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: Alpha9: new extreme vs. standard (Read 3139 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Alpha9: new extreme vs. standard

Dibrom,

I was just curious as to how good you think the new extreme is compared to the new standard in the latest ICL compile.

Obviously you have tested and tweaked standard much more time-wise than extreme...perhaps porting over the tricks learned from tweaking standard will not always translate perfectly to extreme, and then again perhaps not.

So for example,
(1) are there any files where extreme does not sound as good as standard?

(2) are there any files where the new extreme adds artifacts that standard does not? (I remember you mentioned in the old days :-) the lower ath of extreme combined with other factors sometimes caused high frequency artifacts that standard did not have.

(3) In short, is extreme very safe to use now or do you still consider extreme and insane to be "EXPERIMENTAL"?

Thanks and have a great holiday...

Alpha9: new extreme vs. standard

Reply #1 –
It should be safe to use the extreme mode.  In the alt-presets I have spent much more time tuning extreme and insane than I ever did with the --dm-presets, and also I think due to the way the newer modes are designed there is much less of a chance for there to be some sort of "fluke" where quality could decrease in going from a lower to higher preset.  So far I don't know of any cases where extreme or insane are worse than standard.  I no longer consider (and actually haven't for awhile now) them "experimental".

Quote
Thanks and have a great holiday...


Np, and you too