to put recommeded settings to the first (or only) page of the manual, I would be interested to know.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: amano on 21 September, 2003, 08:43:38 PM
Ask the lame creators to include these recommendations.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Gabriel on 22 September, 2003, 03:33:56 AM
Quote
Ask the lame creators to include these recommendations.


Have you really read the documentation? I guess no
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Gabriel on 22 September, 2003, 03:38:21 AM
Quote
Why recommeded settings aren't distributed with lame distribution files?


They are, and are fully documented and recommended in the html help provided with Lame:
http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/viewcvs...ts.html?rev=1.3 (http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/*checkout*/lame/lame/doc/html/presets.html?rev=1.3)
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Jore on 22 September, 2003, 10:17:13 AM
Thanks for the answer, Gabriel.

Yes, I have read the documentation that comes with recommended compile. That's why I ask.

They might be part of documentation but not part of the distribution.

http://rarewares.hydrogenaudio.org/files/l...lame-3.90.3.zip (http://rarewares.hydrogenaudio.org/files/lame-3.90.3.zip)

No link to the sourceforge or hydrogen anywhere on the documentation, just links to http://www.mp3encoder.org (http://www.mp3encoder.org) or http://www.r3mix.net/ (http://www.r3mix.net/), which both go to a commercial site, nothing to do with lame.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: john33 on 22 September, 2003, 10:34:18 AM
The absence of the preset.html from the 3.90.3 distro is my fault!! 

Because 3.90.3 is hybrid compile, I had omitted to think to include the later presets.html doc within the bundle. I have now corrected this, so end of argument!!
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Jore on 22 September, 2003, 11:27:12 AM
Woohoo I contributed to lame development!

* gets a beer from fridge *

Thanks john33
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Gabriel on 22 September, 2003, 11:36:50 AM
I think that the link from index.html to presets.html is missing. Without it, I think that many people will miss presets.html
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: john33 on 22 September, 2003, 11:46:58 AM
Quote
I think that the link from index.html to presets.html is missing. Without it, I think that many people will miss presets.html

You're probably right. I'll update that too!!
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: user on 05 October, 2003, 10:29:25 AM
Edit:

How to

Reencode mp3 (high bitrate with ID3 tags) to mp3 (low bitrate) and include tags to new mp3 file : Try Monkeys Audio http://www.monkeysaudio.com/ (http://www.monkeysaudio.com/), or maybe better: foobar 2000, use the CLI encoder: http://www.saunalahti.fi/cse/html/foobar.html (http://www.saunalahti.fi/cse/html/foobar.html)




I hope, mp3 to mp3 works with the CLI (if not correct me),
for mpc -> mp3, it worked just great !
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Lee James on 03 November, 2003, 01:24:57 PM
Hi, I need a little advice, please...

1. I use RazorLAME, but I haven't updated it since about version 3.90 and I know there are newer versions of LAME. Could anyone tell me the simplest way to update RazorLAME so it runs the latest LAME? (Presumably I can do this without having to reinstall RazorLAME from scratch?)

2. Can anyone tell me what the best place is to check when it's "safe" to download the latest LAME update? (I heard there were a few bugs a few releases ago and I don't want to download a buggy version.) Is there some site that keeps you informed of which is the latest stable version of LAME?

3. I went to a site that says there's a v3.94 alpha version of LAME out (http://www.mp3dev.org/mp3/history.html) but to enable one of the new features that makes it better quality, you have to type "-h". I normally just use alt preset extreme. How would I add this "-h" to the preset, or would RazorLAME do it for me?

Sorry to sound like a big fat lamer. I guess I am. Apologies if this is the wrong place to ask. Thanks to anyone who can help me with any of these questions!
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Jan S. on 03 November, 2003, 01:50:44 PM
The wiki page (http://doc.hydrogenaudio.org/wikis/hydrogenaudio/LameCompiles) and this thread (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/show.php/showtopic/478) will be updated with the compile we recommend. replace the lame.exe in the razorlame dir with this compile.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: tigre on 03 November, 2003, 01:59:22 PM
Quote
3. I went to a site that says there's a v3.94 alpha version of LAME out (http://www.mp3dev.org/mp3/history.html) but to enable one of the new features that makes it better quality, you have to type "-h". I normally just use alt preset extreme. How would I add this "-h" to the preset, or would RazorLAME do it for me?

There's a reason why it's called alpha. It should be used for testing only. So far quality isn't better than 3.90.3 + alt presets, probably there'll be cases where it's much worse.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Lee James on 03 November, 2003, 06:08:47 PM
Jan S. and tigre >> THANK YOU for your help!

tigre >> Your avatar... wow! That's the coolest thing I've seen on the Web in a long time! And all for only 29k!
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: tsioc on 14 November, 2003, 03:48:55 PM
is there a lame preset that that would correspond to 160 bitrate?

IE  Insane - 320 ish

Standard - 190 ish

is there a preset that would be about 160 ish?
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: AtaqueEG on 14 November, 2003, 04:31:34 PM
Quote
is there a lame preset that that would correspond to 160 bitrate?

IE  Insane - 320 ish

Standard - 190 ish

is there a preset that would be about 160 ish?

MEDIUM
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: tsioc on 15 November, 2003, 01:49:42 AM
simple enough, I probably should have guessed that one.  THANKS!
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Echizen on 15 November, 2003, 03:07:47 AM
Uhm, is "--alt-preset medium" better than "--alt-preset 160" ?
Shouldn't someone add it to the "List of recommended LAME settings" ?
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: AtaqueEG on 16 November, 2003, 03:08:49 PM
Quote
Uhm, is "--alt-preset medium" better than "--alt-preset 160" ?
Shouldn't someone add it to the "List of recommended LAME settings" ?

There are no tests that I know of.

I would also think that ABX'ing between those two is really hard.

But I think that -medium is a little better (on my tests at least)
It should be, as it is not limited by bitrate, as -160 is.

But, yeah, -160 is a good recomendation.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: jin on 03 December, 2003, 10:35:24 PM
i'm having a problem with EAC and lame. I had it working before reinstalling XP awhile ago.

anyhow i'm using the latest beta of EAC and lame 3.90.3

EAC is set on user defined encoder. THe path to lame.exe is correct. and in the command settings is --alt-preset extreme.


However it rips fine but lame won't compress? the dos screen comes up but disappears faster than i can read it.

thanks!
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: tigre on 04 December, 2003, 04:54:58 AM
jin, if you use user defined encoder, you need to add %s %d to the commandline, like in this picture (http://www.noveo.net/tigre/EAC/EAC_lame_01.png).
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: jin on 04 December, 2003, 06:02:28 PM
much thanks!!
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Gigas-VII on 06 December, 2003, 12:39:37 PM
what is a good, safe lowpass filter setting for most music?  If they can cut down on the filesize by only removing inaudible data, I'd really like to use them.

Also, I listen to and rip a lot of techno, and I'm trying to decide the best possible balance of audible quality and filesize.  Until now, I've done CBR 192, but recently I switched to --alt preset extreme  with a max-bitrate of 256 and a min-bitrate of 128.  This has worked nicely, and given me files roughly 192 kbps (not really a goal, but nice).  I was told that I should just use the lame.exe (I've been using the lame_enc.dll), but I don't know the right parameters to fit my needs.

if anyone's got a simple answer ^_^ please tell me.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: CiTay on 06 December, 2003, 05:11:15 PM
Quote
Until now, I've done CBR 192, but recently I switched to --alt preset extreme   with a max-bitrate of 256 and a min-bitrate of 128.  This has worked nicely, and given me files roughly 192 kbps (not really a goal, but nice).

You should never set an upper bitrate limit. Use --alt-preset standard.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: odious malefactor on 06 December, 2003, 07:28:49 PM
Or try "--alt-preset standard -Y"

(Huh, do I hear an echo in here? Or is this just an endless loop?!?)

--EDIT--
Standing corrected...
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: dubz76 on 06 December, 2003, 08:02:43 PM
sorry i know its probably been asked and answered a milliopn times, but whats the difference between the adding the --y or whatever onto the end of alt preset standard? 

also, is there some guide on eac that goes through all of the advanced options with recommended things to have checked and unchecked, because a lot of them confuse the hell out of me as to which i should have set, not set etc.

one more question.. what is the reccomended preset for mp3s averaging out to around 128 kbps to achieve the highest quality for that size? i know a lot of people think that bitrate is crap, so i must be deaf, but i still cant really hear much difference between it and 192 kbps, and surely not enough difference for me to justify making a file almost twice as big on my cramped up 40 gig hard drive :/ lol.. 

also, i have so many damn cds, that i need to fit as many mp3 albums on a single disc as i can because i have to ride the bus around etc, less cds less confusion, less cost, you know the story.  anyways thanks in advance, i've been reading these forums for quite a while and seem to get myself more and more confused every time i do lol.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: CiTay on 06 December, 2003, 08:23:41 PM
Quote
sorry i know its probably been asked and answered a milliopn times, but whats the difference between the adding the --y or whatever onto the end of alt preset standard?

First off, it's -Y, not -y and not --y. LAME switches are case sensitive, and "--" is only used for longer switches. What -Y does is disable noise shaping for scalefactor band 21, the neglected frequency range from 16 to 22.05 KHz. For music with much high frequency content which is probably masked anyway (heavy metal..), this will reduce bitrate bloating that can otherwise happen, because it will only encode the most noticeable signals above 16 KHz. It can also be useful to keep the bitrate down for portable players. But --alt-preset standard without -Y is the better setting if these issues don't apply to you.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: odious malefactor on 06 December, 2003, 08:52:07 PM
Quote
also, is there some guide on eac that goes through all of the advanced options with recommended things to have checked and unchecked, because a lot of them confuse the hell out of me as to which i should have set, not set etc.


EAC guide by C. Myden (http://www.chrismyden.com/nuke/modules.php?op=modload&name=Elite_DAE&file=painless)

Quote
one more question.. what is the reccomended preset for mp3s averaging out to around 128 kbps to achieve the highest quality for that size?


--alt-preset 128 or
--abr 128 -h --nspsytune --athtype 2 --lowpass 16 --ns-bass -8 --scale 0.93
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: dubz76 on 06 December, 2003, 11:28:44 PM
haha alright thanks man.  you guys are some serious audiophiles, i like that.  maybe one day ill have enough money for high end equipment so i too can tell tell these difference in quality .  give me some credit though i may be using a 19 dollar cd burner and 2.00 per 50 cd media but at least i dont encode with xing (very old)
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: _Shorty on 07 December, 2003, 02:29:10 AM
Quote
Quote
Until now, I've done CBR 192, but recently I switched to --alt preset extreme  with a max-bitrate of 256 and a min-bitrate of 128.  This has worked nicely, and given me files roughly 192 kbps (not really a goal, but nice).

You should never set an upper bitrate limit. Use --alt-preset standard.

unless of course you have a player that doesn't like 320Kbps frames, which may be the reason for limiting it to 256.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: sld on 07 December, 2003, 03:18:01 AM
If you have an mp3 player that does not support 320 kbps, you should return the player. 
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: _Shorty on 07 December, 2003, 03:37:51 AM
I don't, but people do. I believe some of the early Sony players were like this.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Sir_Fresh on 07 December, 2003, 08:20:47 AM
Sorry if this is allready asked here.

What is the best quality of MP3 to rip in if you don't really care about the size of files. I have lots of gigs and I don't have the need to put al my music on an iPod. I just can change the music on my ipod from time to time.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: evereux on 07 December, 2003, 08:49:34 AM
Quote
Sorry if this is allready asked here.

What is the best quality of MP3 to rip in if you don't really care about the size of files. I have lots of gigs and I don't have the need to put al my music on an iPod. I just can change the music on my ipod from time to time.

From the first post in this thread

Quote
--alt-preset insane (320 kbit/s CBR, highest possible quality)
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Sir_Fresh on 07 December, 2003, 09:17:58 AM
Thanks

[/QUOTE]alt-preset insane (320 kbit/s CBR, highest possible quality)
Quote


With wich program can you rip in that quality?
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: user on 07 December, 2003, 09:40:25 AM
Sir Fresh,

what about simply reading, understanding and using the first post of this long "recommended settings & programs & guides list" thread ?
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Sir_Fresh on 07 December, 2003, 11:54:59 AM
My english isn't so good so it's a real task to read the whole first post.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: sld on 07 December, 2003, 12:03:17 PM
Reading it will improve your English.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: AtaqueEG on 07 December, 2003, 12:09:41 PM
Quote
My english isn't so good so it's a real task to read the whole first post.

With all due respect, you should really try to read an understand it.

Not having a good english proficiency will indeed make it very difficult from having a pleasant Hydrogenaudio experience 

Read the FAQ (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=5&t=7516), it has all the answers to your questions and more.

But you have to make an effort...
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Pio2001 on 07 December, 2003, 07:34:53 PM
Quote
Quote
also, is there some guide on eac that goes through all of the advanced options with recommended things to have checked and unchecked, because a lot of them confuse the hell out of me as to which i should have set, not set etc.


EAC guide by C. Myden (http://www.chrismyden.com/nuke/modules.php?op=modload&name=Elite_DAE&file=painless)

This guide just sets every setting without explanation. If you search explanations, go to http://www.ping.be/satcp/tutorials.htm (http://www.ping.be/satcp/tutorials.htm) , but keep in mind that this guide is old, and that some EAC features have changed since it was written. For example, the "internal wav routines" have been removed, and "compressed/uncompressed" options have been created instead.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: geovogs on 10 December, 2003, 03:45:14 AM
Hi!
Please, tell me how I can set stereo for Lame 3.93 MMx in foobar2000's conversion options.
I have default joint stereo.

Thank You.
Geo.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: user on 10 December, 2003, 05:17:12 AM
what about simply copying a commandline given in the first posts of this way too long thread ?
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: magic75 on 10 December, 2003, 06:18:43 AM
Quote
Hi!
Please, tell me how I can set stereo for Lame 3.93 MMx in foobar2000's conversion options.
I have default joint stereo.

Thank You.
Geo.

I guess you don't know it, but joint stereo is better than full stereo. You will not lose any stereo image by using joint stereo, you will only imporve quality. Check the FAQ.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Fr4nz on 10 December, 2003, 06:29:28 AM
Joint stereo is better than stereo so leave this option as it is.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: dubz76 on 10 December, 2003, 11:10:48 AM
Quote
jin, if you use user defined encoder, you need to add %s %d to the commandline, like in this picture (http://www.noveo.net/tigre/EAC/EAC_lame_01.png).

hmm, i dont have this set in my EAC compression options, and mine seems to be working alright.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: dubz76 on 10 December, 2003, 11:15:25 AM
Quote
Quote
jin, if you use user defined encoder, you need to add %s %d to the commandline, like in this picture (http://www.noveo.net/tigre/EAC/EAC_lame_01.png).

hmm, i dont have this set in my EAC compression options, and mine seems to be working alright.

nevermind i now see that its not set on user defined encoder anymore, but on LAME encoder in the EAC scroll down box option.  does this setting still have EAC locate my 3.90.3 in my c:\ folder?  or is this lame compile already built into EAC this time or what?
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: MxM on 10 December, 2003, 11:15:44 AM
Quote
Joint stereo is better than stereo so leave this option as it is.

it would quite be fine if you tell that this is YOUR opinion, or if you tell that it is better in MOST KNOWN cases. would be really great, as i cannot enjoy joint stereo files the way you do. :-)
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: de Mon on 10 December, 2003, 11:57:27 AM
Quote
Hi!
Please, tell me how I can set stereo for Lame 3.93 MMx in foobar2000's conversion options.
I have default joint stereo.

Thank You.
Geo.

Don't do so. It will crash presets if you gonna use them. And even if you don't go to use them I still don't recommend to use stereo mode.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Fr4nz on 10 December, 2003, 12:24:57 PM
Quote
Quote
Joint stereo is better than stereo so leave this option as it is.

it would quite be fine if you tell that this is YOUR opinion, or if you tell that it is better in MOST KNOWN cases. would be really great, as i cannot enjoy joint stereo files the way you do. :-)

Do what you want to do. But don't state that Stereo is better than JS,because it isn't true (only crappy encoders like Xing mess up with JS). If you read the FAQs  of this site you will always read that the "safe" implementation of JS in Lame renders it the best way to encode the audio.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: MxM on 10 December, 2003, 01:26:14 PM
Fr4nz,


you might like to join us again in joint stereo vs. true stereo (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=16241&st=0&) without just trolling about PLACEBO. you may have a personal opinion like all others here, like me... but still it remains what it is ... YOUR OPINION, the opinion of the HA users, the words that are written in the FAQ... or anything else states so far or any personal meaning of a group of people... but claiming it IS better should everyone check for itself. and maybe there are some sidefacts we all havent noticed so far.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: KikeG on 11 December, 2003, 09:16:29 AM
Maybe you should prove in a reliable manner that JS does sound worse, even for you. That would support your claims better.

Edit: ok, I read the thread you limked. Still, the problem would be just in a surround system, not a stereo system.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: magic75 on 11 December, 2003, 09:44:59 AM
MxM, in that thread you tested using joint stereo in a surround system, right? As it was stated there, there can be problems with JS in systems using DSP, like in a surround system for instance.

As for JS in a normal listening setup, headphones or 2-speakers, there is no problems whatsoever with JS as it is implemented in Lame. As far as i know no one has yet been able to show a sample where JS would be worse than plain stereo. There are however numerous samples where JS outperforms plain stereo in quality.

So would you please consider testing JS against full stereo with standard headphones before you continue making these general claims.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: MxM on 11 December, 2003, 11:10:03 AM
did i claim anything for real ? ...instead i should consider that normally im completely wrong here... i did not aimed to get that in depth into mp3 again. ;-)

this is a list of recommendation, and so it should be ....focussed on whats to be recommended.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Cutter on 21 December, 2003, 11:50:36 AM
Hi all. I just would like to know if "--preset" equals "--alt-preset".
Here is what the help file from LAME V3.93.1 says:
Quote
--preset use built-in preset
--alt-preset use updated and much higher quality "alternate" presets


But when asking lame.exe for help about --alt-presets (from command line), it mentions only "--preset".
Here is a copy/pasted extract:

Quote
For example:

  "--preset fast standard <input file> <output file>"
or "--preset cbr 192 <input file> <output file>"
or "--preset 172 <input file> <output file>"
or "--preset extreme <input file> <output file>"


So does "--preset" actually have the same effect as "--alt-preset"?
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: john33 on 21 December, 2003, 01:05:17 PM
In 3.93.1, they mean exactly the same thing.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Cutter on 21 December, 2003, 02:52:07 PM
Thanks. Wasn't that the case in previous previous versions?
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Jebus on 21 December, 2003, 04:03:40 PM
Quote
Thanks. Wasn't that the case in previous previous versions?

no, until 3.93 you had to use --alt-preset. well, except on the special 3.90.3 compile available on rarewares.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: rijhsing on 24 December, 2003, 01:56:44 AM
What is currently the best 320 kb CBR command line option?

I thought it was --alt-preset insane (320 kbit/s CBR, highest possible quality)

and then I read about

--nspsytune -b320 -h -mj --nssafejoint --lowpass 20 --athtype 2 -X3  (This will be the upcoming new "--dm-preset insane")

but the latter doesn't work for me...it just rips the song to a WAV...

??

THANKS!
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: music_man_mpc on 24 December, 2003, 02:01:06 AM
Quote
What is currently the best 320 kb CBR command line option?

I thought it was --alt-preset insane (320 kbit/s CBR, highest possible quality)

and then I read about

--nspsytune -b320 -h -mj --nssafejoint --lowpass 20 --athtype 2 -X3   (This will be the upcoming new "--dm-preset insane")

but the latter doesn't work for me...it just rips the song to a WAV...

??

THANKS!

I am still pretty sure --alt-preset insane is the best.  Where did you read about this other command line?
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: rijhsing on 24 December, 2003, 02:41:31 AM
Quote
I am still pretty sure --alt-preset insane is the best.  Where did you read about this other command line?

It's on page 1 of this thread...about 3/4 of the way down...
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Frank Bicking on 24 December, 2003, 04:02:24 AM
Quote
--nspsytune -b320 -h -mj --nssafejoint --lowpass 20 --athtype 2 -X3 (This will be the upcoming new "--dm-preset insane")

The dm-presets where renamed to alt-presets long ago, so this command line is pretty old. Ignore this recommendation and keep using --alt-preset insane.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Jack Comics on 30 December, 2003, 11:17:40 PM
Using wapet.exe via Exact Audio Copy, is this a decent command-line?

%d -t "Artist=%a" -t "Title=%t" -t "Album=%g" -t "Year=%y" -t "Track=%n" -t "Genre=%m" -t "Encoded_by=My name here" lame.exe --alt-preset extreme -c --space-id3v1 %s %d

Any recommendations and/or suggestions would be appreciated, of course.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Simba7 on 06 January, 2004, 01:11:44 AM
I use the --preset extreme setting also, but I add -b32 -B320 to the list. I don't really want to compress silence down to 128kbit. It'd be a waste.

I'd like to thank TrNSZ for showing me the "preset" settings and preventing myself from making more fsck'd up MP3's using --r3mix.


Using Exact Audio Copy v0.95pb4 [http://www.exactaudiocopy.de]
and LAME v3.94b1
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: tigre on 06 January, 2004, 05:09:57 AM
Simba7, --preset extreme (as well as standard) drops bitrate down to 32kbps on silence automatically. No need to add -b 32 - you'll only get some < 128kbps frames on *audible* content which can lead to audible problems. There were problem samples that were solved by setting min. bitrate *on non-silent content* to 128kbps, that's why this is included in the --presets.

So far almost no listening tests have been published about lame 3.94b1. If you use it there's a much higher probability that you run into audible artifacts than with the well-tested recommended version 3.90.3.

If you read a bit throught this thread you'll notice that there's a consensus about what the 'recommended Lame settings' are - and people read it (especially the beginning), ask questions that remain open and get answers. This consensus is based on a huge ammount of time spent on scientific tests and will change if new facts based on evidence appear.

If everyone who doesn't have enough knowledge yet to know what he's doing, posted his favourite settings based on assumptions here, this thread would turn into a complete mess and lose its purpose.

So please ...
- don't post things as facts that are based on potentially wrong assumptions
- if you have still questions feel free to ask them
- if you have performed double blind tests (ABX) and found that the settings you use are better, your input will be more than welcome, ideally in a separate thread
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Simba7 on 06 January, 2004, 10:28:44 AM
It does? From what I've seen on LAME v3.94b1, the bitrates are from 128kbit to 320kbit. There's no 32-112kbit in there. Unless it's different on the newer LAME builds.

So far, the only thing -b32 does IS compress the silence down (and just that) to acceptible levels. The actual "Audible" content falls between 128-320kbit. Very rarely I'll get a frame lower than 128kbit with audible content.

Of course, this is still a beta. Is it going to go RELEASE soon, or should I go back to 3.93.1 (unless there's a custom build somewhere)?
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: magic75 on 07 January, 2004, 03:08:32 AM
Simba7: First, 32 kbps frames are only used on digital silence IIRC, are you sure there are digital silence in the files you have examined? Second, 3.94b1 is beta and things may have changed and things may be buggy. You really shouldn't be using it. The recommended build is still 3.90.3 and you should use the recommended settings.

You say that you get <128 kbps frames very rarely for audible content. So it obviously happens for you. The reason for restricting it to >128 kbps is to assure "perfect" quality, which is the whole point of the standard, extreme & insane presets. The VBR algorithms sometimes underestimates the bitrate needed for encoding a certain passage, and to assure that this underestimation does not affect quality to much the bitrate has been restricted to min 128. Removing this restriction allows the encoder to use too low bitrates every now and then and thereby causing artefacts.

If you can accept non-"perfect" quality in these rare occasions when you get a <128 frame for audible conten, I can't see why you use the extreme preset. It should be overkill for you and a waste of diskspace.

If you still want to use the extreme preset, have you checked how much diskspace you actually save by adding -b32? It should be very little, so why mess with the optimal settings? In fact, it could be quite possible that -preset standard would deliver better quality than -preset extreme -b32 but at a lower bitrate.

And finally, these recommended settings have been tested so thoroughly that you can't believe it. Using them (and only them) is the currently best you can do with the MP3 format.

In short, use lame 3.90.3 and presets only for best quality.

EDIT: There doesn't seem to be a stable release of 3.94: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....ndpost&p=170199 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=16807&view=findpost&p=170199) (again, stay away fron alpha and beta versions...)
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Simba7 on 08 January, 2004, 04:38:46 AM
Roger that.. Why not 3.93.1, though?
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: tigre on 08 January, 2004, 06:14:36 AM
Quote
Roger that.. Why not 3.93.1, though?

A search (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?&act=Search&f=) for e.g. "3.90.3 AND 3.93.1" will lead you to the answer, e.g. in this thread (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=16936&).

In short: 3.90.3 is well known and tested, 3.93.1 is not.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Simba7 on 08 January, 2004, 11:48:44 PM
Ok, Tigre. I'm just a bit confused why no one tests out the newer ones and are stuck with an older version of the LAME codec. I would usually think a newer version works better than the older one.

If no one is testing it, why update it then? It's like "Why upgrade to Windows XP from Windows 95?". If no one gives it a whirl, how will we know?
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: magic75 on 09 January, 2004, 02:27:44 AM
Simba, please try searching for this, it has been discussed numerous times before. In short, the reason is that massive testing was done on the 3.90.x branch. And with massive I mean really massive. The changes made in 3.91-3.93 have been really minor and therefore no one have really been motivated doing all that testing over again, just for those small changes. In 3.94-95 there has been much more changes made and hopefully there will be sufficient testing made on the final stable release of these versions to make it a new HA recommended.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Simba7 on 09 January, 2004, 03:35:09 AM
Ahh.. Ok.. That explains alot. Thanks for the help!
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: M.A. on 14 January, 2004, 10:38:21 AM
Am I correct that with the new Lame 3.951 I can get better guality using --alt -preset extreme -q 0  then just --alt -preset extreme?
Encoding speed really does not matter for me, only quality.
I've heard many times that modifying alt presets is not a good idea.

Is it also safe to use the new 3.951 version in terms of quality?
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Gabriel on 14 January, 2004, 10:43:12 AM
Quote
Am I correct that with the new Lame 3.951 I can get better guality using --alt -preset extreme -q 0 then just --alt -preset extreme?


Whatever the real answer, the general recomendation is still to use the presets, and only this.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: M.A. on 14 January, 2004, 11:06:46 AM
The Lame 3.051 full command reference says that the default value for the algorythm quality is q=5, which gives good speed and reasonable quality, -q 2 is recommended and -q 0 is slowest with theoretically best quality.
Using --alt -preset extreme -q 0 significantly decreases encoding speed comparing to --alt -preset extreme => improves (theoretically) quality. Am I correct?
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: user on 14 January, 2004, 04:01:07 PM
no,
as far as I know in the switch "ape -q0",
-q0 overrides ape,
so, you have plain q0, which is inferior to ape.

the q settings are different, independent of the ap system.


Guys, just use the presets !
If something changes, the presets at first post are updated, or the switches are implemented into the presets on the longer run,

so that in the end:

Just use the presets !
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Jebus on 15 January, 2004, 12:12:07 AM
Quote
no,
as far as I know in the switch "ape -q0",
-q0 overrides ape,
so, you have plain q0, which is inferior to ape.

the q settings are different, independent of the ap system.


Guys, just use the presets !
If something changes, the presets at first post are updated, or the switches are implemented into the presets on the longer run,

so that in the end:

Just use the presets !

Sorry man, that's wrong and I have to point that out so that you don't mislead anyone. the -q settings control how much time the encoder spends "figuring stuff out" during the encode. in 3.95.x the -q is set to 3.

You are thinking of -V0, -V1 etc. which are the variable bitrate quality values. Even those now are linked to presets though in 3.95.x, so you're still wrong even if that's what you meant...

So, using "lame -V2 -q0" is the same now as using --preset standard with the qval changed to 3 from 0 (resulting in much longer encode times, with dubious benefits).
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: user on 15 January, 2004, 04:09:59 AM
oh, it seems, there are real changes now, so Lame uses now the presets by default ?

that is, what I would call quick progress

but, if some time computing can be ruled by an additional switch, hmm, then those are not the original -alt-presets ?
Maybe there should be more testing for the new quality ?
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: shafff on 16 January, 2004, 02:32:07 PM
are presets use all posible algorothms for best quality or there are balance of speed/quality?

today, when we have super fast cpus, time (speed) is going to background...
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: user on 16 January, 2004, 07:02:19 PM
Updated October 05, 2003

These settings require Lame 3.90 or later. Lame 3.90.3 found on this website is the recommended version. (Check here to download).

Note: At a given bitrate range, the quality scale usually works to where VBR is higher quality than ABR which is higher quality than CBR (CBR < ABR < VBR in terms of quality). The exception to this is when you choose the highest possible CBR bitrate, which is 320 kbps (--alt-preset insane).


-------------------------------------------------
Recommended encoder settings:
-------------------------------------------------

--alt-preset standard (~190 kbit/s, typical 180 ... 220)

--alt-preset fast standard (~190 kbit/s, faster but potentially lower quality)

--alt-preset extreme (~250 kbit/s, typical 220 ... 270)

--alt-preset fast extreme (~250 kbit/s, faster but potentially lower quality)

--alt-preset insane (320 kbit/s CBR, highest possible quality)

For high quality on portable MP3 players, you may use --alt-preset standard -Y (around 160 kbit/s). -Y usually limits to 16 KHz, something you likely won't notice in noisier environments.






The fast presets are for speed, the normal presets for most quality at given preset/bitrate.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Shandra on 22 January, 2004, 11:52:29 AM
Quote
as far as I know in the switch "ape -q0",
-q0 overrides ape,
so, you have plain q0, which is inferior to ape.

the q settings are different, independent of the ap system.

User: I consider you the expert here... but I wanna know how to get more docs on that topic (ya know, the html files in the lame archive are... well... enough to learn about the switches but from that on...)

A quick impression on an experimental test (not to be seen as a true test, just started it up for a first impression)

Riping wav to HD
then encoding that wav... & using Lame3.95.1 (yeah, sorry - haven't had the still recommended one at hand)
in experimenting with the V and q switches.... using q along with APE changed the displayed qval in the encoders CLI window, setting a V value along with APE doesn't changed the displayed VBR quality (wich it does if not used along with APE)... so a first impression would be -V is overriden by --APE, q is set along with APE....

But that as a start... then a bitwise compare of some results (as i said don't consider this as a real test)
APE vs q1 APE  (13.xx Gig diff.Samples)
APE vs q0 APE  (18.xx Gig " ")
APE vs V0 q3 No differences
APEq0 vs V0 q0 No differences
V0 q3 vs V0 q0 same difference as Ape vs. q0 Ape

I used V0 and q3 to compare as that is what the CLI Windows tells me it uses if run with --APE alone (V0 q3)

So as I said either further testing for me to find myself an answer to your assumption (no offence, you named it as such) & I don't want to raise an argument if going with any other switches then AP(x) alone... but if switches are ignored or overriden this is something that I think then it would be a good point to put that information together with the recommended settings (because even if it is not recommended I like to know the facts beyond that matter (and to know if experimenting with the switches in certain combinations makes any sense at all (meaning that it makes no sense if one switch cancels out another one & not that the combination may make any sense at all)  [or to put it in other words - as I think the normal assumption in reading about the recommended settings and seeing the switch.html file that comes along with the lame compile would be that you can use the switches along with presets.... and if that is wrong - well, as I said then I believe it ought to be mentioned along with the recommendation]
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: user on 22 January, 2004, 01:55:51 PM
sorry, as long 3.90.3 is recommdend with its presets, I don't know more.
I don't understand the new development, to add q switches to presets.
That results to a lot confusion, like before the dm/alt-prersets were introduced, as the best commandlines for each bitrate/mode were very long and complicated, and only known to the few experienced techies/visitors of r3mix forum.

As PC speed is not an issue these days, the presets should have an easy system to result to best quality at given bitrate/mode, like the q-levels with mpc, like the alt-presets at our recommendation 1st post.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Shandra on 22 January, 2004, 02:44:10 PM
User: ok
(btw. I DL the 3.90.3 again and ... as I had forgotten order of switches is important (so if you put the -q and -V switches after APE they will affect the encode... so with it said (and believing in the fact that bitwise identical files are the same file) I cannot argue (and never wanted) to advice on preset setting alone
(Just to add - as 3903 ape vs apeq2v2 is identical, I would speculate that the preset algorythm is used along with the switches... and as the latest compile produces identical files with or without the preset setting on same q and V value that the preset algorythm is always used...)
But ok, thats really offtopic - and all I wanted to do is to point out that the information for switches (order, overriding, switch in internal algorythm used) somehow belongs to a recommended setting information (along with the usual warning), so that users may get a deeper knowledge of the involved mechanisms (and to have a "guide" on wich base they may experiment (or to figure out there needs/desires wich may sound :insane: or ridicules to most of us) - as long as each person stays with the recommended there can't be any progress - so maybe just a link to a corresponding sticky to the tech forum...)
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: phwip on 22 January, 2004, 02:58:52 PM
Quote
Riping wav to HD
then encoding that wav... & using Lame3.95.1 (yeah, sorry - haven't had the still recommended one at hand)
in experimenting with the V and q switches.... using q along with APE changed the displayed qval in the encoders CLI window, setting a V value along with APE doesn't changed the displayed VBR quality (wich it does if not used along with APE)... so a first impression would be -V is overriden by --APE, q is set along with APE....

But that as a start... then a bitwise compare of some results (as i said don't consider this as a real test)
APE vs q1 APE  (13.xx Gig diff.Samples)
APE vs q0 APE  (18.xx Gig " ")
APE vs V0 q3 No differences
APEq0 vs V0 q0 No differences
V0 q3 vs V0 q0 same difference as Ape vs. q0 Ape

I used V0 and q3 to compare as that is what the CLI Windows tells me it uses if run with --APE alone (V0 q3)

Basically with 3.95.1, --alt-preset extreme is IDENTICAL to -V0.  It does not specify a particular -q setting.

The reason that the encoder tells you it is using V0 and q3 when you encode with --APE is because you are telling it to use -V0, but you are not specifying a -q setting so it uses the default: q3.

In the same way, --alt-preset standard is a synonym for -V2 and -alt-preset medium is a synonym for -V4.  None of these specifies a -q setting, so all will use the default q3 unless you specify otherwise.

All of this applies to versions since 3.94 alpha 15.  It is completely different for older versions of lame than that.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Shandra on 22 January, 2004, 03:17:12 PM
phwip: thanx for the clarification on that  (I may come back with such a distortion of peace if newer "stable" releases have changed something in ways that I am confused again on the use of switches  )
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: sertopiony on 31 January, 2004, 12:34:07 PM
Quote
APE vs q1 APE  (13.xx Gig diff.Samples)
APE vs q0 APE  (18.xx Gig " ")
APE vs V0 q3 No differences

APE = alt preset extreme
aren't I smart to guess it
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: AssTyme on 01 February, 2004, 03:26:42 AM
Quote
Updated October 05, 2003

These settings require Lame 3.90 or later. Lame 3.90.3 found on this website is the recommended version. (Check here to download).

Note: At a given bitrate range, the quality scale usually works to where VBR is higher quality than ABR which is higher quality than CBR (CBR < ABR < VBR in terms of quality). The exception to this is when you choose the highest possible CBR bitrate, which is 320 kbps (--alt-preset insane).


-------------------------------------------------
Recommended encoder settings:
-------------------------------------------------

--alt-preset standard (~190 kbit/s, typical 180 ... 220)

--alt-preset fast standard (~190 kbit/s, faster but potentially lower quality)

--alt-preset extreme (~250 kbit/s, typical 220 ... 270)

--alt-preset fast extreme (~250 kbit/s, faster but potentially lower quality)

--alt-preset insane (320 kbit/s CBR, highest possible quality)

For high quality on portable MP3 players, you may use --alt-preset standard -Y (around 160 kbit/s). -Y usually limits to 16 KHz, something you likely won't notice in noisier environments.






The fast presets are for speed, the normal presets for most quality at given preset/bitrate.

Could you please give me a link or directions to the recommended 3.90.3 final version with all the options added. There seems to be many variances of 3.90.3 and I'm not sure which one to get.

Nevermind... I found it 

ThanX
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: iNsuRRecTiON on 22 February, 2004, 10:28:52 PM
Hi there,

one little question:

What is about the command line option -r3mix?

Is it still good or is -alt preset standard better than -r3mix?

thx

best regards,

iNsuRRecTiON
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Jebus on 22 February, 2004, 10:37:41 PM
Quote
Hi there,

one little question:

What is about the command line option -r3mix?

Is it still good or is -alt preset standard better than -r3mix?

thx

best regards,

iNsuRRecTiON

search the forum, dude... been answered many times. --r3mix is old, not based on objective listening tests, and not recommended.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: leif on 24 February, 2004, 02:58:59 AM
I've tried to follow this forum - I've just downloaded the recommended Lame 3.90.3 zip from this site (lame.exe has 6 Feb 2004 date compared to 4 June 2003 date on lame.exe I downloaded on 3 Feb 2004?). I'm using alt presets in EAC 095pb4 and RazorLame 1.1.5 - so I'm doing the right thing (right?)

Bear with me a little more ...

I have some radio programs/music recorded as wav from FM radio and burned to CDs that are the only copies I have. The (#$#@) Princo CDs are failing from sunlight exposure. I can still rip them on a Pioneer DVR 106d drive, which is the only drive I've found that will even recognise them.

Is alt preset extreme a reasonable compromise for MP3s that I can play as MP3 on PC and reburn as audio CDs in Nero to replace the Princo copies?

What's a good lame.dll setting for recording FM radio - or is there a recorder that will use lame.exe (and what setting)?

Do any recommendations for above also apply to burning audio CDs from MP3s ripped from audio CDs.

Finally...  or what about mp2?

thankyou all
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: tigre on 24 February, 2004, 03:41:18 AM
If you want to create backups from your fm recordings you shouldn't use lossy compression at all. Just use plain .wav (or some lossless compression lika flac) for temporary storage. If you want mp3s from these CDs for long time PC storage and listening as well, you can use MAREO to create flac/wav files and mp3s (--alt-preset standard should be enough) simultaneously - or create mp3s from the .wavs/.flacs in a 2nd step using e.g. foobar2000.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: leif on 24 February, 2004, 05:14:29 PM
many thanks
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: magic75 on 25 February, 2004, 06:49:04 AM
One thing worth considering is that FM radio is bandwidth limited to 15 kHz I think, so it could be a good idea to add --lowpass 16 or something. This would reduce noise and maybe file size (if you are using a VBR preset). I have no idea if the difference would be audible and the file size saving significant... I am also not sure if 16 kHz is a good lowpass or if you could go lower.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Amadeus93 on 25 February, 2004, 01:49:54 PM
There was an interesting thread on the topic of FM radio bandwidth here (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=18533)
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: leif on 25 February, 2004, 06:38:53 PM
thankyou - I'm jumping over to the fm thread
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: user on 17 March, 2004, 03:16:30 PM
added to 1st post:

usage in EAC:
select 'user defined encoder' 'preset like: '--alt-preset standard %s %d'' (see better the more detailed EAC guides)


due to ddrawleys request:
Would you please add the default settings clearly in the MP3 recommended thread. It seems to be a recurring question.

I.E. user defined encoder ' --alt-preset standard %s %d'

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=203& (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=203&)

Thank you
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: leif on 17 March, 2004, 05:14:22 PM
The EAC guide I read suggested not to use the lame dll because you can't use the presets, which are only available in the exe.

For recording fm radio, I couldn't find a recorder that encoded to the exe but I did find some use the dll to encode on the fly and use presets with the dll.

Is there some info somewhere that explains how presets work with the dll and what/if difference there is to using the presets and the exe?

thanks
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: tigre on 18 March, 2004, 01:55:59 AM
leif, either use special lame dll compiles from rarewares with your recording software (can only encode to e.g. --alt-preset standard, no matter what) or try foobar2000 (linein input plugin (-> DSPs if necessary) -> Diskwriter with lame mp3 output
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: detokaal on 29 March, 2004, 08:53:06 AM
With EAC prebeta 5, all the --presets medium, standard, etc. and their fast counterparts are included in the drop-down box.  You can now encode as you rip using the Lame dll, instead of using an external encoder, right to the presets.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: sls1776 on 29 March, 2004, 09:15:41 AM
Quote
With EAC prebeta 5, all the --presets medium, standard, etc. and their fast counterparts are included in the drop-down box. You can now encode as you rip using the Lame dll, instead of using an external encoder, right to the presets.



I'm using the prebeta 5, but I can't find the drop-down box you refer to. Is it located under compression options?

Thanks.


- Scott
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: detokaal on 29 March, 2004, 09:52:05 AM
Don't have EAC in front of me atm, but I think:

Compression options > Waveform > Wave format >  Select Lame dll instead of Microsoft Codec (make sure the Lame dll is in the EAC directory first).

Now check all the boxes and put .mp3 in the file extension box.

Now Sample Format drop down menu should appear right above the checkboxes.  Select one of the presets.  Done.

Make sure to hit the Mp3 button to rip and encode still - NOT the Wav button.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: sls1776 on 29 March, 2004, 02:09:54 PM
Worked perfectly.

Thanks.


- Scott
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: c90 on 21 April, 2004, 08:04:35 AM
the 'Decoder test by David Robinson' link you got is down.

http://privatewww.essex.ac.uk/~djmrob/mp3d...s/contents.html (http://privatewww.essex.ac.uk/~djmrob/mp3decoders/contents.html)
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Mr_Rabid_Teddybear on 14 May, 2004, 01:06:15 PM
Quote
Updated March 17, 2004
-------------------------------------------------
Setting up EAC for lame.exe with tagging
-------------------------------------------------
Based on Case's tutorial (http://www.saunalahti.fi/~cse/EAC/)

Select compression options from EAC menu.
Open 'External Compression' tab.

  1. Check 'Use external program for compression'
  2. Change 'Parameter passing scheme' to 'User Defined Encoder'
  3. Set file extension to .mp3
  4. Click 'Browse' and locate 'lame.exe'
  5. Change 'Additional command line options' to one of the following commandlines
  6. Check 'Delete WAV after compression'
  7. Uncheck 'Add ID3 tag'

Quote
ID3v1:
--alt-preset standard --id3v1only --ta "%a" --tt "%t" --tl "%g" --ty "%y" --tn "%n" --tg "%m" %s %d

ID3v2:
--alt-preset standard --id3v2-only --pad-id3v2 --ta "%a" --tt "%t" --tl "%g" --ty "%y" --tn "%n" --tg "%m" %s %d

ID3v1 and ID3v2:
--alt-preset standard --add-id3v2 --pad-id3v2 --ta "%a" --tt "%t" --tl "%g" --ty "%y" --tn "%n" --tg "%m" %s %d

APEv2: (requires wapet.exe (http://www.saunalahti.fi/~cse/files/wapet.zip))
%d -t "Artist=%a" -t "Title=%t" -t "Album=%g" -t "Year=%y" -t "Track=%n" -t "Genre=%m" lame.exe --alt-preset standard %s %d

(You can change --alt-preset standard to any setting/preset you'd like to use)

These commandlines are generally recommended over EAC's own tagging routines and its LAME encoder parameter passing preset, which is known to cause problems.
The bitrate setting serves a cosmetic purpose and is used for the size display in EAC's main window.


I just unchecked EAC's own "Add ID3 tag" option and used those recommended settings above  for "ID3v1" and "ID3v1 and ID3v2" respectively... Tried with both 3.90.3 stable and 3.96 stable versions of lame.exe from Rarewares.org.
In both cases the CMD black box just flashes up for a fraction of a second and dissapears. The wav file remains in target directory and no MP3 are produced. Using the line for "APEv2" on the other hand, works just fine, and so does a simple "--alt-preset standard %s %d" (which ofcourse leaves you with no tags). So letting lame.exe take over the tagging from EAC doesn't seem to work at all, at least not with these commandline settings (?)

Using EAC  0.95pb5 on XPsp1.




[EDIT]
It should maybe also be mentioned that passing along the tagvalues to mppenc.exe, oggenc2.exe & flac.exe creates no problems....
[/EDIT]
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Mr_Rabid_Teddybear on 16 May, 2004, 11:00:43 AM
Did I post this in the wrong forum/thread? Or am I just the only one who can't make this work?

 
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: dev0 on 16 May, 2004, 11:22:11 AM
My mistake.
lame.exe doesn't work if the genre (--tg) is not in its --genre-list.
Another reason to use APEv2 instead.

Commandlines updated.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Mr_Rabid_Teddybear on 16 May, 2004, 12:05:54 PM
Quote
My mistake.
lame.exe doesn't work if the genre (--tg) is not in its --genre-list.
Another reason to use APEv2 instead.

Commandlines updated.

That fixed it, yes. Thanks!

Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: pika2000 on 29 May, 2004, 06:20:01 PM
Is there a list of the equivalent switches for the APs? (ie. what are the switches used for --alt-preset standard?)
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Pio2001 on 29 May, 2004, 08:48:07 PM
Hello Pika2000,
Your question and the answer can be found in the FAQ (in the MP3 part) : http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....t=ST&f=5&t=7516 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=5&t=7516)

You can also find some informations in the Knowledge base project : http://doc.hydrogenaudio.org/ (http://doc.hydrogenaudio.org/)

And if the information is not there, you can use the search.
If this doesn't answer your question, you are welcome to ask in the forum.
In order to avoid problems, have a look also at the terms of service once. One of them (number 8) is very special.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: bboy on 30 May, 2004, 11:53:48 PM
Quote
ID3v1:
--alt-preset standard --id3v1only --ta "%a" --tt "%t" --tl "%g" --ty "%y" --tn "%n" %s %d

ID3v2:
--alt-preset standard --id3v2-only --pad-id3v2 --ta "%a" --tt "%t" --tl "%g" --ty "%y" --tn "%n" %s %d

ID3v1 and ID3v2:
--alt-preset standard --add-id3v2 --pad-id3v2 --ta "%a" --tt "%t" --tl "%g" --ty "%y" --tn "%n" %s %d

APEv2: (requires wapet.exe (http://www.saunalahti.fi/~cse/files/wapet.zip))
%d -t "Artist=%a" -t "Title=%t" -t "Album=%g" -t "Year=%y" -t "Track=%n" -t "Genre=%m" lame.exe --alt-preset standard %s %d

(You can change --alt-preset standard to any setting/preset you'd like to use)

There's a slight typo in the ID3v1 line.  Instead of --id3v1only, it should be --id3v1-only.

b
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Twinky on 28 August, 2004, 06:32:40 AM
Quote
My mistake.
lame.exe doesn't work if the genre (--tg) is not in its --genre-list.
Another reason to use APEv2 instead.

Commandlines updated.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=211629"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Can someone tell me what this means?
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: evereux on 28 August, 2004, 06:43:21 AM
That means if you specify a genre lame doesn't recognise it will cause a problem. Using apev2 type tags will not cause a problem, id3v1/2 only.

You can find the supported genres if you type
lame --genre-list
from the command prompt.

This is the list from lame 3.96.1:
Code: [Select]
123 A Cappella
34 Acid
74 Acid Jazz
73 Acid Punk
99 Acoustic
20 Alternative
40 Alt. Rock
26 Ambient
145 Anime
90 Avantgarde
116 Ballad
41 Bass
135 Beat
85 Bebob
96 Big Band
138 Black Metal
89 Bluegrass
 0 Blues
107 Booty Bass
132 BritPop
65 Cabaret
88 Celtic
104 Chamber Music
102 Chanson
97 Chorus
136 Christian Gangsta Rap
61 Christian Rap
141 Christian Rock
32 Classical
 1 Classic Rock
112 Club
128 Club-House
57 Comedy
140 Contemporary Christian
 2 Country
139 Crossover
58 Cult
 3 Dance
125 Dance Hall
50 Darkwave
22 Death Metal
 4 Disco
55 Dream
127 Drum & Bass
122 Drum Solo
120 Duet
98 Easy Listening
52 Electronic
48 Ethnic
54 Eurodance
124 Euro-House
25 Euro-Techno
84 Fast-Fusion
80 Folk
115 Folklore
81 Folk/Rock
119 Freestyle
 5 Funk
30 Fusion
36 Game
59 Gangsta Rap
126 Goa
38 Gospel
49 Gothic
91 Gothic Rock
 6 Grunge
129 Hardcore
79 Hard Rock
137 Heavy Metal
 7 Hip-Hop
35 House
100 Humour
131 Indie
19 Industrial
33 Instrumental
46 Instrumental Pop
47 Instrumental Rock
 8 Jazz
29 Jazz+Funk
146 JPop
63 Jungle
86 Latin
71 Lo-Fi
45 Meditative
142 Merengue
 9 Metal
77 Musical
82 National Folk
64 Native American
133 Negerpunk
10 New Age
66 New Wave
39 Noise
11 Oldies
103 Opera
12 Other
75 Polka
134 Polsk Punk
13 Pop
53 Pop-Folk
62 Pop/Funk
109 Porn Groove
117 Power Ballad
23 Pranks
108 Primus
92 Progressive Rock
67 Psychedelic
93 Psychedelic Rock
43 Punk
121 Punk Rock
15 Rap
68 Rave
14 R&B
16 Reggae
76 Retro
87 Revival
118 Rhythmic Soul
17 Rock
78 Rock & Roll
143 Salsa
114 Samba
110 Satire
69 Showtunes
21 Ska
111 Slow Jam
95 Slow Rock
105 Sonata
42 Soul
37 Sound Clip
24 Soundtrack
56 Southern Rock
44 Space
101 Speech
83 Swing
94 Symphonic Rock
106 Symphony
147 Synthpop
113 Tango
18 Techno
51 Techno-Industrial
130 Terror
144 Thrash Metal
60 Top 40
70 Trailer
31 Trance
72 Tribal
27 Trip-Hop
28 Vocal


If the mods don't like me posting that list, feel free to edit.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Twinky on 28 August, 2004, 06:20:56 PM
Thanks for the list.

BTW the EAC tutorial links in the original post are dead.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: dev0 on 28 August, 2004, 06:37:50 PM
Quote
Thanks for the list.

BTW the EAC tutorial links in the original post are dead.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=237725"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Fixed the links (and removed some obsolete ones) and also added information about the new (post-3.95.1) VBR presets (-V n).
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: fanerman91 on 08 September, 2004, 04:36:00 AM
Quote
My mistake.
lame.exe doesn't work if the genre (--tg) is not in its --genre-list.
Another reason to use APEv2 instead.

Commandlines updated.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=211629"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I can't get genres to show up at all.  Even for genres in the list (ie "Rock").  What am I doing wrong?  EAC encodes and I get all the other tags in the mp3... but no genre.  It's --tg "%m" right?

I'm using EAC v0.9b4 and lame 3.90.3
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: westgroveg on 08 September, 2004, 07:39:30 AM
Quote
Quote
My mistake.
lame.exe doesn't work if the genre (--tg) is not in its --genre-list.
Another reason to use APEv2 instead.

Commandlines updated.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=211629"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I can't get genres to show up at all.  Even for genres in the list (ie "Rock").  What am I doing wrong?  EAC encodes and I get all the other tags in the mp3... but no genre.  It's --tg "%m" right?

I'm using EAC v0.9b4 and lame 3.90.3
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=240213"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

There is no need to use User Defined Encoder for lame in EAC anymore.

Just use LAME MP3 Enc with id3v1 & id3v2 ticked.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: kvak on 08 September, 2004, 07:51:11 AM
Quote
Don't have EAC in front of me atm, but I think:

Compression options > Waveform > Wave format >  Select Lame dll instead of Microsoft Codec (make sure the Lame dll is in the EAC directory first).

Now check all the boxes and put .mp3 in the file extension box.

Now Sample Format drop down menu should appear right above the checkboxes.  Select one of the presets.  Done.

Make sure to hit the Mp3 button to rip and encode still - NOT the Wav button.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=198325"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Thanks for this idea, works fine for me.
Do I need to set something on "LAME DLL" tab in the same window? (Compression options > Waveform > Lame DLL)
There was selected "Stereo" mode, so I've changed it to "Joint Stereo" (Cause someone on this forum told me that Joint stereo is recommanded).
What about VBR quality? "5(normal)" is allright or can I have better results with "0(high quality)?"

Thanks.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Digisurfer on 08 September, 2004, 09:07:10 AM
Quote
I can't get genres to show up at all.  Even for genres in the list (ie "Rock").  What am I doing wrong?  EAC encodes and I get all the other tags in the mp3... but no genre.  It's --tg "%m" right?

I'm using EAC v0.9b4 and lame 3.90.3
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=240213"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I have no trouble using --tg "%m" within my LAME command line (I still prefer User Defined Encoder in EAC for tagging reasons), but then I use LAME 3.96.1 and EAC 0.95 PreBeta 5. Maybe you need to update your software?
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: charlybaby on 03 October, 2004, 03:44:42 PM
i am looking for a lame setting using 3.93.1 to compress aiff wild tracks and ambiance (stereo image and details are very important= matriced(M/S) recordings)
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: askoff on 03 October, 2004, 04:25:46 PM
Why the new "-V x" settings are not in the Recommended settings list?

EDIT: Now I get it. But I think altho the Lame 3.96.1 isn't recommended version those settings could be mentioned also.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Cyberslider on 14 October, 2004, 11:57:47 AM
Hi!

I have a simple question. What is better?
The 3.90.3 lame, or the 3.96.1?

I use 320kbit - cbr ONLY. (No vbr) with -b 320 -m s -h --lowpass 19.5
(becouse the alt preset insane use joint stereo encoding,and I prefer stereo.)
I want the highest possible quality,space no problem.

P.s: is this good setting? I use q2 (default) The q0 better than q2?

Thanks all..

Cyb
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: odious malefactor on 14 October, 2004, 10:40:58 PM
Quote
I want the highest possible quality,space no problem.


If you truly want the best possible quality, then this board recommends 3.90.3, --alt-preset insane for CBR 320 MP3.

As has been stated ad nauseum here, LAME joint stereo offers better quality than mere stereo encoding.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: dev0 on 15 October, 2004, 12:47:19 AM
Quote
Why the new "-V x" settings are not in the Recommended settings list?

EDIT: Now I get it. But I think altho the Lame 3.96.1 isn't recommended version those settings could be mentioned also.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=246144")


The new -V presets are explained in [a href="http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=18091]another thread[/url], which is linked from the this one.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Cyberslider on 16 October, 2004, 07:22:11 AM
Thanks
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: pgroves on 26 October, 2004, 08:06:32 AM
I DJ with MP3s (using Serato Scratch Live (http://www.rane.com/scratch.html) ), and have up to now been encoding my MP3s using the iTunes-LAME plugin (using LAME 3.90.3) and the setting --alt-preset extreme

The quality seems pretty good, though I think I'm losing some sub-bass in club systems compared with CDs - is there any way to modify the --alt-preset extreme setting so that it covers the lower-end of the bass spectrum? Sorry if this is an obvious question, I'm a newbie as far as tweaking the encoding settings goes...

thanks

Paul
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: DigitalDictator on 26 October, 2004, 08:47:03 AM
Quote
I think I'm losing some sub-bass in club systems compared with CDs - is there any way to modify the --alt-preset extreme setting so that it covers the lower-end of the bass spectrum?

That is most likely placebo. If you're a DJ, just use your equipment to modify the sound (e.g. fiddle with the equalizer)
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: pgroves on 26 October, 2004, 09:26:55 AM
Quote
Quote
I think I'm losing some sub-bass in club systems compared with CDs - is there any way to modify the --alt-preset extreme setting so that it covers the lower-end of the bass spectrum?

That is most likely placebo. If you're a DJ, just use your equipment to modify the sound (e.g. fiddle with the equalizer)
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=250178"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Okay, so there isn't any low frequency cut-off (or at least not one lower than on CDs) in --alt-preset extreme then?

Paul
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: dev0 on 26 October, 2004, 09:42:19 AM
No.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: pgroves on 26 October, 2004, 09:44:17 AM
Quote
No.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=250184"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Thanks for the clarification

Paul
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Gabriel on 09 November, 2004, 02:41:23 PM
Perhaps preset medium could be added to the recommended settings...
I do not remember when I added it, but it must be at least two years ago. It could probably be considered to be "tested enough" now.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: dev0 on 09 November, 2004, 03:07:55 PM
It's not supported by the 'vanilla' 3.90.3 compile, that's why it isn't mentioned in the thread.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: rjamorim on 09 November, 2004, 03:10:14 PM
Well, yet another reason to ditch 3.90.3 at last and move on.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Yaztromo on 09 November, 2004, 04:31:39 PM
Quote
Well, yet another reason to ditch 3.90.3 at last and move on.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=252872"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


3.96.1 should really be tested and proved as well as 3.90.3 has first.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: rjamorim on 09 November, 2004, 05:51:10 PM
Quote
3.96.1 should really be tested and proved as well as 3.90.3 has first.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=252885"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Ooooo-kay. Now please stop parroting others and come up with your own ideas.


I personally believe that 3.96.1 (or any version that comes after this) is never going to have the same amount of testing as 3.90. Times have changed, and HA has changed.

Back then (late 2001), nearly everybody was into MP3. It was the only decent format with hardware support, Napster/Audiogalaxy/Kazaa was all the rave, and Vorbis and AAC were at their infancy.

Now, MP3 is not longer generating much interest (specially here at HA). Vorbis and AAC are being much better supported (don't start me about MPC). Also, many people are now no longer interested about audio coding, since video coding is progressing at a much faster pace and there seems to be lots of room for improvement still. Modern audio codecs have nearly reached the limit for compression, and these days novelties only appear at ultra-low bitrates - a field most people around here don't care about. I digress.


Another detail to point out is that 3.90 wasn't being tested to detect regressions against some older version - a very boring and fatiguing job. It was being tested to tweak the dm presets to their best. That's quite easier and more enjoyable - since you just need to find samples that break the preset, and not compare one version against the others, in presets that are most of the time transparent, for most people.


You should be able to notice that yourself. Compare the response to the several threads asking for listening tests on 3.90, 3 years ago, and response to the handful of threads asking for tests on 3.96.1.


So that means 3.90.3 will be the recommended version for ever (even though it's slow and lacks important features that were added later) just because newer versions won't be tested to the same amount? Heh.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: blinded_with_science on 13 November, 2004, 10:25:13 PM
Hi there!

I've been playing around with mp3 encoding at 96kbps, and using the latest(?) Lame 3.96.1, I am unable to duplicate the quality I get from Lame 3.91 --alt-preset cbr 96!

I read somewhere a while back that the alt-presets were now standard, but I don't know for sure.

In any case, the quality difference is obvious to me - while 3.91 was miles ahead of any other MP3 encoder for 96 - 128kbps, 3.96.1 is definitely behind.

After browsing through the 3.91 source code, noticing that someone named Dibrom originally made the --alt-presets, and noticing that this Dibrom posts here, I figured this might be a good place to ask .

Anyone care to take a crack at it?
Here's my audio examples:

http://leif.cx/lame/tigerchunk.mp3 (http://leif.cx/lame/tigerchunk.mp3) -- 54 seconds of Eye of the tiger, 320kbps mp3 "original"
http://leif.cx/lame/tigerchunk-lame391.mp3 (http://leif.cx/lame/tigerchunk-lame391.mp3) -- lame391 --alt-preset cbr 96 --resample 44100
http://leif.cx/lame/tigerchunk-lame396.mp3 (http://leif.cx/lame/tigerchunk-lame396.mp3) -- lame396 -h -b 96 --resample 44100

I'm trying to squeeze the last possible bit out of a 96kbps shoutcast stream, so the fact that i'm starting with a 320kbps MP3 is a real-word scenario.

Can anyone match (or surpass) the quality of my 3.91 mp3 in Lame 3.96, re-encoded from the 320kbps "original", to 96kbps 44khz j-stereo?


Would love to hear from ya .

///Leif
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: dev0 on 14 November, 2004, 04:25:32 AM
LAME 3.96.1 is known to have some problems in its CBR/ABR modes.
Gabriel is working on fixing those.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Insolent on 16 November, 2004, 03:46:51 AM
Does anybody know how to get LAME to tag the genre too (ID3v1 + ID3v2)?

I'm currently using the proposed setting in the LAME settings thread, but it doesn't tag genre:
Code: [Select]
--alt-preset standard --add-id3v2 --pad-id3v2 --ta "%a" --tt "%t" --tl "%g" --ty "%y" --tn "%n" %s %d
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: dev0 on 16 November, 2004, 04:23:26 AM
Genre tagging is problematic, since it will only work if you use a genre, which is featured in LAME's genre list (http://lame.sourceforge.net/doc/html/id3.html).
If you keep that in mind just use this commandline:

Code: [Select]
--alt-preset standard --add-id3v2 --pad-id3v2 --ta "%a" --tt "%t" --tl "%g" --ty "%y" --tn "%n" --tg "%m" %s %d
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Insolent on 16 November, 2004, 07:09:05 AM
Quote
Genre tagging is problematic, since it will only work if you use a genre, which is featured in LAME's genre list (http://lame.sourceforge.net/doc/html/id3.html).
If you keep that in mind just use this commandline:

Code: [Select]
--alt-preset standard --add-id3v2 --pad-id3v2 --ta "%a" --tt "%t" --tl "%g" --ty "%y" --tn "%n" --tg "%m" %s %d

[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=254273"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Works like a charm. Thanks.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Ivegottheskill on 16 November, 2004, 07:28:01 AM
That was a very dry post rjamorim. I can see your point, but no one will change unless something compelling forces them to (i.e. A jump in inherent quality of output).

Most tests to date have been rather inconclusive, and as dev0 pointed out, theres some trouble with CBR/ABR modes in 3.96.1 (Personally I still use 3.90.3, so I'm not sure what the extent of this "trouble" is)

Unfortunately most people seem to use CBR/ABR over VBR. Most people seem to go for max CBR (320) or Kazaa CBR (128). As I used to do, before I somehow became more interested in lossy codecs and the audio "scene".

To me, slightly slower speeds is a small sacrifice for a more "reliable"/tested encoder (though I'm surprised at the versions' age, it's doing very well).

Obviously there were other recommended compiles before 3.90.3 was arround, so if something better comes along, it will be knocked off its perch. We'll just have to wait and see I suppose.

Cheers/Good work Gabriel and the LAME team for making a seasoned encoder (after many years of development obviously). The fact that the comparison here is between 2 different versions of the same encoder (as opposed to a "competing" encoder) says a great deal about it 
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: neutral_00 on 29 December, 2004, 07:20:05 AM
Hi there,

I confused about the -q setting.  Using -q 0 takes about twice as long and takes off 10 -
100kb. I wondering if the q setting does anything more the better Huffman coding. I do
understand that the preset have gone through a lot of testing. But if I were to use
--preset standard -q 0 would this setting just change that qval to 0 and give a very small
improvement in size ?

I look searched the forum and google but there does not seem to be answers. It is
maybe a stupid question but for paranoid people a little extra waiting is worth an
improvement however small.

Thanks in advance


edit: spelling
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Jojo on 29 December, 2004, 08:53:26 AM
easy as pie...don't use it! stick with --preset standard

from LAME's changelog:
Quote
best huffman divide in the inner loop. This should improve the quality, but PAINFULLY slow. So it is not enabled by default. Use -q0 to use it.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: neutral_00 on 29 December, 2004, 09:14:19 AM
Quote
easy as pie...don't use it! stick with --preset standard

from LAME's changelog:
Quote
best huffman divide in the inner loop. This should improve the quality, but PAINFULLY slow. So it is not enabled by default. Use -q0 to use it.

[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=262019"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]



Thanks Jojo, I see I'm getting into some mojo that I do not understand correctly.
The FHG's website says..

Quote
Inner iteration loop (rate loop)

The Huffman code tables assign shorter code words to (more frequent) smaller quantized values. If the number of bits resulting from the coding operation exceeds the number of bits available to code a given block of data, this can be corrected by adjusting the global gain to result in a larger quantization step size, leading to smaller quantized values. This operation is repeated with different quantization step sizes until the resulting bit demand for Huffman coding is small enough. The loop is called rate loop because it modifies the overall coder rate until it is small enough


What the differance between q 0 and q 3 ?  I will use just the preset as you
recommended.  It's just a burning curiosity.   

I'm sorry to persist. 
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Jojo on 29 December, 2004, 07:14:26 PM
Quote
What the differance between q 0 and q 3 ?  I will use just the preset as you
recommended.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=262021"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

drop that FhG stuff...it is just outdated...for instance FhG's Joint Stereo mode is a pain...however, with LAME you should always use it...

Those -q switches use a different huffman mode...when it comes to LAME 3.96.1, you shouldn't use -q0, unless you have a lot of time or a super computer  In some cases it might improve sound quality (which you probably won't hear anyway).

-q3 is what --preset standard uses. I accidently used -q2 for some files and couldn't notice any difference. It was a bit slower though...however, the filesize was pretty much the same (--preset standard). I've never tried -q1...however, believe me, you won't notice the difference...if there was such huge noticeable difference, it would have been used for --preset standard

I guess its main purpose is just for testing...also, take a look at my signature
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: neutral_00 on 29 December, 2004, 07:24:37 PM
Cool thanks Jojo 
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: SeanGil on 23 April, 2005, 11:00:24 AM
Ok Im sure this has been answered but I just want to check.
Is the best quality using the 320 cbr still
I am using both 3.90.3 with the alt preset insane
and 3.96.1 320cbr
Is either one of these better?
Also is there something Im missing for higher quality

Thanks


Sean
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: sTisTi on 23 April, 2005, 11:16:04 AM
Quote
Ok Im sure this has been answered but I just want to check.
Is the best quality using the 320 cbr still
I am using both 3.90.3 with the alt preset insane
and 3.96.1 320cbr
Is either one of these better?
Also is there something Im missing for higher quality
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=292891"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You are doing everything right - except wasting some bits maybe 
To my knowledge, nobody has ever compared 3.90.3 with 3.96.1 at this setting, and with this literally insane bitrate, I doubt that anyone is going to hear a systematic difference between them except for notorious problem samples like "castanets" or "fatboy".
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: navin on 31 May, 2005, 05:37:24 AM
after reading 17 pages of this I am soo confused. I am a newbie

I am thinking using EAC with Lame 3.90.3 to convert 600 of my CDs to Mp3.

my encoder settings are
---alt-preset extreme --add-id3v2 --pad-id3v2 --ta "%a" --tt "%t" --tl "%g" --ty "%y" --tn "%n" --tg "%m" %s %d

I am told however that EAC will not create Mp3s if my freedb database does not all fields filled. How do I allow EAC to make Mp3 even if the all fields are not filled?

what other settings in EAC should I be concerned about
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Squeller on 31 May, 2005, 06:11:08 AM
--ignore-tag-errors
IIRC otherwise lame skips encoding on genre tag errors.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: navin on 31 May, 2005, 09:06:01 AM
Quote
--ignore-tag-errors
IIRC otherwise lame skips encoding on genre tag errors.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=302066"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


thanks.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Biont on 23 June, 2005, 05:04:40 PM
Please enlighten me! I keep on wondering, why is lame 3.90.3 produces a much better sound quality then 3.96. I thought, the higher the version number, the better it is for the program. I always use that -V switch. And so 3.90.3 is doing very well, but 3.96 is just terrible! And what's surprising, is that the file can be even bigger, then the one produced with 3.90.3, and it still sounds worse!

What's the deal?
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Yaztromo on 23 June, 2005, 07:16:51 PM
Quote
Please enlighten me! I keep on wondering, why is lame 3.90.3 produces a much better sound quality then 3.96. I thought, the higher the version number, the better it is for the program. I always use that -V switch. And so 3.90.3 is doing very well, but 3.96 is just terrible! And what's surprising, is that the file can be even bigger, then the one produced with 3.90.3, and it still sounds worse!

What's the deal?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=308431")


[a href="http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=34384&hl=]http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....topic=34384&hl=[/url]

Enjoy the hilarity of another 3.90.3 vs 3.96.1 argument. I'm with 3.90.3, we recommend it for a reason.

In what way does 3.96.1 sound worse?

EDIT: PS you will get flamed for not providing ABX results, and I don't blame them.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: jamesbaud on 18 July, 2005, 02:03:28 PM
I've read the post on "List of Recommended LAME settings," and after tooling around a bit on the forums, I'm still lost:

In 3.96.1, what (if any) is the -V preset equivalent of -preset ABR 128?

I'm using CDex and the lame compile with the ini file. I'd like the best VBR setting for a target of 128.

Your assistance is most appreciated.

jb
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: SirGrey on 18 July, 2005, 02:52:42 PM
Quote
I'd like the best VBR setting for a target of 128.

VBR can not have "setting for a target of 128", because in VBR you select constant quality you desire, but bitrate will be unpredicable.
In lame 3.96.1 the abr 128 closest vbr setting will be -V 5. It will give you bitrate from 90-105 for classical samples to up to 150 for some metal and rock from my expirience.
In some latest listening tests lame 3.96.1 won over 3.90.3 for bitrates about 128Kbit, but this result was achieved on rather limited set of samples.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: jamesbaud on 18 July, 2005, 03:07:10 PM
Thank you for the info! That's exactly what I needed.

Quote
Quote
I'd like the best VBR setting for a target of 128.

VBR can not have "setting for a target of 128", because in VBR you select constant quality you desire, but bitrate will be unpredicable.
In lame 3.96.1 the abr 128 closest vbr setting will be -V 5. It will give you bitrate from 90-105 for classical samples to up to 150 for some metal and rock from my expirience.
In some latest listening tests lame 3.96.1 won over 3.90.3 for bitrates about 128Kbit, but this result was achieved on rather limited set of samples.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=314404"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Brigstocke on 18 July, 2005, 06:30:17 PM
I've read somewhere on here that for ca. 128 that "-V5 --athaa-sensitivity 1" is recommended for 3.96.1.  The athaa setting may increase bitrate slightly.

CB
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: jamesbaud on 18 July, 2005, 10:12:13 PM
On a related note, what is the best -V setting for speech, i.e. ripping audio books on CD? -V5 also?
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: odious malefactor on 18 July, 2005, 11:52:51 PM
Quote
On a related note, what is the best -V setting for speech, i.e. ripping audio books on CD? -V5 also?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=314496"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


-V 8 -m m --resample 22 --lowpass 11 --lowpass-width 2 -B80

or

-V 9 -m m --resample 22 --lowpass 11 --lowpass-width 2 -B80

(Get rid of the -m m if you need stereo, though)
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: user on 22 August, 2005, 08:20:42 AM
After reading the forums, and now seeing some proof by Guruboolez' recent multiformat tests, at ca. 80 and 185 kbit/s, my impression is, that nowadays Lame 3.97 should be recommended (after 3.97 went final), and the recommended settings thread would need a major rewrite/update ?
Are the improvements of lame 3.97 over 3.90.3 now important enough, to weigh out the stability at high bitrates from --alt-preset standard, extreme, insane ?
I think, the --alt-presets were built into 3.97, too, as preset respectively in the v quality setting scheme.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: azure_fs on 22 August, 2005, 12:33:30 PM
Quote
After reading the forums, and now seeing some proof by Guruboolez' recent multiformat tests, at ca. 80 and 185 kbit/s, my impression is, that nowadays Lame 3.97 should be recommended (after 3.97 went final), and the recommended settings thread would need a major rewrite/update ?
Are the improvements of lame 3.97 over 3.90.3 now important enough, to weigh out the stability at high bitrates from --alt-preset standard, extreme, insane ?
I think, the --alt-presets were built into 3.97, too, as preset respectively in the v quality setting scheme.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=321720"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


i am waiting to see 3.97 recommended. anybody wants to make an unofficial version of 3.97a? like 3.97.3 or like that?
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: JunkieXL on 22 August, 2005, 01:11:21 PM
I think the Lame developers are handling things fine with the current releases and I don't see any reason to rush things along.  The current stable Lame releases are still working great and untill the 3.97 alphas have been properly tested it should probably stay in the alpha or beta stage in my opinion.
What's the big rush for anyways?
J
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: guruboolez on 22 August, 2005, 03:02:00 PM
Quote
After reading the forums, and now seeing some proof by Guruboolez' recent multiformat tests, at ca. 80 and 185 kbit/s, my impression is, that nowadays Lame 3.97 should be recommended (after 3.97 went final), and the recommended settings thread would need a major rewrite/update ?
Are the improvements of lame 3.97 over 3.90.3 now important enough, to weigh out the stability at high bitrates from --alt-preset standard, extreme, insane ?
I think, the --alt-presets were built into 3.97, too, as preset respectively in the v quality setting scheme.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=321720")



I won't do that. Oh no! First, 3.97 alpha is an explosive piece of software, which "include new code and are not tested or tuned at all. Many things are usually seriously broken or changed!". This is [a href="http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=28125]a sticky[/url] that readers are supposed to believe when they come to HA.org and this are recommendations that are used to be link on the forum to everyone asking a question. Therefore it's considered as plain truth.
Now, serious.

HA recommendations are nowadays anything but something reliable or trustable. Just take a look on a recent poll (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=36027): most HA readers don't follow anymore these outdated or totally biased recommendations. 3.90.3 is used by 15% of voters, against 50% for the 'broken' and untrustable 3.97.
Yes, it's maybe time to change... Originally, HA.org presented to unexperienced listeners the up-to-date encoding tools; nowadays, HA.org has to jump on the bangwagon and to follow a vast majority of users. It's really sad.

Why don't you simply remove these stickies when they're anything but reliable or updated? I'm not only talking to you: recommended threads were a very nice initiative, and you did an excellent job. But nowadays, it's very clear that most threads like this (especially this one (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=28125) or this (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=28123)) are offering to their readers an outdated knowledge. Instead of giving wise choice to new users they mislead them... it's the opposite purpose of recommendation!

Roberto has recently suggest to put them on HA wiki; then everyone could update recommendations or add some tips. It would probably avoid current issues we're seeing.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: bug80 on 22 August, 2005, 03:03:51 PM
Hear, hear!
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: xmixahlx on 22 August, 2005, 05:33:36 PM
Quote
HA recommendations are nowadays anything but something reliable or trustable. Just take a look on a recent poll (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=36027): most HA readers don't follow anymore these outdated or totally biased recommendations. 3.90.3 is used by 15% of voters, against 50% for the 'broken' and untrustable 3.97.

you can't be serious... how is HA not reliable or trustworthy while recommending 3.90.3?  also, have you looked at the member count here? how many of those do you think know wtf is going on, or have ever used ABX to validate anything (i'll give you a hint, it's probably less than those 15%).

Quote
Yes, it's maybe time to change... Originally, HA.org presented to unexperienced listeners the up-to-date encoding tools; nowadays, HA.org has to jump on the bangwagon and to follow a vast majority of users. It's really sad.

no, originally HA was a few thousand members with actual progress going on.  now it is full of threads on why people are fed up with HA NOT RECOMMENDING ALPHA SOFTWARE OVER STABLE SOFTWARE and polls with meaningless banter like renaming LAME and other such nonsense.

Quote
Why don't you simply remove these stickies when they're anything but reliable or updated? I'm not only talking to you: recommended threads were a very nice initiative, and you did an excellent job. But nowadays, it's very clear that most threads like this (especially this one (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=28125) or this (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=28123)) are offering to their readers an outdated knowledge. Instead of giving wise choice to new users they mislead them... it's the opposite purpose of recommendation!

you are confusing real progress and the development process of testing codecs with a user/development forum and community support.

it is not HA's job to develop LAME.  you should be directing your ideas to the LAME developers about why they aren't meeting your expectations so they can put out a new stable version, but instead you just attack the methodology of HA (which hasn't changed for 4+ years).

Quote
Roberto has recently suggest to put them on HA wiki; then everyone could update recommendations or add some tips. It would probably avoid current issues we're seeing.

this is a good idea, but will ultimately be just as filtered as the sticky threads.  if anything, it could provide the same information without reading 100+ posts, etc


later
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: guruboolez on 22 August, 2005, 05:55:22 PM
Quote
you can't be serious... how is HA not reliable or trustworthy while recommending 3.90.3?


It could be seriously questionned, yes.
Quote
no, originally HA was a few thousand members with actual progress going on.  now it is full of threads on why people are fed up with HA NOT RECOMMENDING ALPHA SOFTWARE OVER STABLE SOFTWARE and polls with meaningless banter like renaming LAME and other such nonsense.

Nonsense? 3.91 is stable, 3.92 is stable, 3.93.1 is stable, 3.95 is stable, 3.96 is stable, and which stable encoder is recommended: 3.90.3...
Nonsense? Originally, 3.90 alpha was recommended. Don't believe me? Read again the full thread: this message (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=203&view=findpost&p=1627) posted two months before 3.90 gold might recall you that HA recommendations were originaly less anal about ALPHA. And I'm not talking about MPC which recommands an alpha version of mppenc despite of proven regress in certain area.  3.90 alpha was recommended once because it offered many improvements, but now it's out of question to recommend 3.97 alpha which offer the same amount of improvements.

Quote
it is not HA's job to develop LAME.

Nobody said that. But its job is not to make recommendation either when you don't have any clue about the real potential of recent version of an encoder. The common sense would normally told you to avoid making recommendations. If not, there is still politeness which should prevent some people to not ignore the work done in one, two, three and now four years of development.
If you really want to give wise advice about lossy encoders quality, the minimal is to do listening tests or at least to follow those done by people having more interest in this area.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: guruboolez on 22 August, 2005, 06:16:43 PM
Quote
but instead you just attack the methodology of HA (which hasn't changed for 4+ years).
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=321863")

You can't be serious...
When LAME recommendations thread were created, the authors had a good idea about the real potential and the risks of the encoders they would recommend. Dibrom was working on LAME, and he was in very good place to make recommendation.
It's not the case anymore. Situation has completely changed.

Then, methodology.
I ignore that recommendations are based on methodology. Which one? Which criterion?

-Stable over Alpha? alpha were recommended for lame, are now recommended for MPC. Waiting for a stable encoder isn't obviously an obligation here.

-Could recommendations be changed when problems are discovered? Yes for LAME, no for MPC. Because of one issue discovered [a href="http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=2519&hl=]once with 3.93[/url] but corrected in two weeks, the suspicion hanging of LAME developers was constantly maintained on this forum ("LAME devs are not interested on quality", "they're using a code broken everything"). But when serious regression are posted for MPC (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=34911) the recommendation keeps unshakeable.

Could you then explain me in few words the "methodology" you're talking about?
I know that QuantumKnot don't hesitate to change Vorbis Recommendation once problems are reported (he did it for impulse_trigger_profile IIRC). He has one stable methodology: recommending on one hand something that is proven to be better or which surely could be considered as better, and disrecommending on the other hand something which shows issue. He's not imperturbably recommending his favorite encoder and he is well up on the community and all quality reports. I'd like to see similar coherence with MPC and LAME recommendations...
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: rjamorim on 22 August, 2005, 06:54:01 PM
Quote
-Stable over Alpha? alpha were recommended for lame, are now recommended for MPC. Waiting for a stable encoder isn't obviously an obligation here.


It's worth mentioning aoTuV isn't stable either, but a beta.


Michael: For god's sake, do some anger management and avoid posting about stuff you don't know about. 3.90.3 is definitely effete and anyone in his right mind is ignoring the HA recommendation - just look at RareWares stats if you don't trust me. Blindly swearing by outdated stickies that were true 3, 4 years ago will lead you nowhere.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: guruboolez on 22 August, 2005, 07:07:26 PM
Quote
Quote
-Stable over Alpha? alpha were recommended for lame, are now recommended for MPC. Waiting for a stable encoder isn't obviously an obligation here.


It's worth mentioning aoTuV isn't stable either, but a beta.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
(http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=321893")

I know  That's why QuantumKnot is hesitant about recommending it and still recommend 1.1.1 instead of aoTuV beta4.

This is what QK said about aoTuVb4:

Quote
Developed by Aoyumi and based on libvorbis 1.1.1, many people have reported this encoder to give better quality at low to medium bitrates. It includes a -q -2 option for the lowest bitrate.
([a href="http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=15049]source[/url]).
People are free to use it but QuantumKnot don't take any risk by recommanding it. It's pretty understandable

For comparison, this what we can read about LAME 3.97 alpha:

Quote
3.97 Alphas and ALL future alpha versions -> ALPHA versions are for testing only! These include new code and are not tested or tuned at all. Many things are usually seriously broken or changed!
(source (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=28125)).
My purpose is not to put the blame on JohnV: he has now other interest and I understand why he's not keeping up-to-date his previous post. But it reveals that none of current administrator is interested by LAME or even to propose to their members a trustable knowledge.

That's why I won't associate QuantumKnot's recommendations to the blame that deserves LAME recommendations.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Lyx on 22 August, 2005, 07:14:16 PM
Hmm, if the lame devs dont yet want to call it a beta, then couldn't they slap a "prebeta" label on it? "Sounds" more nice than alpha ;) That way, everyone would be happy - the sticky thread would recommend the right encoder without having to recommend an alpha, and the lame devs dont have to call it a real "beta". Thinking about it, i'm not sure if one should take this post serious, ironic, or as something stupid.

edit: a while ago, i agreed that it would be better to wait a bit until lame goes beta, before recommending it. However, quite some time has passed, and now i have to agree with guru that the current situation is a mess(saying that without putting the blame on a specific party).
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: rjamorim on 22 August, 2005, 07:21:03 PM
Quote
Hmm, if the lame devs dont yet want to call it a beta, then couldn't they slap a "prebeta" label on it? "Sounds" more nice than alpha [a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=321897"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


No need for the extra effort, the beta should be released real soon.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: JunkieXL on 22 August, 2005, 07:23:49 PM
Yeah, there is no need to screw around with name here.  I'll just wait for the beta to be released and start encoding with a smile
J
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: guruboolez on 22 August, 2005, 07:29:55 PM
Quote
Hmm, if the lame devs dont yet want to call it a beta, then couldn't they slap a "prebeta" label on it? "Sounds" more nice than alpha  That way, everyone would be happy - the sticky thread would recommend the right encoder without having to recommend an alpha, and the lame devs dont have to call it a real "beta". Thinking about it, i'm not sure if one should take this post serious, ironic, or as something stupid.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=321897")


But will it change anything?

1/ As I recall it before, alpha versions were already recommended on HA.org. With a coherent set of rules, there wouldn't be a problem to recommend here 3.97 alpha (but I recall that lame developers are not agree to recommend it: they currently still recommend the latest stable version: 3.96.1).

2/ There are plenty of stable version of LAME that could be recommended. This is what Dibrom said about 3.92:
Quote
There should be no real difference in quality between 3.92 and 3.90.2. The code behind the --alt-presets hasn't changed any. Therefore, it's probably best to just use the latest version, 3.92.
([a href="http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=203&view=findpost&p=1707]source[/url]).

As far as I know, there were no reported problems with 3.92 since his post and therefore it would makes more sense to recommend 3.92 as latest 'tested' version instead of 3.90.3. Yes but could we really consider 3.92 as tested? See next...

3/ 3.90.3 is not the original super-tested version of LAME. It's 3.90.1. 3.90.3 adds a different noise shaping mode (called by -Z command) which is considered as ~safe to use but the consequence of this switch have not be intensively checked.


See how coherent the "methodology" (sic) is.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: xmixahlx on 23 August, 2005, 01:55:54 AM
the LAME/HA history is well documented here and this recent discussion is painfully boring

you guys whine all you want, but i don't see 3.97 being recommended before a beta/final AND until a version is exhaustively tested against 3.90.1/2/3,3.92 (and not just tests <APS which is clearly uncontested now).

these are the criteria that have eluded previous versions of lame, and that is why 3.90.x is still recommended.

PLEASE! by all means replace 3.90.x --> 4 years of development should be rewarded.


later
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: guruboolez on 23 August, 2005, 02:02:56 AM
Quote
(...) i don't see 3.97 being recommended before a beta/final (...)
these are the criteria that have eluded previous versions of lame, and that is why 3.90.x is still recommended.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=321957"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

And how do you explain that 3.90 alpha was recommended? How do you explain that 3.90.3 is recommended?
BTW, exhausting testing as you said need testers. If your so interesting about LAME quality and recommendation, what do you wait to post your results? I never see yours
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: shadowking on 23 August, 2005, 03:43:07 AM
Quote
the LAME/HA history is well documented here and this recent discussion is painfully boring

you guys whine all you want, but i don't see 3.97 being recommended before a beta/final AND until a version is exhaustively tested against 3.90.1/2/3,3.92 (and not just tests <APS which is clearly uncontested now).

these are the criteria that have eluded previous versions of lame, and that is why 3.90.x is still recommended.

later
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=321957"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]



Ridiculous. Test 7-10 samples ABR / 7-10 samples VBR and if there are no overall regressions change the recommended version. Thats it its that simple. If some people are still so anxious about new LAME versions, they need lossless compression. The 3.90 is a donkey in comparison with todays state of the art codecs and not better than vorbis, mpc or 3.97.

There are 2 disturbing things in HA today:

1) The parrot mentality that is also typical of p2p release groups  e.g - post 3.90 versions are dangerous ... Dibrom left after 3.90... quality has been forsaken for speed..

2) Apart from Guruboolez and one or two others, most testing here is nearly useless. Every now and again someone posts usually not more than one sample that is giving trouble and lots of them are totaly artificial tones, blips or other freak cases. Then they draw wrong conclusions about quality. Its not that 1 or 2 samples dont matter, but maybe the encoder is trouble free with 500 other samples. I have also bee guilty of this due to past inexperience.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: user on 23 August, 2005, 09:33:26 AM
nowadays Lame 3.97 should be recommended (after 3.97 went final), and the recommended settings thread would need a major rewrite/update ?
Are the improvements of lame 3.97 over 3.90.3 now important enough, to weigh out the stability at high bitrates from --alt-preset standard, extreme, insane ?
I think, the --alt-presets were built into 3.97, too, as preset respectively in the v quality setting scheme.


above my original post, which has opened a can of worms..

1. Of course, not a good idea to recommend an alpha version of Lame, because I am sure, that Lame devs will offer soon a beta or "final" version. see my original post.

2. my original idea of the sticky post is indeed, that not the content gets "sticky" (and outdated), but to have an easy possibility to edit/improve quickly text & content, together with not only 1 man show, but at least the sticky-topic-starter and the skilled moderators can edit the text.
It is comparable with wiki. Though, wiki is less accepted ?

3. Lame: my original post here contains more questions than answers:
I wouldn't see any problem to recommend a new Lame version, if the (alt-)presets standard, extreme & insane are untouched comparing 3.90.x with new v.
The other abr/vbr presets at mid-low bitrates are either newly introduced as bonus (compared to 3.90.x) or should have been improved, tweaked.
And here I don't see such a problem, as the tuning of lower bitrates is "easier" to carry out / test by majority of users.
And the recommendation of new lame v should be possible, if it gets a beta/final stamp and the high bitrate presets are not changed.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: guruboolez on 23 August, 2005, 10:05:37 AM
Quote
nowadays Lame 3.97 should be recommended (after 3.97 went final), and the recommended settings thread would need a major rewrite/update ?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=322043")

Is it a question? Here's [a href="http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=32121&view=findpost&p=289316]the answer[/url]
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: shrinkmail on 01 September, 2005, 04:07:56 AM
I find no flaw in guruboolez's logic. No matter what the moderators or supermoderators may say, this alpha matches or even excels every other codec, old and new in terms of quality and size.
And finally it all boils down to personal choice. You do abx tests with the codec of your choice at the bitrate you want to use, and then use it if you find that it provides a satisfactory listening experience. Or you may not want to abx at all, and prefer to listen through guruboolez's ears. I for one would trust them, because apart from the developers themselves, only he appears to be taking a meaningful interest in the development of new codecs at HA.
And then we have the sad sight of people who have expertise in one field trying to score points on all the questions that they deal with, when they just plain can't.....
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: alfa156 on 24 October, 2005, 01:48:22 AM
why was razorlame replaced with all2lame?
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: alfa156 on 25 October, 2005, 04:16:09 AM
why is -V 2 --vbr-new better than -V 2 ? Has this been tested and preproduced?
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Yaztromo on 25 October, 2005, 04:33:42 AM
Quote
why is -V 2 --vbr-new better than -V 2 ? Has this been tested and preproduced?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=337111"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Yes. Look through the testing threads.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: halb27 on 25 October, 2005, 03:20:53 PM
Quote
Quote
Ok Im sure this has been answered but I just want to check.
Is the best quality using the 320 cbr still
I am using both 3.90.3 with the alt preset insane
and 3.96.1 320cbr
Is either one of these better?
Also is there something Im missing for higher quality
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=292891")

You are doing everything right - except wasting some bits maybe 
To my knowledge, nobody has ever compared 3.90.3 with 3.96.1 at this setting, and with this literally insane bitrate, I doubt that anyone is going to hear a systematic difference between them except for notorious problem samples like "castanets" or "fatboy".
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=292893"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I know about two such comparisons:
- [a href="http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=19813]http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=19813[/url]
- http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=37989 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=37989) (the sample I gave there was tested by me for 3.96 [not shown in that thread], 3.97, and 3.90).

3.90.3 came out better in these samples than 3.96 (and better than 3.97 as for the second sample).

I do not want to reopen discussion here, just sum up my personal opinion as there are members interested in this issue (and what I found is quite a bit in accordance with replies given here):

- As rjamorin said when developing 3.90.3 there had been a lot of tweaking and testing on the new --alt-presets. This covers --alt-preset insane, and it is not expected that we will ever get such a testing on cbr320 again. I beleive this is also because common reasoning now goes like this: 'you get transparency on practically every sample for nearly every listener by using preset standard. If you want more, go lossless, cause there will always be problematic samples, even with cbr320'.
While respecting this attitude I found while reading the old threads on 3.90.3 api testing that behavior of problematic samples usually improves significantly when going cbr320.

- So when judging on real listening experience 3.90.3 api seems best.

- There's more to be considered however. An important point might be to go with current Lame development because you can have the hope of always getting the best out of today's know how. To me this is definitely the right thing to do when using something like -V5 to -V2. I believe this is what Lame development has concentraded on recently. I have not so much trust in current cbr320 behavior just for the lack of experience and focus. All just my opinion of course.

- Recent Lame development as well as 3.90.3's alt-presets use nspsytune as the psy model, whereas 3.90.3 -b320 uses plain gpsycho. In 3.90.3 times there was a vivid discussion on that. There is quite a bit of evidence that gpsycho might be preferable in the high bitrate range. As for pre-echo Gabriel for instance prefered gpsycho over nspsytune in http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=25882 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=25882) (a cbr320 comparison where Lame 3.90.3 and 3.96.1 api performed worse than Lame 3.88 gpsycho based gogo).
Another newer thread on this is http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=36730 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=36730).

- So even when prefering 3.90.3 we have to choose from highly tuned and tested api and -b320 with its in this context presumed better psy model.
With -b320 stereo mode is to be considered. api uses joint stereo in a way considered safe (ms representation of the stereo signal is equivalent to the lr representation, however switching the represantation can cause trouble). -b320 uses the simple stereo mode only. However I found that the safe joint stereo mode usually has a strong bias towards lr representation, so this might not be that important with cbr320 as it might look at first glance.
When we are about to choose -b320, a corresponding abr method seems attractive to me, say something like --abr 290. This saves some 10 percent against cbr320 and is not suspected to be dangerous. Used this way it is hardly to be expected that bitrates drop too low, as most of the frames are encoded with 320 kbps, and next to that with 256 kbps. And in those cases where bitrate is chosen too low on certain frames the bit reservoir has a chance to clean this up. With cbr320 however the bit reservoir cannot be used as Gabriel pointed out in the second thread mentioned above.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: guruboolez on 25 October, 2005, 04:24:24 PM
> So when judging on real listening experience 3.90.3 api seems best.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what you call "real listening experience" point at one sample, right? I maybe missed your own listening test revealing with any statistical significance that 3.90.3 is better than other encoder. But as far as I know, one case of regression can't lead to any serious conclusion. Never. Otherwise, it would be easy to recommand WMA over MP3

> and it is not expected that we will ever get such a testing on cbr320 again. I beleive this is also because common reasoning now goes like this: 'you get transparency on practically every sample for nearly every listener by using preset standard.
I guess you're wrong. There were never any 320 kbps listenining test - even for 3.90 (or give me a link if you think I'm wrong). And the reason is exactly the same explaining why you haven't done yourself such test: it's by far too hard.

> So even when prefering 3.90.3 we have to choose from highly tuned and tested api and -b320 with its in this context presumed better psy model.
Not "we have to choose", but you have to choose. I guess it's more correct. --alt-presets (including insane) were always recommended over basic -b system. I can't remember any debate on this subject, here on HA.org. But if I'm wrong, feel free to post well-founded links.

> However I found that the safe joint stereo mode usually has a strong bias towards lr representation, so this might not be that important with cbr320 as it might look at first glance.
Are you suggesting to discard joint stereo, just because you watched on encspot distribution graph? And still no blind test from yours that may suggest to developer or other user to avoid joint-stereo, right?


> When we are about to choose -b320, a corresponding abr method seems attractive to me, say something like --abr 290. This saves some 10 percent against cbr320 and is not suspected to be dangerous. Used this way it is hardly to be expected that bitrates drop too low, as most of the frames are encoded with 320 kbps, and next to that with 256 kbps.
Too low? A 192 or 224 kbps frame is too low? And again, no blind test, no sample revealing a problem, nothing (apart fear and opinion - used to be severly reprimanded on this board in the early time...).
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: halb27 on 25 October, 2005, 05:09:25 PM
Quote
... I maybe missed your own listening test revealing with any statistical significance that 3.90.3 is better than other encoder. ...
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=337210"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I really don't want to reopen discussion. All just opinion.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: DigitalDictator on 25 October, 2005, 05:22:52 PM
Quote
I really don't want to reopen discussion. All just opinion.
  Strange... You blabber all over the place about all kinds of stuff, and then you take the easy way out by saying you don't want to reopen the discussion? Reopening it is exactly what you are about to do.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: guruboolez on 25 October, 2005, 05:30:53 PM
Quote
Quote
... I maybe missed your own listening test revealing with any statistical significance that 3.90.3 is better than other encoder. ...
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=337210")

I really don't want to reopen discussion. All just opinion.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=337227"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

OK, that's clear.
Then I will remind you one principle of this board, also known as TOS#8 :

Quote
All members that put forth a statement concerning subjective sound quality, must -- to the best of their ability -- provide objective support for their claims. Acceptable means of support are double blind listening tests (ABX or ABC/HR) demonstrating that the member can discern a difference perceptually, together with a test sample to allow others to reproduce their findings. Graphs, non-blind listening tests, waveform difference comparisons, and so on, are not acceptable means of providing support.

emphasis is mine, and full Term of Service is [a href="http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=3974]here[/url].

If you don't understand, simple opinions about what sound best or worse are not welcome here. Saying that "3.90.3 is better but it's just an opinion" is not different that saying, well, that faac outperform Nero Digital or that vqf sound better than MPC at 192 kbps, but it's just an opinion.
Suggesting a move from JS to dual stereo just because it "can cause trouble" or suggesting to discard all psychoaccoustics (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=37989&view=findpost&p=333587) falls in the same category. Either you will try to find examples that illustrate what you fear and then post them (it would help LAME's development), or you renounce to post wrong claims.
And I'm not talking about the other kind of "opinions" you have posted in a very recent past, about --athonly (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=37989&view=findpost&p=333587) and --athshort (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=37989&view=findpost&p=333874)
BTW, it seems that Gambit (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=37989&view=findpost&p=333889) already warned you. Calling opinions your claims won't help.


It's very simple: either you'll make proper listening tests and experimenting the effect of your "opinions", or you keep them for yourself. You're free to use 3.90 if 3.97 is showing a real problem with one sample, and you're even free to switch back to 3.70 if 3.90 ever appear to have other issues. Nobody will annoy you. But please, stop spreading your opinions about joint-stereo, bitrate distribution and psychoacoustic. We are all interested by tests, not by simple prejudice. Facts, not opinions. Cheers
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: halb27 on 26 October, 2005, 03:29:16 AM
Quote
But please, stop spreading your opinions about joint-stereo, ...
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=337230"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I just go into this cause having read my post again I did state it in a way that can be misunderstood.
I definitely prefer joint stereo, and to me the way it is done with Lame development is the way I like.
So when I mentioned it it was to say: Well, I don't have this appreciated feature when I use plain -b320, but maybe the disadvantage is not so essential because of the things I mentioned. If you're doubtful about my attitude see my cbr320 thread.

As for the statistical relevance you're absolutely correct. But as we will presumably never get that with cbr320 as can be read from your own reply we have to be content with what we got (or ignore it if we want to).
Deciding on just this little experience is really a very doubtful thing. So if you do want to decide other things come in. Just see for instance dev0's remarks on cbr/abr behavior in this thread. So in a sense though it's really just my opinion it's also adding 1 to 1 to 1. Each of the 1's may not be too meaningful (maybe it's just 0.5) and can be debated endlessly. But it's the sum that counts.

Other than that I do want to make very clear:
I'm only talking about the very high bitrate range which is of actual relevance to me.
As for the widely used -V5 to -V2 (and neighboring) modes 3.97 is great in my opinion and my thanks goes to the lame devs. I did use 3.97 for low bitrates and I'm happy with the results.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: stephanV on 26 October, 2005, 04:01:02 AM
Quote
So in a sense though it's really just my opinion it's also adding 1 to 1 to 1. Each of the 1's may not be too meaningful (maybe it's just 0.5) and can be debated endlessly. But it's the sum that counts.

No. Just as two wrongs don't make a right, two guesses don't make a fact. Guesses will stay guesses.

So it's really just all "IMO" (and maybe even less).
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: guruboolez on 26 October, 2005, 05:49:39 AM
Quote
So in a sense though it's really just my opinion it's also adding 1 to 1 to 1. Each of the 1's may not be too meaningful (maybe it's just 0.5) and can be debated endlessly. But it's the sum that counts.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=337316"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You're right, but in your case, it looks more like if you take 1 and another 1 away from the sum. Disabling psychoacoustic, removing joint stereo... are not what we could reasonably call a progress - not even a small one and even for high bitrate encodings. And even if one sample may benefit from your alchemy, the elementary behaviour you should have is to check the impact with several other samples to be sure that there are no regression elsewhere. In other words, make a listening test.

I could give you a basic example of samples that should suffer from dual stereo at 320 kbps: mono samples. I encoded a mono sample at 320 kbps with default setting, and 100% of the frame were encoded in joint stereo. 100%, not 0,1%.


Quote
But as we will presumably never get that with cbr320 as can be read from your own reply we have to be content with what we got
We? Several members of this board and even LAME developers would be content if you decided to use your own mixture of presets for yourself and stop making propaganda for them. Or if you want to be helpful, try at least to prove what you are saying. It seems that you have spend your week-end to dig the entire forum in order to find old test. Don't you think that it would be better to test by yourself and experiment the effect (positive or negative) of some commands? No? People did in the past, and that's how an encoder could progress with the help of members of this community.

BTW, HA.org TOS was precisely made in order to prevent similar attitude as yours (I'm using -p1 -a -c -e -b0 and it increases bass response, trebles are more precise and there are more musicality, more soundstage, sound is warmer, sky is bluer and my cat is not depressive anymore), in order to help developers to get valid experimentations. By valid, I mean based on experience - and only on well-controled experience (double-blind test).
You are a member since two weeks, and apart one sample (posted by someone else) you haven't tested anything. How long would this circus go on?
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: k.eight.a on 04 November, 2005, 06:34:28 AM
Today I've encoded a soundtrack of Ally McBeal with the latest lame 3.97b1 (decode fix) which is available at rarewares.
I was very surprised when I saw that lame goes to as low bitrates as 40 and 60 kbps when encoding with setting:
-V 2 --vbr-new --id3v1-only --ta "%a" --tt "%t" --tl "%g" --ty "%y" --tn "%n" %s %d
Is that correct?
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: stephanV on 04 November, 2005, 06:43:53 AM
Do you hear anything wrong with files?
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: k.eight.a on 04 November, 2005, 06:52:25 AM
Quote
Do you hear anything wrong with files?
Furtunately no, but I have not that good hearing or sound system to detect it, but I thought that in all previous versions there was a minimum bitrate 128 kbps (for APS setting) except digital silence, so now I wonder why is it different?
I haven't read anything about that...
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: stephanV on 04 November, 2005, 06:55:26 AM
The 128 kbps limit is gone. 32 kbps is the minimum now for 44.1 kHz
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: zap1 on 22 November, 2005, 12:39:06 PM
Hi everyone!

I don`t know too much about LAME and audio ripping, so I will be very thankful if anyone could sum up a conclusion from this Topic, and answer my simple question:

What settings should I use to rip my CD`s using CDex Version 1.51, with LAME MP3 Encoder (version 1.30, engine 3.92 MMX). Low storage space and reasonable quality is my main criteria for the MP3 files. Personally I can`t hear much difference between 96kbps and 128kbps, and earlier I ripped all my music to 96kbps using RealPlayer. I have decided to rip in 128kbps from now on, but low storage space is still extremely important to me, as I walk around with a 256MB flash-player with MMC-slot. 

So what I need is a good suggestion for all the settings in the LAME Encoder (including stereo mode, all the checkboxes and so on). Preferably one setting for variable bit-rate, and another for constant, since I don`t know if my player will take VBR...


If there is a newer free version of LAME, let me know and I will upgrade my software. 



Thank you so much in advance! I have this bunch of CD`s at my desk, ready to be ripped, but I won`t risk to rip them all using bad settings and software. 


Lars
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: beowulf7 on 23 November, 2005, 12:02:42 AM
zap1, according to this forum, you should get LAME 3.97 beta to encode WAV files to MP3.  Try encoding a WAV file to a VBR MP3 and see if your MP3 player can still play it.

You can first try to encode with the command:
lame --preset 128 <input file.wav> <output file.mp3>

That should give you ABR of 128 kbps, which will be roughly FM radio quality.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: halb27 on 23 November, 2005, 03:54:21 AM
Quote
... Personally I can`t hear much difference between 96kbps and 128kbps...., but low storage space is still extremely important to me, ....
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=344200"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

In this situation you can try Lame 3.97b with

lame --preset 104 <input file.wav> <output file.mp3>.

I was in the same situation as you when trying to find a good configuration for using with my mobile phone.
preset 104 is the lowest setting I would personally use because below that lame resamples to 32 kHz and you can easiliy hear that because of lacking high frequencies.
preset 104 however is good enough for me for enjoying music on my mobile phone (and not only there).
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: user on 23 November, 2005, 05:58:26 AM
why abr ?
probably his player can play vbr,
(if not, and still covered with warranty, he should return it to dealer for a replacement against a true mp3 player  )
he should give lame -V6 (--vbr-new), -V7 a trial. maybe 5-8 also
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: halb27 on 23 November, 2005, 06:12:18 AM
When I chose preset 104 there had been some listening tests out there with low bitrate abr which came out quite good. That's why I tried abr rather intensively.
I tried -V6 to -V8 a bit, but either bitrate was too high for my purposes or quality too low, but I did not do it with the necessary care to have a more or less objective basis.
I just found preset 104 was fine for my purpose. Moreover when targeting very low bitrates I like abr's possibility to finetune bitrate.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: halb27 on 26 November, 2005, 09:11:45 AM
I want to use cbr320 with noiseshaping mode 1.
I want to try api as well as plain -b320 -h.

I have found already some answers to the following questions in some threads here on HA but because they're old it's not always exactly clear to which encoder versions they belong.

My questions are (especially @dibrom who seems to have been the major player with Lame 3.90.x development):

a) Is noiseshaping 1 defaulted for cbr 320 in all of the versions 3.90.x to 3.92? Is it true for api as well as for -b320?
(Usually I explicitly set my wishful options thus being independent from default settings, but as -Z is a toggle switch I must know defaults).

b) Is cbr 320 behavior identical with all the versions 3.90.x to 3.90.2? Does this apply to api behavior as well to -b320 behavior?

c) where can I get an ICL compile for 3.90.x to 3.92 with ICL's default behavior as to round floats to next integer?

Thanks a lot to anybody who can help.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: beowulf7 on 26 November, 2005, 12:57:30 PM
When making my 70+ min. MP3 mixes (I do some PC DJ'ing), I initially used 192/CBR due to its accurate time length as displayed by Winamp.  My mixes done via VBR do not have their time length displayed accurately in Winamp.  Most seem to say this is a bug in Winamp and not LAME.  OK, that's fine.  In the past, I noticed that my mix would overrun by a few seconds compared to what Winamp lists the time as in the playlist editor.  But my latest mix overran by 10 sec.!!  Oh well, I'll stay w/ VBR for its alleged superior sound quality.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: burnett_s on 28 November, 2005, 08:27:19 AM
Quote
When making my 70+ min. MP3 mixes (I do some PC DJ'ing), I initially used 192/CBR due to its accurate time length as displayed by Winamp.  My mixes done via VBR do not have their time length displayed accurately in Winamp.  Most seem to say this is a bug in Winamp and not LAME.  OK, that's fine.  In the past, I noticed that my mix would overrun by a few seconds compared to what Winamp lists the time as in the playlist editor.  But my latest mix overran by 10 sec.!!  Oh well, I'll stay w/ VBR for its alleged superior sound quality.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=345282"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Did you try foobar2000 ?
www.foobar2000.org
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: zap1 on 28 November, 2005, 11:56:03 AM
OK, thanks so far.

I now have Lame MP3 Encoder (version 1.32, engine 3.97 beta 1 MMX)
But I didn`t get the simple answer i was looking for:

What should I put in Bitrate Min, and in Max?

What should I choose from the "Quality" list?:

Normal
Low
High
Voice
R3MixPreset
Very High Quality
--alt-preset standard
------"------ fast standard
------"------ extreme
------"------ fast extreme
------"------ insane
------"------ ABR
------"------ CBR


What should the "VBR method", "VBR Quality", "ABR (kbps)", and the "Output Samplerate" be?

I suppose Joint Stereo is correct to use on 128kbps mp3 files...



My player can play ABR(VBR) mp3 files, 128kbps is what I want, and storage space still matters...

Again, thanks in advance

Lars
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: user on 28 November, 2005, 05:08:54 PM
get Lame 3.97b2,

and select as setting:
-V5 --vbr-new which will target between 120 - 140 kbit/s depending on music.
Maybe -V6 --vbr-new is already sufficient, saves even more space, try it, abx, and report your results.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: odious malefactor on 28 November, 2005, 05:49:04 PM
Quote
OK, thanks so far.

I now have Lame MP3 Encoder (version 1.32, engine 3.97 beta 1 MMX)
But I didn`t get the simple answer i was looking for:

What should I put in Bitrate Min, and in Max?

What should I choose from the "Quality" list?:

Normal
Low
High
Voice
R3MixPreset
Very High Quality
--alt-preset standard
------"------ fast standard
------"------ extreme
------"------ fast extreme
------"------ insane
------"------ ABR
------"------ CBR


What should the "VBR method", "VBR Quality", "ABR (kbps)", and the "Output Samplerate" be?

I suppose Joint Stereo is correct to use on 128kbps mp3 files...



My player can play ABR(VBR) mp3 files, 128kbps is what I want, and storage space still matters...

Again, thanks in advance

Lars
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=346005"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Replace your  Lame MP3 Encoder (version 1.32, engine 3.97 beta 1 MMX) with the new beta 2.

Bitrate = min 32 kbps, max 320 kbps
J-stereo
quality = normal
Output sample = Auto
VBR Method = VBR-New
VBR Quality = VBR 5 (or VBR 6 if you think it sounds OK)

See how that works out for you.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: beowulf7 on 28 November, 2005, 11:06:04 PM
Quote
Quote
When making my 70+ min. MP3 mixes (I do some PC DJ'ing), I initially used 192/CBR due to its accurate time length as displayed by Winamp.  My mixes done via VBR do not have their time length displayed accurately in Winamp.  Most seem to say this is a bug in Winamp and not LAME.  OK, that's fine.  In the past, I noticed that my mix would overrun by a few seconds compared to what Winamp lists the time as in the playlist editor.  But my latest mix overran by 10 sec.!!  Oh well, I'll stay w/ VBR for its alleged superior sound quality.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=345282"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Did you try foobar2000 ?
www.foobar2000.org
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=345931"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Even if foobar2000 works as advertised (which I believe it would), my listeners (fans) predominantly use Winamp and I cannot convince them to use Foobar2000 or any other program for that matter.

BTW, I d/l'ed foobar2000 and am checking it out.  It's definitely a lot different than Winamp and a much different learning curve.

Edit:  I noticed that when I updated an ID3 tag via foobar2000, it destroyed the v2 version of the tag in Winamp.  In other words, only ID3v1 is now shown in Winamp 5.x, but not v2 (it's blanked out).  This is unacceptable and I cannot risk my users doing that.  I used the default ID3v2 tag support setting (where only the 2nd check box - "Write byte order marker (BOM) in all strings" - was checked). 
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Artemis3 on 29 November, 2005, 12:36:06 AM
Is it not clear here (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=28124)?

According to it, you should try:

--abr 128
or
-b 128

Abr is better quality.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: DreamTactix291 on 29 November, 2005, 12:37:32 AM
Assuming you have foo_id3v2 go into the Preferences

Playback > Input > Standard inputs

Set MP3 tag writing to ID3v2 and ID3v1 instead of APEv2 and ID3v1
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: beowulf7 on 29 November, 2005, 01:06:26 AM
Quote
Assuming you have foo_id3v2 go into the Preferences

Playback > Input > Standard inputs

Set MP3 tag writing to ID3v2 and ID3v1 instead of APEv2 and ID3v1
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=346164"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thank you for that info.  I will re-attempt writing the ID3v2 tag (and then verifying via Winamp 5.11) it out once I'm done uploading the file to my Web site.

BTW, is there a way to edit ID3v1 tags from the "Show file info (special)" option when you right click on a file in the playlist?  Thanks again.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: DreamTactix291 on 29 November, 2005, 01:35:47 AM
foobar2000 edits all tags at the same time when using the Show file info (special) menu.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: beowulf7 on 29 November, 2005, 01:43:00 AM
Quote
foobar2000 edits all tags at the same time when using the Show file info (special) menu.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=346181"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I was afraid of that.  I sometimes like to have the ID3v1 tag different than ID3v2 so that I can abbreviate some words to make them fit in the limited space that ID3v1 has.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: zap1 on 01 December, 2005, 08:48:23 AM
Ok, thanks a lot to everyone!

I`ve tested with different settings, and decided to use VBR-6. If I really sharpen my ears, I can hear a slight difference to VBR-5, but that`s ok to me.

I tested with
The Black Rider.wav (2:48, 28964 KB), by Howard Shore:

VBR-5 -> 2861 KB
VBR-6 -> 2286 KB
VBR-7 -> 1834 KB

(VBR-7 was clearly poorer.)

With CBR, i got:
128kbps -> 2629 KB
96kbps -> 1972 KB

Lars
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: beowulf7 on 01 December, 2005, 10:44:27 PM
Quote
Ok, thanks a lot to everyone!

I`ve tested with different settings, and decided to use VBR-6. If I really sharpen my ears, I can hear a slight difference to VBR-5, but that`s ok to me.

I tested with
The Black Rider.wav (2:48, 28964 KB), by Howard Shore:

VBR-5 -> 2861 KB
VBR-6 -> 2286 KB
VBR-7 -> 1834 KB

(VBR-7 was clearly poorer.)

With CBR, i got:
128kbps -> 2629 KB
96kbps -> 1972 KB

Lars
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=346865"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That's good to know.  I might create downgraded versions of some of my 192+ kbps MP3s so that I can fit more on my 1 GB flash MP3 player.  I think I'll go w/ VBR 5 or 6, like you did.  Right now, most of them are CBR 192 kbps.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Shade[ST] on 02 December, 2005, 01:12:29 AM
Quote
preset 104 is the lowest setting I would personally use because below that lame resamples to 32 kHz and you can easiliy hear that because of lacking high frequencies.
preset 104 however is good enough for me for enjoying music on my mobile phone (and not only there).
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=344312"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Stop thinking everyone hears like you do.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Frankie on 08 December, 2005, 04:31:08 AM
Hi Folks!

Switched to Lame 3.97Beta2 today (from 3.90.3) and also upgraded from CDEx 1.50 to 1.51.
Now I wonder, why there are still alt-presets in 3.97. Shouldn't that be presets now?

Also I (still) wonder why the lame-header is giving me a quality index of 97 when using alt-preset extrem, but only 57 when using alt-preset insane??




Greetz, Frankie
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: DreamTactix291 on 08 December, 2005, 06:06:34 PM
Both terms --alt-preset and --preset are there for backwards compatiblity reasons and currently map to other switches.  --alt-preset standard maps to -V2 for example.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: burnett_s on 08 December, 2005, 06:20:11 PM
Quote
Both terms --alt-preset and --preset are there for backwards compatiblity reasons and currently map to other switches.  --alt-preset standard maps to -V2 for example.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=348736"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I'm sorry for this question but which is the correct sintax ? I'm confused.

-V2 or -V 2
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: skelly831 on 08 December, 2005, 06:24:58 PM
Both work.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: robert on 08 December, 2005, 06:52:19 PM
Both variants are correct in this case. It's a single letter option with a required argument. If the argument would be optional, then the argument would have to follow the V directly and the other variant wouldn't work.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: burnett_s on 08 December, 2005, 07:36:20 PM
Thank you Rober and skelly for your replies !

I'm using the following lines:

EAC
Code: [Select]
-V 2 --vbr-new --noreplaygain  --ignore-tag-errors --add-id3v2 --pad-id3v2 --ta "%a" --tt "%t" --tl "%g" --ty "%y" --tn "%n" --tg "%m" %s %d


All2LAME
Code: [Select]
-V 2 --vbr-new --noreplaygain


I think they are correct, right ?

Gr.
Gonzalo
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: EccoDomi on 09 December, 2005, 12:51:45 AM
Ok. Odd question, maybe its been answered, and if so, I apologize.

Why when I encode via EAC and LAME beta 2, and using the command lines provided on this site (I personally use -V0, but the but everything else is the same; -V0 --add-id3v2 --pad-id3v2 --ta "%a" --tt "%t" --tl "%g" --ty "%y" --tn "%n" %s %d), does the mp3 file play in Winamp and look like a CBR file? It starts at a lower bitrate than I specified and maybe inches up one or two notches in the first few seconds then stays pretty much constant throughout the song. I chose VBR, not CBR. Is this Winamp's fault or am I doing something wrong? When I use Easy CD-DA Extractor and its encoder (LAME, not sure of the version) it works and displays in Winamp as its supposed to (the numbers increase, or bounce, with the beat/complexity of the song).

What gives?

Any ideas?

-J
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: saratoga on 09 December, 2005, 01:40:08 AM
What bit rate does winamp show?
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: amitpatel5000 on 15 December, 2005, 01:13:03 AM
so far as i know, older versions of winamp used to show only average bitrates for vbr.
let's say if V2 encoded file has avg bitrate 190kbps, winamp will show 190, will gradually increase the number like 191 and 192 and then the number will be stable.
where as in the newer versions it actually shows bitrate for each frame. e. g. 128 160 112 128 160 112 128 128 etc. These numbers change rapidly, so if there are too many 160kbps frames it might look as if it was a cbr file.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Pohli on 25 December, 2005, 12:22:31 PM
Hello everyone,

I've got a question about tagging:

I use EAC V0.95 beta 3 with LAME V3.97b1. I want to add ID3v1 tags and in case they don't offer enough space for the information ID3v2 tags should be added automatically.
There should exist such a feature in LAME according to what I've read on this page (http://lame.sourceforge.net/USAGE):
Quote
Note: A version 2 tag will NOT be added unless one of the input fields
won't fit in a version 1 tag (e.g. the title string is longer than 30
characters), or the '--add-id3v2' or '--id3v2-only' options are used,
or output is redirected to stdout.

How do I have to alter one of your examples?
Quote
ID3v1:
-V 2 --vbr-new --id3v1-only --ta "%a" --tt "%t" --tl "%g" --ty "%y" --tn "%n" %s %d

ID3v2:
-V 2 --vbr-new --id3v2-only --pad-id3v2 --ta "%a" --tt "%t" --tl "%g" --ty "%y" --tn "%n" %s %d

ID3v1 and ID3v2:
-V 2 --vbr-new --add-id3v2 --pad-id3v2 --ta "%a" --tt "%t" --tl "%g" --ty "%y" --tn "%n" %s %d

IMO these three examples doesn't do what I want according to the page I've linked before:
Quote
--add-id3v2     force addition of version 2 tag
--id3v1-only    add only a version 1 tag
--id3v2-only    add only a version 2 tag

I don't want to always force addition of v2 tag and I don't want to have v2 tag only.
I also don't want to have v1 tag only in case the information doesn't fit into it.

Anyone?

Btw.: What are the
Quote
--space-id3v1   pad version 1 tag with spaces instead of nulls
--pad-id3v2     pad version 2 tag with extra 128 bytes

for?
--space-id3v1 doesn't comply with ID3 standard, does it?
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: sh1leshk4 on 25 December, 2005, 01:42:36 PM
You don't have to use any extra switches to use LAME's automatic tagging version.
Those ID3 related switches are only for when you want LAME to do specific tagging action(s).
Like ID3v1 only, ID3v2 only, so on and so forth.

In short, just don't use any of the switches that you were questioning about.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Pohli on 25 December, 2005, 04:24:28 PM
I see, so my parameters should be like this?
Code: [Select]
-V 2 --vbr-new --pad-id3v2 --ta "%a" --tt "%t" --tl "%g" --ty "%y" --tn "%n" %s %d


Anyway I will appreciate if someone replies to my "btw-questions".
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: sh1leshk4 on 25 December, 2005, 07:15:37 PM
Yes, though on most cases --pad-id3v2 isn't necessary.

Regarding your 'btw-question', no, it won't break the standard.
It'd only replace nulls w/ spaces.
iirc, if the title tag is filled with less than 30 characers, rather than nulls, it'd fill the remaining space with spaces.

But cmiiw...
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Pohli on 26 December, 2005, 08:04:14 AM
Quote
Yes, though on most cases --pad-id3v2 isn't necessary.[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=352368")

Why is it recommended then?
Is there any explanation on the net what it's for?

Quote
Regarding your 'btw-question', no, it won't break the standard.
It'd only replace nulls w/ spaces.[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=352368"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[a href="http://www.id3.org/id3v1.html]Id3.org[/url] doesn't say anything about spaces, so I'll stick to nulls.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: sh1leshk4 on 26 December, 2005, 12:37:05 PM
Quote
Why is it recommended then?
Is there any explanation on the net what it's for?[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=352442")

Just in case you want to add extra tags later on (like 'USERWWW', 'COMPOSER', and so on...).
This is so any tagger apps can write new tags faster since the extra space is already allocated.

Again, cmiiw...

Quote
[a href="http://www.id3.org/id3v1.html]Id3.org[/url] doesn't say anything about spaces, so I'll stick to nulls. [a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=352442"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Then why bother asking about it?
Personally, I don't use it neither since I don't know what practical use that switch might have.
Is there anyone more enlightened on this care to share the knowledge? =)
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Pohli on 26 December, 2005, 01:05:53 PM
Quote
Quote

Id3.org (http://www.id3.org/id3v1.html) doesn't say anything about spaces, so I'll stick to nulls. [a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=352442"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Then why bother asking about it? [a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=352503"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Because I hadn't looked it up at id3.org when I was posting the question.
And furthermore I'm still hoping of
Quote
Is there anyone more enlightened on this care to share the knowledge? =)[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=352503"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

No offence meant!


Another question comes to mind:
Why is it recommended to remove tick from Check for external programs return code?
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: sh1leshk4 on 27 December, 2005, 06:07:10 AM
Quote
No offence meant![a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=352508"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

What offense?

Anyway...

Quote
Another question comes to mind:
Why is it recommended to remove tick from Check for external programs return code?[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=352508"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I don't really know why, but probably since, most of the time, whenever EAC captures an error from the CLI, the displayed error isn't too readable and just a bother.
Just try encoding with LAME and enter a non-standard genre like 'Bossa-nova' without --ignore-tag-errors and the 'Check for external programs...' option turned on.

Personally, I keep them turned on since that way I'd know if there's something wrong with my settings.
Though there are probably many other people that don't like EAC's warning dialog box popping up.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: beowulf7 on 28 December, 2005, 01:04:55 AM
^ All these questions on ID3 tagging ... it's so much easier to fill out ID3v1 and ID3v2 tags with Winamp 5.x.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Pohli on 28 December, 2005, 05:49:21 AM
Quote
Quote
No offence meant![a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=352508"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

What offense? [a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=352612"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

For quoting your statement that anyone could be more enlightened than you.
Was silly, let's forget that

Quote
[Something about the Check for external programs return code option][a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=352612"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks, your answer is at least useful for me.

Quote
^ All these questions on ID3 tagging ... it's so much easier to fill out ID3v1 and ID3v2 tags with Winamp 5.x.[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=352754"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You mean manually, or what?
These questions are about EAC and LAME automatically attach the ID3 tags correctly when ripping Audio-CDs and converting to mp3.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: beowulf7 on 28 December, 2005, 09:22:42 AM
Quote
...
Quote
^ All these questions on ID3 tagging ... it's so much easier to fill out ID3v1 and ID3v2 tags with Winamp 5.x.[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=352754"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You mean manually, or what?
These questions are about EAC and LAME automatically attach the ID3 tags correctly when ripping Audio-CDs and converting to mp3.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=352779"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes, I meant manually.  I guess batch processing a bunch of files would be easier with the command line method of LAME.  But at this point, I'm pretty quick at manually entering ID3 tags (I do v2 and then click a button which automatically fills in v1) via Winamp.  I've ripped an album via EAC and encoded w/ LAME and then manually entered the tag info. and it's pretty quick.  I typically start tagging as the files are done encoding.

I know Winamp (Pro) can rip and encode in one button as well as tag, but I understand many think Winamp's ripper/encoder is inferior to EAC/LAME and also, Winamp Pro costs $ (legally).
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: sh1leshk4 on 28 December, 2005, 12:17:49 PM
Quote
For quoting your statement that anyone could be more enlightened than you.
Was silly, let's forget that

Ah, ok...

Quote
... But at this point, I'm pretty quick at manually entering ID3 tags (I do v2 and then click a button which automatically fills in v1) via Winamp.[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=352806")

I'm tagging more quickly using [a href="http://www.mp3tag.de/en/]Mp3tag[/url], but I guess everyone has their own favorit tagger to use post encode. =)

~oops,thisIsGettingOfftopic...
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: perroguano on 30 December, 2005, 12:44:15 AM
hello everyone

i have this thing  , im new with all of this, actually im using razorlame with lame3.97beta1, for this i have to change the razorlame.dat to correct an error. (nothing new) 
so i just want to know if i need to do somenthing like this with the lame3.97beta2?
also, i like the VBR standard, i have --preset standard 
can i keep this option with lame 3.97beta2??
encoding from mexico
thanks 
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: sh1leshk4 on 30 December, 2005, 10:56:45 PM
If it did work w/ 3.97b1 then it'd probably work w/ 3.97b2.
I never used an obsolete LAME frontend like that before.

The switches remain the same; no changes.
Unless if you want some speed-up then add --vbr-new.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: perroguano on 31 December, 2005, 02:21:48 AM
Quote
If it did work w/ 3.97b1 then it'd probably work w/ 3.97b2.
I never used an obsolete LAME frontend like that before.

The switches remain the same; no changes.
Unless if you want some speed-up then add --vbr-new.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=353487"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


yes it works fine, im just having problems with razorlame, not the big stuff just that the icons are not appearing correctly (use to be the winamp icon)
that switch is fast enough to me, but thanks for that.

why do you say its obsolete,  i use that lame cause i dont know how to compare each lame so i go to the "recommended one" (by hydrogenaudio site)
but thats because i dont know where to look the advantages of each one.
oo if you have some links that i can read, please let me know.
also if you know what happens to the icons (enconding its fine, but the icons used to be there) 
thanks 
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: CiTay on 31 December, 2005, 08:08:41 PM
Quote
why do you say its obsolete,   i use that lame cause i dont know how to compare each lame so i go to the "recommended one" (by hydrogenaudio site)
but thats because i dont know where to look the advantages of each one.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=353520")


He doesn't mean LAME itself when he says "obsolete frontend". He means RazorLAME with that comment, which is a frontend to LAME.

Alternatively, you could use [a href="http://www.foobar2000.org/]foobar2000[/url] (i suggest the 0.9 beta), which is a much more potent and versatile audio player/frontend/etc.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: sh1leshk4 on 01 January, 2006, 10:53:28 AM
[span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%']@perroguano[/span]
What CiTay said.

Furthermore, you can try newer frontend such as ALL2LAME (http://members.home.nl/w.speek/all2lame.htm).
Cheers.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: singaiya on 31 January, 2006, 09:55:29 PM
Quote
Quote
Quote
the "--add-id3v2 --ta "%a" --tt "%t" --tl "%g" --ty "%y" --tn "%n"" part is recommended because it calls lame's internal tagging routines, which is perferred over eac's tagging routines.  that is why the recommended commandline for eac is what it is.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=329842")


This is something I've always wondered about. Specifically why is Lame's tagging preferred over EAC? I've always used the short commandline, letting EAC do the tags and have never seen any problems.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=329843"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]



I have had problems with eac's tagging, specifically a particular error : tracks below 10 have their album name truncated to something like 50 characters (I didn't measure), and have the date correct, and above 10 have no date info, and full album name.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=329845"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I just switched from using ID3v1 & APEv2 tags to using ID3v2 and can't see the reason why the recommended EAC syntax uses LAME tagging instead of EAC.

In [a href="http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=37389&view=findpost&p=329845]this thread[/url], Shade[ST] wrote of some problems but I haven't been able to reproduce them. I'm using EAC 0.95beta3.

And before, when using ID3v1, I never noticed any problems. Wouldn't it be easier to recommend the short syntax and let EAC tag the files if there's no problems?
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Thorulf on 12 February, 2006, 09:28:35 AM
Which command line do you think will be the standard in the mp3-scene? (If they ever going to change )
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Never_Again on 12 February, 2006, 11:33:33 AM
LAME 3.90.3 --alt-preset standard has been the standard for several years now, and there is no reason to expect this to change soon. Some groups stuck with the old CBR 192kbps standard (often coupled with an old LAME version, like v3.92 or 3.93), but they seem to be in minority.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Thorulf on 12 February, 2006, 02:18:55 PM
Quote
LAME 3.90.3 --alt-preset standard has been the standard for several years now, and there is no reason to expect this to change soon. Some groups stuck with the old CBR 192kbps standard (often coupled with an old LAME version, like v3.92 or 3.93), but they seem to be in minority.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=363736"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

But just pretend that they would change to 3.97. Which command line do you think that they would use then? hehe
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Madrigal on 12 February, 2006, 08:05:06 PM
Quote
But just pretend that they would change to 3.97. Which command line do you think that they would use then?
The 3.97 version would be -V2 --vbr-new. And it is not pretend. 3.97b2 is the recommended version.

Regards,
Madrigal
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Thorulf on 15 February, 2006, 06:53:05 AM
Quote
The 3.97 version would be -V2 --vbr-new. And it is not pretend. 3.97b2 is the recommended version.

Regards,
Madrigal
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=363823"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That´s what I use...but why are my rips 2-3 Mb lower/track then the "mp3-scene rippers" when I rip the same cd? 
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: jarsonic on 15 February, 2006, 10:26:45 AM
Quote
Quote
The 3.97 version would be -V2 --vbr-new. And it is not pretend. 3.97b2 is the recommended version.

Regards,
Madrigal
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=363823"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That´s what I use...but why are my rips 2-3 Mb lower/track then the "mp3-scene rippers" when I rip the same cd? 
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=364490"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]



That's due to the fact that most "scene rippers" aren't exactly up-to-date in the encoding department.  I've seen release stuff floating around that is still LAME 3.88 or 3.89 @ 192 kbps CBR, using Audiograbber as the ripping utility.

- h.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Thorulf on 15 February, 2006, 11:52:45 AM
Ah okej. Then I don't have to worry anymore. Thanks for your answers!
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Hyro on 28 February, 2006, 05:06:45 AM
Can anyone give me the command lines for --preset standard (170-210 VBR)..

And what setting gets you the best results (Closest u can get to the original copy)

Sorry I'm new to this.. 

Pls help
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Gabriel on 28 February, 2006, 05:15:19 AM
Quote
Can anyone give me the command lines for --preset standard (170-210 VBR)..

Code: [Select]
lame --preset standard input.wav output.mp3
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Hyro on 28 February, 2006, 05:32:03 AM
Quote
Code: [Select]
lame --preset standard input.wav output.mp3

[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=368001"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Thanx for the feedback

I'm currently using this setting..
-V 2 --vbr-new --add-id3v2 --pad-id3v2 --ta "%a" --tt "%t" --tl "%g" --ty "%y" --tn "%n" %s %d

I cannot just paste your coding 'lame --preset standard input.wav output.mp3' in EAC & expect it to work right.?

so can you give your setting like the above one?... so that I could just paste it in EAC and start ripping...

Thank you
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: DARcode on 28 February, 2006, 05:40:02 AM
Quote
Quote
Code: [Select]
lame --preset standard input.wav output.mp3

[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=368001"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Thanx for the feedback

I'm currently using this setting..
-V 2 --vbr-new --add-id3v2 --pad-id3v2 --ta "%a" --tt "%t" --tl "%g" --ty "%y" --tn "%n" %s %d

I cannot just paste your coding 'lame --preset standard input.wav output.mp3' in EAC & expect it to work right.?

so can you give your setting like the above one?... so that I could just paste it in EAC and start ripping...

Thank you
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=368003"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

-V 2 is the equivalent to --preset standard with the presently recommended LAME version, -V 2 --vbr-new corresponds to --preset fast standard, quality should be the same if not better but compression is way fastewr, anyway it's a long story and not everybody agrees on it, so you'd better perform some searches.

Check out the EAC guide in my sig too.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Hyro on 01 March, 2006, 12:23:49 AM
Thank you for all the help
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: beowulf7 on 02 March, 2006, 10:26:53 PM
I've been using -V2 for my full-CD-length mixes and am pretty happy with it.  I might try -V2 --vbr-new to save a few minutes.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Borbus on 08 March, 2006, 06:27:46 PM
I don't understand the presets. With the old presets in CDex it showed APS as being 128-320kbps VBR. Now it says that APS is 170-210kbps. Surely that results in a lower quality file since the bitate is limited to below 210kbps. Can someone explain this?

Also, in CDex, there's a VBR quality option, which I always set to 0, where does the VBR quality fit in to the presets?
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: DreamTactix291 on 08 March, 2006, 08:55:01 PM
That's just a difference in notation.  170-210kbps isn't what its limits are but rather are what its bitrates tend to average into.  The old CDex notation just showed the min and max frame sizes.  3.97b2 uses the full range of available bitrates and isn't hard limited at 128kbps for -V2.

I've never used CDex but VBR quality is either the -V number or the -q number.  Someone with more knowledge would have to answer more.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: sh1leshk4 on 08 March, 2006, 09:38:03 PM
It's usually the -q number, or defaulted to either -h or -f.
I think it's the same case when you use winLAME.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: TobWen on 12 March, 2006, 10:37:19 PM
could anybody to me a favour and decode/translate -V 2 --vbr-new into LAME switches?
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Gabriel on 13 March, 2006, 02:03:30 AM
-V2 and --vbr-new, that's it.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: [JAZ] on 13 March, 2006, 08:56:49 AM
Quote
could anybody to me a favour and decode/translate -V 2 --vbr-new into LAME switches?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=371192"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


       

usage: lame [options] <infile> [outfile]

VBR options:
    --vbr-new      use new variable bitrate (VBR) routine

    -V n            quality setting for VBR.  default n=4
                    0=high quality,bigger files. 9=smaller files


The only reason i can see you making this question is that you're too used to custom commandlines.
Really, in the general case, it is not needed, and when it is, generally depends on the sample so it's not a "do it all" setting.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: TobWen on 13 March, 2006, 09:55:24 AM
I think, you didn't understand my question :-))

in the past, the "--alt-preset" switches had a translation like "-h --nspsytune --athtype 2 --lowpass 16 --ns-bass -8 --scale 0.93" for example
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: halb27 on 13 March, 2006, 10:10:36 AM
Quote
I think, you didn't understand my question :-))

in the past, the "--alt-preset" switches had a translation like "-h --nspsytune --athtype 2 --lowpass 16 --ns-bass -8 --scale 0.93" for example
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=371273"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


It was already in 3.90.3 that for instance --alt-preset standard was not mapped to some complicated mixture of options but had a meaning of its own not reproducable by external switches.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: audiophiler on 22 March, 2006, 05:17:46 AM
I'm a newbie to this forum, I hope you can help me with my problem, I'm still encoding my mp3's to 128kbps because high encoding can fill up my HDD easily. Is there any recommendations or switches to maintain the quality of my mp3's bearing the bitrate of 128 kbps?

hope you can help me. thanks. 
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Jan S. on 22 March, 2006, 05:49:29 AM
Quote
I'm a newbie to this forum, I hope you can help me with my problem, I'm still encoding my mp3's to 128kbps because high encoding can fill up my HDD easily. Is there any recommendations or switches to maintain the quality of my mp3's bearing the bitrate of 128 kbps?

hope you can help me. thanks. 
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=373805")

Hi and welcome. The first post of this thread links to a list of recommended settings for the whole bitrate-range: [a href="http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=LAME]http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=LAME[/url]
You can find a setting you can use there.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: kaoruAngel on 22 March, 2006, 05:19:34 PM
How was the "Quality to File Size" chart (http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Image:Lame-chart-2.png) found within LAME's wiki page (http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=LAME#Quick_Start) derived?

I also ask, in advance, that someone please add my question's answer to the wiki. Without it, many intelligent viewers may easily ignore the chart (like I have). I think this would be a a tragic outcome if the authors of the chart and/or it's supporting research put any effort into their work.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: audiophiler on 23 March, 2006, 12:59:04 AM
Quote
Quote
I'm a newbie to this forum, I hope you can help me with my problem, I'm still encoding my mp3's to 128kbps because high encoding can fill up my HDD easily. Is there any recommendations or switches to maintain the quality of my mp3's bearing the bitrate of 128 kbps?

hope you can help me. thanks. 
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=373805")

Hi and welcome. The first post of this thread links to a list of recommended settings for the whole bitrate-range: [a href="http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=LAME]http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=LAME[/url]
You can find a setting you can use there.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=373815"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks, i'm reading it now.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: beowulf7 on 26 March, 2006, 02:11:10 PM
Quote
How was the "Quality to File Size" chart (http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Image:Lame-chart-2.png) found within LAME's wiki page (http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=LAME#Quick_Start) derived?

I also ask, in advance, that someone please add my question's answer to the wiki. Without it, many intelligent viewers may easily ignore the chart (like I have). I think this would be a a tragic outcome if the authors of the chart and/or it's supporting research put any effort into their work.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=374034"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I don't have an account on wikipedia.org, but anyone who does can update the definition.  I agree that the chart you linked to is very useful, as long as however "quality" is measured on the y-axis is accurate.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Jan S. on 26 March, 2006, 02:34:29 PM
Quote
Quote
How was the "Quality to File Size" chart (http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Image:Lame-chart-2.png) found within LAME's wiki page (http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=LAME#Quick_Start) derived?

I also ask, in advance, that someone please add my question's answer to the wiki. Without it, many intelligent viewers may easily ignore the chart (like I have). I think this would be a a tragic outcome if the authors of the chart and/or it's supporting research put any effort into their work.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=374034"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I don't have an account on wikipedia.org, but anyone who does can update the definition.  I agree that the chart you linked to is very useful, as long as however "quality" is measured on the y-axis is accurate.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=375486"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This is not wikipedia.org but hydrogenaudio's own wiki.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: TomKure on 26 March, 2006, 03:45:29 PM
Hi people! I just want to ask you what does --ns-bass x and --ns-treble x mean?
And - maybe it will sound silly on this forum - what are psy-tunes?
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: beowulf7 on 30 March, 2006, 01:29:11 AM
Quote
Quote
Quote
How was the "Quality to File Size" chart (http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Image:Lame-chart-2.png) found within LAME's wiki page (http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=LAME#Quick_Start) derived?

I also ask, in advance, that someone please add my question's answer to the wiki. Without it, many intelligent viewers may easily ignore the chart (like I have). I think this would be a a tragic outcome if the authors of the chart and/or it's supporting research put any effort into their work.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=374034"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I don't have an account on wikipedia.org, but anyone who does can update the definition.  I agree that the chart you linked to is very useful, as long as however "quality" is measured on the y-axis is accurate.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=375486"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This is not wikipedia.org but hydrogenaudio's own wiki.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=375497"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Oops, my bad.  Thanks.  But it would be nice to see that chart referenced in wikipedia, if it already isn't.  (I haven't checked to see if it is or isn't.)
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: audiophiler on 10 April, 2006, 03:43:08 AM
this is just a simple question, is it safe to use LAME 3.98 alpha 3? bec i just saw it was released by rarewarez.org last feb.

http://www.rarewares.org/mp3.html (http://www.rarewares.org/mp3.html)

thanks.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: outscape on 20 April, 2006, 03:30:03 PM
alpha should never be used beyond TESTING unless it is an "approved" alpha which in your case it is not. to archive your music use only the most recent recommended version which is 3.97b2.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Diow on 23 June, 2006, 11:27:35 PM
I Have used -q2 and -q0 in  same configuration "--preset cbr 320 -ms -qx"(LAME 3.90.3)and I had noticied in the espectral analysis at -q0 comparing to -q2 an fall in high frequencies,that's bad or good? This fall in high frequencies are preventing artifacts? In listening tests I'm not noticied diferences.
And at 320 what is recomended :j-stereo or stereo only?
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: shadowking on 23 June, 2006, 11:43:49 PM
I Have used -q2 and -q0 in  same configuration "--preset cbr 320 -ms -qx"(LAME 3.90.3)and I had noticied in the espectral analysis at -q0 comparing to -q2 an fall in high frequencies,that's bad or good? This fall in high frequencies are preventing artifacts? In listening tests I'm not noticied diferences.
And at 320 what is recomended :j-stereo or stereo only?


http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=28124 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=28124)

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....t=ST&f=15&t=995 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=15&t=995)
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Diow on 27 June, 2006, 09:09:58 AM
Thanks Shadowking,these topics help me so much.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Jan S. on 27 September, 2006, 02:59:50 PM
Since the wiki now has almost the same google rating as the forum thread (1. vs. 3. with afterdawn in between) isn't it time that we only have it one place instead of two (and it seems like user doesn't update the wiki when he updates the forum thread)?
Especially I'd like to know what user thinks since he is the one updating the forum thread.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: user on 29 September, 2006, 06:07:47 AM
wiki is nice, but one (me) cannot do everything, ie. both at the same time.
wiki can be updated by interested people, ie. everybody of HA.
I have worked on the begin of the wiki-lame-mp3 page on some details.

wiki is wiki, forum is forum, forum-list links to wiki (and iirc vice versa, which results probably to high google rating for both)
ie. as old forum guy who clicks on sticky topics in the special mp3-forum as example, I get the mp3 results.
For clicking to wiki I'd need a special link, which I would not find if I were really an mp3 newbie, and google might output varying, ie. too many results. Furthermore, a sticky topic is good old informative forum tradition.
As for the dynamic updating, the whole list, the wiki also, is work-in-progress, more or less fluently, at the moment less, as a lot has been optimized over time. But if there is progress/ideas/suggestions in whatever case, it can be carried out.
Maybe I am a bit reluctant to edit at wiki, as that is not under personal responsibilty, as the HA-crowd/group/moderators? (moderator with big questionmark, as a wiki is a group project) is responsible. Whereas at the topic, there is felt some responsibility to do something. Maybe the wiki can be adjusted by somebody else of the crowd, so that there is no monoismn of "user".
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Cosmo on 29 September, 2006, 07:11:26 AM
Two sources of info is redundant, and will conflict (& perhaps confuse) if they aren't updated simultaneously. I also think that sticky topics are important (though IMO the 4 separate topics seem a bit disorganised/overkill).

Suggestion: One condensed sticky topic:

README: Recommended LAME Versions and Settings

Code: [Select]
Recommended LAME Settings - Link to Wiki article
                          - Link to Discussion topic

Recommended LAME Compiles - Link to Wiki article
                          - Link to Discussion topic

Message about LAME versions and alphas
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: beto on 29 September, 2006, 09:38:25 AM
IMO the info should be kept in one place only to avoid confusion and conflict. The wiki seems the best place to me because any interested member may maintain it. The burden would not fall onto one person only (user in this case).
The sticky in the the forum should be maintained but only linking to the wiki page IMO.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Jan S. on 29 September, 2006, 10:56:10 AM
wiki is nice, but one (me) cannot do everything, ie. both at the same time.
wiki can be updated by interested people, ie. everybody of HA.
Isn't this exactly why it is better to have it at one place and especially at the wiki?

wiki is wiki, forum is forum, forum-list links to wiki (and iirc vice versa, which results probably to high google rating for both)
ie. as old forum guy who clicks on sticky topics in the special mp3-forum as example, I get the mp3 results.
For clicking to wiki I'd need a special link, which I would not find if I were really an mp3 newbie, and google might output varying, ie. too many results. Furthermore, a sticky topic is good old informative forum tradition.
Wouldn't it be just as good if the forum sticky redirects to the wiki as it is done in the lossless forum?
That way you find it no matter where you look...
As for google having too many results... Could you explain what you mean? Redirecting the forum thread would only give fewer results if any change at all (?).

 
As for the dynamic updating, the whole list, the wiki also, is work-in-progress, more or less fluently, at the moment less, as a lot has been optimized over time. But if there is progress/ideas/suggestions in whatever case, it can be carried out.
Maybe I am a bit reluctant to edit at wiki, as that is not under personal responsibilty, as the HA-crowd/group/moderators? (moderator with big questionmark, as a wiki is a group project) is responsible. Whereas at the topic, there is felt some responsibility to do something. Maybe the wiki can be adjusted by somebody else of the crowd, so that there is no monoismn of "user".
I do share your concern over the lack of responsibility at the wiki. Since everybody can edit people could change something they shouldn't. However this does not seem to be a problem at the HA wiki. I have rarely seen it and in the case it does happen it can be easily be reversed. Also you can "watch" the page so you are notified each time that page is edited by someone.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: user on 02 October, 2006, 09:07:18 AM
As others suggested also, we can improve the mp3-forum by making 2-3 topics unsticky,
ie. 1. the sticky about lame compiles,
2. the sticky about lame versions,
the 2 topics by JohnV and Dibrom.
iirc, these issues/topics should be and are dealt with in the list of recommendations/settings.

the 3rd topic which could be made unsticky, is this discussion topic, as it is also linked in the sticky list of settings/recommendations.

Then the mp3-general forum might look immediately easier to overview.

*found the reason, why I could not edit wiki like some time before: Protected wiki page:
Editing access
To prevent spamming this wiki now requires that you have been validated for editing. To be able to edit the wiki you need to:

Be a member at HydrogenAudio forum
Contact Jan S. and ask to get access (which you will get as soon as he sees your message).
Retrieved from "http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Hydrogenaudio_Knowledgebase:Protected_page"

Can you enable it ?
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Jan S. on 04 October, 2006, 02:48:22 PM
As it is now "List of recommended LAME compiles" redirects to the wiki.
The 2 others I think should probably be unsticky too if they are linked from the wiki (or that should be done).
But why not redirect the lame settings thread to the wiki too? Are you still against that?


btw.: gave you wiki access a few days ago.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: user on 04 October, 2006, 04:28:45 PM
thanks,
as said above, those 3 sticky topics ( a. lame compiles b. lame alphas c. discussion of recommended list ) could already be made unsticky, because those are linked from the sticky list, and from wiki.
As for the reason of a forum as discussion platform with culture & non-static information, imo the sticky should be filled with content, not only link to wiki. The way the sticky was built up over time, was via the forum.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Torniojaws on 16 November, 2006, 11:44:20 AM
Is it just me, or do the presets in the preset topic omit genre data? I have tried the switches on various different versions of LAME + EAC, and none of my rips have genre data in the ID3 tag. All other data is included just fine, but the genre is always missing, regardless if I used the data directly from freedb, or data that I entered myself. Even if it's one of the standard genres (ie. Metal, or Industrial, or similar), it is not included.

This happens on EAC 0.95 beta 3 and beta 4, with LAME versions between 3.95 to 3.97 b2 and also 3.97 Final that I just tried.

Here's the exact switch I use (though it is the same as on the main thread):

-V 2 --vbr-new --id3v2-only --pad-id3v2 --ta "%a" --tt "%t" --tl "%g" --ty "%y" --tn "%n" %s %d
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: arpeggio on 16 November, 2006, 01:06:46 PM
Here's the exact switch I use (though it is the same as on the main thread):

-V 2 --vbr-new --id3v2-only --pad-id3v2 --ta "%a" --tt "%t" --tl "%g" --ty "%y" --tn "%n" %s %d


In your command line the genre switch is missing. You should add  --tg "%m".
I'd recommend to add the switch  --ignore-tag-errors as well. It will prevent Lame.exe from crashing if you enter a type of genre that is not in the Lame genre list.

Your command line could look like this:
Code: [Select]
-V 2 --vbr-new --id3v2-only --pad-id3v2 --ignore-tag-errors --ta "%a" --tt "%t" --tl "%g" --ty "%y" --tn "%n" --tg "%m" %s %d


Cheers!
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: beowulf7 on 17 November, 2006, 01:26:32 AM
I upgraded from 3.97b2 to 3.97 (final release).  I didn't notice any obvious differences.  Apparently, 3.97 (final) is the same as 3.97b3.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Style on 02 January, 2007, 01:19:21 PM
Hmm, since I've started using the settings in this post, AQScript->Enforce is now failing. It looks like it doesn't like the ID3 tags. I tried all three versions of ID3 provided, but all fail with different errors:

Quote
ID3v1:
-V 3 --vbr-new --id3v1-only --ta "%a" --tt "%t" --tl "%g" --ty "%y" --tn "%n" %s %d

ID3v2:
-V 3 --vbr-new --id3v2-only --pad-id3v2 --ta "%a" --tt "%t" --tl "%g" --ty "%y" --tn "%n" %s %d

ID3v1 and ID3v2:
-V 3 --vbr-new --add-id3v2 --pad-id3v2 --ta "%a" --tt "%t" --tl "%g" --ty "%y" --tn "%n" %s %d


Please let me know. Thanks!
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: pdq on 02 January, 2007, 04:31:43 PM
Possibly you are using a genre that LAME doesn't like. Try adding the switch "--ignore-tag-errors".
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Style on 02 January, 2007, 05:09:24 PM
Possibly you are using a genre that LAME doesn't like. Try adding the switch "--ignore-tag-errors".

Well, I'm not getting the error from LAME.  LAME says everything is A-OK.  I'm getting the errors from AQScript->Enforce.  Any ideas?
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: robert on 02 January, 2007, 05:18:49 PM

Possibly you are using a genre that LAME doesn't like. Try adding the switch "--ignore-tag-errors".

Well, I'm not getting the error from LAME.  LAME says everything is A-OK.  I'm getting the errors from AQScript->Enforce.  Any ideas?

It seems AQScript want's to enforce you to use some legacy LAME encoder. The "--vbr-new" switch is recommended for 3.97 or newer, if you are using some older LAME version, drop this switch from your command line.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: _Raziel-BG on 02 February, 2007, 03:49:19 PM
Could someone be so kind as to explain the difference between the -V and -q parameters. They both are concerning quality but can be separately tuned. What is the exact difference?
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Jebus on 02 February, 2007, 04:04:47 PM
Could someone be so kind as to explain the difference between the -V and -q parameters. They both are concerning quality but can be separately tuned. What is the exact difference?


-V determines the bitrate used. Lower -V levels make for larger files, and better quality.

-q determines how detailed the psychoacoustic algorithm should get. Higher -q levels make for longer encoding times, but theoretically better quality ones (at the same bitrate).

in practice, there is no proof that any -q levels beyond -q3 actually make a quaity difference, but they sure slow things down. -q3 is used by the presets. Basically, don't mess with the -q level.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: _Raziel-BG on 02 February, 2007, 04:17:16 PM

Could someone be so kind as to explain the difference between the -V and -q parameters. They both are concerning quality but can be separately tuned. What is the exact difference?


-V determines the bitrate used. Lower -V levels make for larger files, and better quality.

-q determines how detailed the psychoacoustic algorithm should get. Higher -q levels make for longer encoding times, but theoretically better quality ones (at the same bitrate).

in practice, there is no proof that any -q levels beyond -q3 actually make a quaity difference, but they sure slow things down. -q3 is used by the presets. Basically, don't mess with the -q level.

Thank you for the quick response.

P.S.: One more thing puzzles me. In CDex when I select either preset standard or extreme, they both use VBR quality 2, whereas the first post in the topic with the lame settings says that preset extreme is VBR0. CDex uses lame_enc.dll 3.97. Am I missing something?
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: UrbanVoyeur on 02 February, 2007, 06:43:26 PM
in practice, there is no proof that any -q levels beyond -q3 actually make a quality difference, but they sure slow things down. -q3 is used by the presets. Basically, don't mess with the -q level.


But you can't deny the placebo effect of -V0 -q0. Nothing feels quite so right as overkill.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Jebus on 02 February, 2007, 07:24:46 PM


Could someone be so kind as to explain the difference between the -V and -q parameters. They both are concerning quality but can be separately tuned. What is the exact difference?


-V determines the bitrate used. Lower -V levels make for larger files, and better quality.

-q determines how detailed the psychoacoustic algorithm should get. Higher -q levels make for longer encoding times, but theoretically better quality ones (at the same bitrate).

in practice, there is no proof that any -q levels beyond -q3 actually make a quaity difference, but they sure slow things down. -q3 is used by the presets. Basically, don't mess with the -q level.

Thank you for the quick response.

P.S.: One more thing puzzles me. In CDex when I select either preset standard or extreme, they both use VBR quality 2, whereas the first post in the topic with the lame settings says that preset extreme is VBR0. CDex uses lame_enc.dll 3.97. Am I missing something?


No... that's weird. --preset standard = -V2, --preset extreme = -V0.

Try to use the --vbr-new switch as well (-V2 --vbr-new, or --preset fast standard) since its better at this point. Not sure if CDex has that option though.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: guruboolez on 02 February, 2007, 07:28:50 PM
-Vx is different from -qx
-Vx [VBR level] are all using -q2 IIRC
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: _Raziel-BG on 03 February, 2007, 08:15:16 AM
No... that's weird. --preset standard = -V2, --preset extreme = -V0.

Try to use the --vbr-new switch as well (-V2 --vbr-new, or --preset fast standard) since its better at this point. Not sure if CDex has that option though.

-V2 --vbr-new is indeed what I use when I encode. I use EAC and RazorLame. I just decided to check CDex out and was surprised. The four presets: standard, fast standard, extreme and fast extreme - they all have the VBR settings automatically selected to 2. It's correct for the two standard presets but it's not for the two extreme presets. CDex obtains all modes from lame_enc.dll (as far as I know), so the problem must be within the DLL file.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Remedial Sound on 03 February, 2007, 09:21:52 AM
-V2 --vbr-new is indeed what I use when I encode. I use EAC and RazorLame. I just decided to check CDex out and was surprised. The four presets: standard, fast standard, extreme and fast extreme - they all have the VBR settings automatically selected to 2. It's correct for the two standard presets but it's not for the two extreme presets. CDex obtains all modes from lame_enc.dll (as far as I know), so the problem must be within the DLL file.

I think you're still confusing the -V presets with the -q switch, i.e., q=2 for each of those presets. CDex is a nice straightforward ripping app, however IMHO the lame configuration settings tab is outdated / poorly designed and often leads to this sort of confusion.

http://lame.sourceforge.net/lame_ui_example.php (http://lame.sourceforge.net/lame_ui_example.php)

Foobar's Converter and Omni Encoder both have UIs similar to this.
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: _Raziel-BG on 03 February, 2007, 12:21:09 PM
I think you're still confusing the -V presets with the -q switch, i.e., q=2 for each of those presets. CDex is a nice straightforward ripping app, however IMHO the lame configuration settings tab is outdated / poorly designed and often leads to this sort of confusion.

http://lame.sourceforge.net/lame_ui_example.php (http://lame.sourceforge.net/lame_ui_example.php)

Foobar's Converter and Omni Encoder both have UIs similar to this.

I might still confuse the -V and -q switches, yeah, but if that's the case, I blame CDex for that.
This is how the encoder configuration window looks like:
http://img240.imageshack.us/img240/9462/cdex1ub0.png (http://img240.imageshack.us/img240/9462/cdex1ub0.png)
And this is what the 'Quality' menu contains. I see there the 'q' switch so the lower VBR menu (seen on the first screenshot) ought to be the -V switch.
http://img240.imageshack.us/img240/5527/cdex2ps5.png (http://img240.imageshack.us/img240/5527/cdex2ps5.png)
Title: List of recommended LAME settings
Post by: Jebus on 04 February, 2007, 11:11:35 PM

I think you're still confusing the -V presets with the -q switch, i.e., q=2 for each of those presets. CDex is a nice straightforward ripping app, however IMHO the lame configuration settings tab is outdated / poorly designed and often leads to this sort of confusion.

http://lame.sourceforge.net/lame_ui_example.php (http://lame.sourceforge.net/lame_ui_example.php)

Foobar's Converter and Omni Encoder both have UIs similar to this.

I might still confuse the -V and -q switches, yeah, but if that's the case, I blame CDex for that.
This is how the encoder configuration window looks like:
http://img240.imageshack.us/img240/9462/cdex1ub0.png (http://img240.imageshack.us/img240/9462/cdex1ub0.png)
And this is what the 'Quality' menu contains. I see there the 'q' switch so the lower VBR menu (seen on the first screenshot) ought to be the -V switch.
http://img240.imageshack.us/img240/5527/cdex2ps5.png (http://img240.imageshack.us/img240/5527/cdex2ps5.png)


Blech! I have no idea what you'd want to select in that GUI trainwreck!