|
--alt-preset standart vs. --alt-preset extreme
|
|
|
Euro
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
16. December 2002 @ 14:02 |
Link to this message
|
|
Hello,
I just wanted to know the differences (if any) between --alt-preset standart and --alt-preset extreme. I was told that there is no difference in sound quality but, if so, why have the extreme one? Also, how are the --alt-preset settings better than -r3mix and all others? I've seen settings that come with RazorLame and also settings that are from MP3-tech.org. Are they really inferior to --alt-presets? Thanks in advance for any information!
Euro
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
|
cd-rw.org
Senior Member
4 product reviews
|
17. December 2002 @ 02:16 |
Link to this message
|
|
--alt-preset extreme produces slightly larger files, and is tuned for even higher quality than standard. Which one to use depends on you totally - extreme can give you extra safety, in terms of quality, but standard should be enough for 99% of cases. I personally can't hear the difference, but people that are trained to hear encoder flaws are amazing accurate in evaluating encoders or settings.
--r3mix is old and obsolote. The alt-presets kind of continue where r3mix left off.
--alt-presets are the most tuned, most evaluated and most tested presets available. Use them and remember to use LAME 3.92 version - not the newer 3.93.1 (the new version has not been properly tested for quality with alt-presets)
|
|
Euro
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
17. December 2002 @ 10:11 |
Link to this message
|
|
cd-rw.org,
Thanks for your instant and very helpful information. I will use the standard mode and go back to version 3.92.
Euro
|
|
cd-rw.org
Senior Member
4 product reviews
|
17. December 2002 @ 10:14 |
Link to this message
|
|
Go to afterdawn.com / cd-rw.org -> search for news with "LAME" if you want to know why 3.92 is recommended.
|
|
Euro
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
17. December 2002 @ 13:18 |
Link to this message
|
|
Is it possible that there will be better --alt-presets in the future since the ones that are out now are pretty much "perfect?" What more can be done to even the LAME encoder since the results now are transparent?
Euro
|
|
cd-rw.org
Senior Member
4 product reviews
|
17. December 2002 @ 15:07 |
Link to this message
|
|
The developement of --alt-presets have ended. There is still potential not unleashed, but does it matter if it is transparent for you?
It seems that we will see a new LAME 3.94, which introduces new technologies by Takehiro - and possibly calls for all new commandline settings. It is unsure however can LAME 3.94 match up with LAME 3.92 --alt-presets.
|
|
Euro
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
17. December 2002 @ 17:36 |
Link to this message
|
|
So are you saying that the newer the versions, the better sound quality they will produce? I guess what I mean is what's there to improve in LAME?
Euro
|
|
cd-rw.org
Senior Member
4 product reviews
|
17. December 2002 @ 23:16 |
Link to this message
|
All I am saying it is possible to improve LAME. But it is unceartain will it improve. What's there to improve - then things go more technical. I've read that psycho acousics could be tuned significantly.
Check this out: http://lame.sourceforge.net/history.html
And then there is the --alt-preset's issue. They were tweaked for the way 3.92 worked. Now if LAME changes fundamentally in 3.94, as it seems, the --alt-presets will likely be destroyed, which is a step backwards. This "overrides" some of the improvements of 3.94
|
|
Euro
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
18. December 2002 @ 11:21 |
Link to this message
|
|
Wow, all that work goes into each release?? As you said, if the --alt-presets which are considered best won't work with 3.94, how will it be superior despite its technical advances? And also, can't just a simple code be written to make these presets compatible or will the developers have to start from scratch? And if they do, will those new presets match the ones that are out now in quality? I just got out of the -r3mix scene as I thought that guy knew absolutely EVERYTHING about MP3's until I came here and now I'm full of questions. I'm really glad you guys really know what you're talking about.
Euro
|
|
cd-rw.org
Senior Member
4 product reviews
|
19. December 2002 @ 01:28 |
Link to this message
|
Well, your latest questions are going slightly above my head.
If you are interested in technical details, then you should find more info at Hydrogen Audio, were some LAME beta-testing takes place and the --alt-presets were developed. I know the basics, and few very skilled ppl are members here too, but I can't respond to questions that require code-level understanding of LAME or MP3 encoding in general.
LAME 3.94a7 testing: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?act=ST&f=16&t=4807
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 19. December 2002 @ 01:36
|
|
Euro
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
19. December 2002 @ 11:18 |
Link to this message
|
|
Great, thanks!
Euro
|
|
MrBean
Newbie
|
24. December 2002 @ 05:47 |
Link to this message
|
|
Hello,
I'm glad found this site, because until now I was still using the settings from r3mix.net and before that I was only using 160 kbps jstereo coded with a encoder I don't even know the name of (EncSpot says Gogo...)
Now I'm experimenting with the presets of lame v392 I find that --preset standard produces mp3's for me that are just too big. Some less quality is good enough for me. But --preset medium is a little too much compression... That's why I wanted to adjust the standard setting so the quality would come between standard and medium. Is the following setting a acceptable one?
--preset standard -b 112 -V3 --lowpass 18.5
Thanx in advance!
Greetz, Mr.Bean
|
|
MrBean
Newbie
|
24. December 2002 @ 05:51 |
Link to this message
|
|
Hello,
I'm glad found this site, because until now I was still using the settings from r3mix.net and before that I was only using 160 kbps jstereo coded with a encoder I don't even know the name of (EncSpot says Gogo...)
Now I'm experimenting with the presets of lame v392 I find that --preset standard produces mp3's for me that are just too big. Some less quality is good enough for me. But --preset medium is a little too much compression... That's why I wanted to adjust the standard setting so the quality would come between standard and medium. Is the following setting a acceptable one?
--preset standard -b 112 -V3 --lowpass 18.5
Thanx in advance!
Greetz, Mr.Bean
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
Pio2001
Moderator
|
31. December 2002 @ 15:17 |
Link to this message
|
Pio2001
|
