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: List of recommended LAME settings (Read 656136 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

List of recommended LAME settings

Reply #200 –
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. 

List of recommended LAME settings

Reply #201 –
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

List of recommended LAME settings

Reply #202 –
I've got one question: What sounds better: 128kbps Joint-Stereo (-m j) or 192kbps Stereo (-m s)?

List of recommended LAME settings

Reply #203 –
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):
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?
Let's suppose that rain washes out a picnic. Who is feeling negative? The rain? Or YOU? What's causing the negative feeling? The rain or your reaction? - Anthony De Mello

List of recommended LAME settings

Reply #204 –
--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

List of recommended LAME settings

Reply #205 –
Added / Changed 2002-04-10

CDIndexer : for CD-Audio & data-CDs
MAC 2.90 : Mpeg Audio Collection 2.90 : perfect for mpeg, not yet for CD-Audio



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 !

List of recommended LAME settings

Reply #206 –
Think about adding -Z to the fast presets too. It should result in a quality gain there too.

dev0
"To understand me, you'll have to swallow a world." Or maybe your words.

List of recommended LAME settings

Reply #207 –
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?

List of recommended LAME settings

Reply #208 –
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

List of recommended LAME settings

Reply #209 –
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.
Juha Laaksonheimo

List of recommended LAME settings

Reply #210 –
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.[/span]


(LAME v. 3.90.2 - 3.92)

-k disables any lowpass filter

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.


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

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....4552#entry46392
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....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.

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

BTW, You be wellcome bashing me bat English!

List of recommended LAME settings

Reply #211 –
Updated list: removed -Z.

List of recommended LAME settings

Reply #212 –
Updated list date and reason for -Z removal.

List of recommended LAME settings

Reply #213 –
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.

List of recommended LAME settings

Reply #214 –
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. 

List of recommended LAME settings

Reply #215 –
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.

List of recommended LAME settings

Reply #216 –
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.)

List of recommended LAME settings

Reply #217 –
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.

List of recommended LAME settings

Reply #218 –
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?

List of recommended LAME settings

Reply #219 –
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.

List of recommended LAME settings

Reply #220 –
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... 

List of recommended LAME settings

Reply #221 –
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...

List of recommended LAME settings

Reply #222 –
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?

List of recommended LAME settings

Reply #223 –
Redesign of the recommended settings to make it more obvious that --alt-preset standard should be anyone's first choice.

List of recommended LAME settings

Reply #224 –
why not recommend the 3.90.3 modified compile? who has objections? I just see positive things about it.