|
List of recommended LAME MP3 encoder settings - the highest quality MP3 encoder.
|
|
|
cd-rw.org
Senior Member
4 product reviews
|
18. March 2002 @ 05:08 |
Link to this message
|
In case someone didn't know, LAME MP3 encoder is the highest quality MP3 compressor available. Best results are achieved using it's VBR features.
Current consensus is that settings "--alt-preset standard" are recommended for most cases. This results in a very high quality VBR MP3s, giving you bitrates around 200kbps, depending heavily on the music. Mellow rap can go much lower and loud heavy metal can result higher bitrates. The quality will always remain very high.
This list is originally made by nickname "User" at the audiofora.com , which was the old forum of CD-RW.ORG and r3mix.net (defunct).
The "--alt-presets" and other LAME developement has also been made by nickname "Dibrom" and the members of his http://www.hydrogenaudio.org community.
I wish to thank all the members of the Audiofora and Hydrogen Audio, who have contributed for this list and the developement of LAME MP3 encoder.
Updated Octobre 05, 2003
These settings require Lame 3.90 or later.
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.
Update: -Z added. Read this thread for more.
Update: -Z removed again; included within --alt-preset standard/extreme with the new 3.90.3 compile.
-------------------------------------------------
Recommended ABR (average bitrate) settings:
-------------------------------------------------
ABR Setting tuned from 320 kbps down to 8 kbps
--alt-preset <bitrate>
Example:
--alt-preset 200
128 kbit ABR
--alt-preset 128
or ff123's and Hans' suggestion (http://www.ff123.net/cbr128.html):
--abr 128 -h --nspsytune --athtype 2 --lowpass 16 --ns-bass -8 --scale 0.93
-------------------------------------------------
Recommended 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
--alt-preset cbr 128
or ff123's and Hans' suggestion (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>
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 10. December 2003 @ 22:21
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
|
A_Klingon
Moderator
|
19. March 2002 @ 06:03 |
Link to this message
|
|
Some standalone .mp3-capable DVD players get their knickers all in a twist if you try to play back a VBR mp3 file. Sometimes my Sanyo will play them back; somtimes it won't. Never any problems with CBR though.
-- K.A. --
|
|
johnnylaw
Newbie
|
19. March 2002 @ 07:01 |
Link to this message
|
|
Same here. I have two carry-around mp3 players. The first one is a little over a year old. It could not stand VBRs, so I made sure my rips were pure CBRs. As a result, my whole CD collection has been converted to
LAME/CBR/192k/True Stereo
That is what my old and new players like.
No VBR here, thank you.
Johnny Law
|
|
cd-rw.org
Senior Member
4 product reviews
|
19. March 2002 @ 07:03 |
Link to this message
|
|
Unfortunately, in some rare cases that is true.
It is not a fault of the VBR since IT IS a part of the MPEG standard. So if a player does not support VBR files, then you can say that it is not MPEG1-Layer 3 compliant.
On such occasions I would go for "--alt-preset cbr 256"
As for Joint-Stereo, one definitely should use it. JS provides more bits for your encoding and significantly increases the quality. Best 192CBR quality can be achieved with "--alt-preset cbr 192", but 192 is not quite sufficient bitrate for perfect quality.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 19. March 2002 @ 07:08
|
|
MTRH
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
19. March 2002 @ 07:18 |
Link to this message
|
|
Those players not supporting VBR are to be considered bad, since VBR is part of the standard it's the developers/engineers who are to be blamed for this.
THe reasons of lacking features could be many tho, anything from economical issues to ignorance.
btw, try to avoid stereo for you mp3s if you care about the quality at all, this is not a lossless format you know, you must use the bits as eficiently as possible.
Cheers,
David
* Project Mayhem - "Cross-Platform, Cross-Format, Psychoacoustic Audio Compression" - (Home of --alt-presets)
* R3Mix Forum - "mp3, mpc, ogg quality discussion" - (Home of [ |
|
tangent
Newbie
|
19. March 2002 @ 10:13 |
Link to this message
|
The problem with many players seem to be their incapability of playing 320kbps frames. You can test this by encoding with "--alt-preset insane" and playing it back. If this is the case, then "--alt-preset standard -B256" would probably work best for you.
If you really must use CBR, please use "--alt-preset cbr 192" to get the best quality cbr-192 encode settings. Yes, it uses JS, and this if for the better, as explained here: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=759
|
|
A_Klingon
Moderator
|
20. March 2002 @ 00:38 |
Link to this message
|
|
Hi; here are 1 million questions for cd-rw.org please:
I don't know if Lame is the best encoder, but certainly it sounds fine to my ears if you use a high enough bitrate, whether cbr or vbr.
I forget my experiences with BladeEnc, but I don't recall any major dissapointments offhand.
But isn't every codec, whatever it's flavour, a derivitive of Fraunhofer's original?
The reason I ask, is because about a year ago I downloaded and registered the *wonderful* AudioGrabber program direct from the author, Jackie Franck. Prior to that, I tried it out for a bit first, and remember manually installing the Lame codec, which I was quite happy with.
But one day I noticed in 'Settings' that I actually had a bonafide, genuine Fraunhofer codec installed! It showed up as "Fraunhofer IIS MPEG Layer-3 Codec (Professional)".
I don't ever recall having installed it manually (aren't original Fraunhofer codecs rather expensive?).
I can only guess at this, (maybe you can help me here) - I'm guessing that maybe, the Fraunhofer codec is already embedded into the AudioGrabbr program, and when one keys in the serial # they have paid for, it automatically "unlocks" the Fraunhofer codec for registered users.(??)
Despite that, I must admit that the Lame codec has far more settings (options) than even my(supposedly original) Fraunhofer codec. (My Lame version is repoted as, "LameEnc DLL Version 1.16 Engine 3.87"). With it I can use
bitrates up to 320, either Joint or Stereo, either VBR or CBR.
With the Fraunhofer, I only have Joint or Mono (no Dual Stereo), also, no VBR, just constant.
What gives?
Maybe this is a 'stripped down' Fraunhofer codec?
Mind you, at 320 KBits/s I can't tell the Fraunhofer mp3 from the original CD track.
Don't ask me how he did it, but somehow Billy managed to stick his .wma codec in there too. I know *I* sure as heck didn't put it in there. (It shows up as "Microsoft Windows Media Audio Codec (WMA)". )
---------------------
On another note, has anyone ever tried out a Pay Music Site? What do you think of *their* .mp3s? (Artistic tastes aside).
Just on a trial basis, I joined "EMusic" for a while, but cancelled shortly thereafter because the quality of their mp3 was frequently *horrendous*. One main reason I wanted to try them out was because they offer genuine, unrestricted, non-proprietary industry-standard "open" mp3 files. I didn't have to connect to some g###mned web server to get "permission" to play the files for 30 days or something stupid like that.
Well, anyway, these files were all 128 KBits/s CBR. The nasty artifacts commonly found on poorly recorded lo-bitrate mp3s were all too often evident. There was no way I was going to pay for these. (You're allowed 50 free music downloads from the members' section before your
credit card is charged). It didn't take me nearly that many to know I wasn't comfortable with the quality of those files.
I assume they chose 128/44 for maximum compatability with most other, often 'dodgy' devices like mp3 walkmans or mp3-capable dvd players. (The equipment itself isn't dodgy, it's just that their mp3-sections can often stand a lot of improvement). For example, my Sanyo dvd player *balks* at many vbr files when it should have been SO easy for the manufacturer to develop a quality chip for the mp3 section.
Maybe also, they (EMusic) chose 128/44 so as to minimize the time needed to download full albums over dial-up modems.
What are your thoughts on this?
I'll ask you another million questions later. :-)
-- KlingonAgent --
|
|
cd-rw.org
Senior Member
4 product reviews
|
20. March 2002 @ 00:48 |
Link to this message
|
|
A Klingon,
I have opened a new thread for your questions. We should concentrate on LAME settings in this one, since they are a real FAQ.
|
|
A_Klingon
Moderator
|
20. March 2002 @ 00:55 |
Link to this message
|
|
OK, thanks!
It took you 5 (five) minutes to answer this post. <gg>
-- K.A. --
|
|
cd-rw.org
Senior Member
4 product reviews
|
18. April 2002 @ 12:25 |
Link to this message
|
|
Pushing this up and making it stick there.
|
|
cd-rw.org
Senior Member
4 product reviews
|
19. April 2002 @ 14:48 |
Link to this message
|
|
Recently there has been discussion about ways of decreasing the bitrate of "--alt-preset"-settings.
Dibrom, a LAME developer, has suggested that "--alt-preset standard -Y" is a good solution of you need lower bitrates. The resulted file will generally be very good quality BUT the -Y results that frequencies above 16khz will be cut out very aggressively (disables sfb21 noise shaping)
Using the -Y parameter might be useful for example with portable players that have limited storage capacity.
|
|
Zarniwoop
Newbie
|
29. May 2002 @ 11:34 |
Link to this message
|
|
How about recommended settings for encoding mono recordings, like older classical works, Beatles or Beach Boys?
|
|
cd-rw.org
Senior Member
4 product reviews
|
29. May 2002 @ 13:11 |
Link to this message
|
|
With poor quality mono recordings we can start with the: --alt-preset standard -Y
You may experiment adding -mm and -b 64 (or -b 80)
In mono signal the channels are identical so they are included only once. This means that there are 2x bits to use when compared to stereo signal having totally different content in L and R channel. This means that bitrate 64kbps as mono should return equal quality to 128kbps pure stereo signal. The -b parameter allows LAME to use lower bitrates, since normally --alt-preset standard limits to 128kbps minimum.
So my suggestion is: --alt-preset standard -Y -mm -b 64
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 29. May 2002 @ 13:13
|
|
johnnylaw
Newbie
|
9. June 2002 @ 23:10 |
Link to this message
|
|
Command line settings. All this makes me confused, probably the over 40 factor.
Last year the big command line setting was that R3Nix thing (dead now). This year it's alt-preset-something. Next year's name?
I'm not one to dress fashionably and I feel the same about my LAME settings. I am here to impress me, no one else. I like my CBR. I know CBR works with all mp3 hardware. I know it sounds great and have never heard anyone I share my music with say otherwise.
The last thing I want to do is rerip my cd collection every year because someone thinks they found a better way to make The Doors first album sound any better than it has the first 35 years. I spend way too much time on my music as it is. And you know what? My settings are still set from late 2000 with a command line of " -b 192 -m s -h " .
So, if you want new rippers to use LAME instead of other encoders, get rid of all these extra silly settings. I don't tell people to use LAME and tell them to figure it out. I have to walk them through it and here them ask what a command line setting is and dash here, dash there.
Just my point of view. From someone who loves music.
|
|
A_Klingon
Moderator
|
10. June 2002 @ 05:41 |
Link to this message
|
|
Hi johnny.
I agree with your sentiments. There really ought to be a simpler way. But if you think command-line settings can be complex (they certainly can), consider also, all of the different audio *formats* there are out there. (.ogg vorbis, muse....). They can't ALL be the best!
I don't know if it will ever happen, but I'd love to see a general concensus - agreement - on just what IS the single, best-sounding format going, be it the ever-popular .mp3 format, or something else. (I am becoming increasingly aware, that despite mp3's popularity, it is *not* the best sounding format).
I too don't want to be re-re-re-re-encoding my music cds (and others) every time a new format comes along, unless that particular format offers a sonic advantage so *great* I can't possibly refuse it.
-- KlingonAgent --
|
|
cd-rw.org
Senior Member
4 product reviews
|
10. June 2002 @ 09:17 |
Link to this message
|
|
johnnylaw,
Well, you could eadily replace your "-b 192 -m s -h" with "--alt-preset cbr 192" will give you more tuned & tweaked CBR 192.
To a noob LAME settings are confusing, and that's a known problem. That's what the --alt-preset were created for. They include code level tweaks that can't be enabled from the commandline.
|
|
Rizban
Newbie
|
5. August 2002 @ 10:55 |
Link to this message
|
|
What are the exact options for the Lame 3.90 setting:
--alt-preset cbr 256 ?
Are they the same as for --alt-preset cbr 128 = "-h --nspsytune --athtype 2 --lowpass 17.5 --ns-bass -6 --scale 0.93"
Thanks!
|
|
cd-rw.org
Senior Member
4 product reviews
|
5. August 2002 @ 13:25 |
Link to this message
|
|
Rizban,
No --ap can be fully produced with a commandline alternative since they include code level tweaks.
|
|
Phairest
Newbie
|
22. August 2002 @ 21:57 |
Link to this message
|
|
I have kinda an unusual request. I need the variable string or whatever to make LAME (via EAC of course) crunch a file as much as it can without sounding like total crap. And I like VBR- never had a problem with VBR files playing on my old-azz fisher cd-player. Also, it's been a while since I installed lame and eac; I take it there are updates now? Can you point me to the download sites too? Thanks!
|
|
cd-rw.org
Senior Member
4 product reviews
|
23. August 2002 @ 03:47 |
Link to this message
|
Download site? Howabout the site where you are at this very moment?
Here is the simplief EAC installation guide: http://www.cd-rw.org/articles/archive/eac_and_lame_setup_guide.cfm
When the sound quality is crap is pretty much a personal preference. With the setup mentioned in the guide, the "low quality" setting in EAC will give you 128 ABR which is the lowest I would ever go.
|
|
ilscuro
Newbie
|
25. August 2002 @ 14:22 |
Link to this message
|
|
ok if you have wavs to start with but is it worth re-encoding mp3's you already have? or has the quality already gone? sorry if this sounds a bit pisswd but so am i lol
|
|
cd-rw.org
Senior Member
4 product reviews
|
25. August 2002 @ 23:14 |
Link to this message
|
|
If you are encoding MP3->MP3 you will ALWAYS LOSE QUALITY. This is known as transcoding and it usually gives very nasty results. This also applies to WMA->MP3, RA->MP3, or any other comrpession in between lossy formats.
|
|
ilscuro
Newbie
|
26. August 2002 @ 03:25 |
Link to this message
|
|
what about if you decompress the mp3 back to a wav and then re-encode to a higher bitrate or ogg?
|
|
cd-rw.org
Senior Member
4 product reviews
|
26. August 2002 @ 07:18 |
Link to this message
|
|
Decompression is always made, the result will always be worse than the original. These are LOSSY compression schemes. It means that you will LOSE information (read: quality) at every compression cycle.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
ilscuro
Newbie
|
27. August 2002 @ 15:45 |
Link to this message
|
|
so in other words mp3's are crap
|
