Skip to main content

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Lame 3.88b vs 3.92 Encode.. (Read 2856 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Lame 3.88b vs 3.92 Encode..

I have two encodes for a Neoclassical Deathmetal album..

"Virtuocity - Secret Visions - 2002"

Its got high stereo imaging, I guess would be the word for it... plenty of highs and lows alike. Think iron maiden with a sortof symphony like production.. I guess its bitrate intensive.

Anyway here goes:

Lame 3.88 Beta, 320kbps, Joint-Stereo. not sure on other settings... But its M/S Seperation I belive.

VS -

Lame 3.92, 256kbps, Full Stereo, not sure on other settings...

I am wondering, aside from abx'ing which I cant fully do at the moment, due to noise limitations and lack of decent headphones.... Which would generally be the wise encode to keep? and trash?

I cant find any details on lame 3.88 vs 3.92 as far as joint stereo use goes, or if it makes any difference with 3.88 and this type of recording.

Lame 3.88b vs 3.92 Encode..

Reply #1
Well, I think that the easiest way would be to simply re-encode it from your original CD.

Lame 3.88b vs 3.92 Encode..

Reply #2
I've had simmilar problems ever since I got into filesharing. The stuff that I download is stuff that's rare and impossible to find anywhere. Also I look for earlier CD releases from late 80s to early 90s of stuff I allready have. And sometime I have two versions of the same thing and I  which is best right away. Go to the Artifact Training Page http://ff123.net/training/training.html and get familliare with how some typical lossy artifacts sound like. Then listen to both versions and if you hear anything that sounds bad with one version compare to the other. Also replaygain both versions you can tell if one version might me an earlier release thats not as compressed and might be worth keeping only because of that. Also consider that those mp3s might be transcoded which one on hand should make it easier to tell which version is better but the better sounding version might sound worse for other reasons like compression or not being a digital rip. I hope this helped.