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.

Poll

Which LAME preset do you use for the majority of your encoding?

standard / -V 2
[ 126 ] (66.7%)
-V 1
[ 4 ] (2.1%)
extreme / -V 0
[ 23 ] (12.2%)
insane / 320 CBR
[ 8 ] (4.2%)
something else (medium / -V 3)
[ 28 ] (14.8%)

Total Members Voted: 247

Topic: LAME Encoders - Which alt-preset (Read 25118 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

LAME Encoders - Which alt-preset

Reply #25 –
lame 3.96.1 --preset standard

Optimal compatability and quality is good enough for a lossy encode (except for the lack of gapless playback), less buggy than 3.90.3. I don't see any need to change to a different lossy encode method, next step is lossless.

LAME Encoders - Which alt-preset

Reply #26 –
Lame 3.96.1 --noreplaygain --preset -fast standard
I find it quite good.
Cannot distinguish from -standard to -fast standard so I voted for speed. 

LAME Encoders - Which alt-preset

Reply #27 –
Lame 3.96.1 -V4 (a.k.a. --preset medium). I use -V2 (a.k.a. --preset standard) every once in awhile, especially in cases where I've edited a wav file before encoding (for example, on Queen's Bohemian Rhapsody, so that the quiet parts aren't so ridiculously quiet compared to the louder parts).
I decided against using --vbr-new (a.k.a. "fast" preset) because I've noticed it failing (at -V4) on a couple of samples, and because it doesn't spread out the bitrate over frames as much.
-V4 is good enough for my hearing on nearly everything, and saves a fair bit on bitrate.
God kills a kitten every time you encode with CBR 320

LAME Encoders - Which alt-preset

Reply #28 –
--alt-preset insane

No one has ever complained that my mp3s sound too good. It also saves me from having to bother with tedious listening tests.

LAME Encoders - Which alt-preset

Reply #29 –
Don't do much ripping lately but,

3.90.3, alt-preset standard.

LAME Encoders - Which alt-preset

Reply #30 –
lame 3.97 alpha 10, -V 2

LAME version 3.97 (alpha 10, Apr  1 2005 20:16:32) (http://www.mp3dev.org/)

LAME Encoders - Which alt-preset

Reply #31 –
I'm using MP3 format to feed my small portable player, and I used to set LAME with --preset 128...140 for most encodings. In some occasion, I prefer -V5 --vbr-new or -V4 --vbr-new.

EDIT: lame version = 3.97 alpha

LAME Encoders - Which alt-preset

Reply #32 –
Currently I use lame 3.97 alpha 10 --preset standard -Y

LAME Encoders - Which alt-preset

Reply #33 –
Quote
--alt-preset insane

No one has ever complained that my mp3s sound too good. It also saves me from having to bother with tedious listening tests.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=287487"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


lossless is your friend

LAME Encoders - Which alt-preset

Reply #34 –
I voted for lame 3.96.1 --preset standard. I reckon that's the most successful lame preset ever made. Files are not very big, sounds not much worse than extreme. Frankly speaking, I would give up lame for OGG Vorbis, if Vorbis was implemented in the hardware I use. I have portable SONY D-NE710. Sounds not bad, but has some problems with some VBR encoded files: determines track time incorrectly and the sound disappeares for a couple of seconds (probably a buffer bug). CBR plays perfect, but no gapless playback provided.

LAME Encoders - Which alt-preset

Reply #35 –
I use -preset extreme, but I'm considering stepping back to -V1. Size is not a HUGE concern, and I somehow feel like I'm buying "insurance" at this bitrate. Generally, output files average <256kbs (rock and electronica), and that's the CBR setting I used to use with older encoders before I discovered LAME. I've ABX'd a number of my own files with -ape and could never tell the difference. So it works for me.

What I CAN tell is the difference between MP3 CD-ROM players, such as comparing my old Panasonic SL-35 with my iRiver iMP-50.  Huge difference in tone and quality, which raises the question of which decoder algorithms different MP3 players use (disk, flash, or HD). But that's a question for a different thread.

LAME Encoders - Which alt-preset

Reply #36 –
Quote
Quote
--alt-preset insane

No one has ever complained that my mp3s sound too good. It also saves me from having to bother with tedious listening tests.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


lossless is your friend
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=287583"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I definitely have the hard drive space for flac or ape, but I'd have to give up my beloved [a href="http://www.muzicman.com/]audio player[/url] since it only supports mp3 and wav.

The players that support lossless don't have all of the features I'm looking for.

LAME Encoders - Which alt-preset

Reply #37 –
Just started using the settings -V 2 -m j -h for recreating my music library over.  I've finished 1 CD and got about 400 to go 
I was using -V 2 -b 192 -m j -h before, but I thought it was time I started taking advantage of VBRs ability to adjust to the sound complexity of a track.
J

Edit: Using EAC .95 pb5 and lame 3.90.3
And do you think those settings should be adequate for use with an iPod? I'm not sure how well it will handle VBR tracks and I use my iPod a ton.  Even got a new car stereo that can controll it a few months back.

LAME Encoders - Which alt-preset

Reply #38 –
Quote
Just started using the settings -V 2 -m j -h for recreating my music library over.


Why do you add "-m j -h"? -m j is useless to add, while the -h setting could very well give unwanted effects on quality..

I think it's established around here that you should stick to the default settings 

LAME Encoders - Which alt-preset

Reply #39 –
Well I'm not using them anymore...thx for the info.  I'm still kind of looking around before committing to encoding my whole music library over.  Oh and what about setting min and max bitrates?  Is that also something already included in the preset?
J
With the presets doesn't the bitrate decide whether its joint stereo or regular though?  Pretty sure I read that among the tons of pages I've read about Lame tonight.

LAME Encoders - Which alt-preset

Reply #40 –
Quote
What I CAN tell is the difference between MP3 CD-ROM players, such as comparing my old Panasonic SL-35 with my iRiver iMP-50.  Huge difference in tone and quality, which raises the question of which decoder algorithms different MP3 players use (disk, flash, or HD). But that's a question for a different thread.


[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=287601"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


It probably has more to do with the analog circuitry and the DAC stage than different decoders.

LAME Encoders - Which alt-preset

Reply #41 –
Quote
Oh and what about setting min and max bitrates?  Is that also something already included in the preset?

Yes, have a look here:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=18091

Quote
With the presets doesn't the bitrate decide whether its joint stereo or regular though?

No, it only "decides" between ms & ss.

LAME Encoders - Which alt-preset

Reply #42 –
Quote
--alt-preset insane

No one has ever complained that my mp3s sound too good. It also saves me from having to bother with tedious listening tests.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=287487"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


umm, actually I've heard RIAA is going to file a complain 

LAME Encoders - Which alt-preset

Reply #43 –
Ya, I read through that entire post last night after making this one...sorry for not searching a bit harder.
Thanks for the response I appreciate it. 
J

LAME Encoders - Which alt-preset

Reply #44 –
3.96.1 -V4 (--vbr-new)

Transparent to me when I'm not paying too much attention, as is often the case in my car or with my portable. Even when listening more or less closely I have never been annoyed by the quality, so it has just the right quality/size ratio for me.

LAME Encoders - Which alt-preset

Reply #45 –
Quote
And do you think those settings should be adequate for use with an iPod? I'm not sure how well it will handle VBR tracks and I use my iPod a ton.

--preset standard is more than adequate for portable use. If you are low on space, consider stepping down to V3, V4 or even V5. I don't think there should be a problem with VBR files.