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: Should I change my old setting to *--alt-preset*? (Read 4358 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Should I change my old setting to *--alt-preset*?

First of all,my propose is to achieve my CDs and save them with the highest quality/filesize ratio.
I refed to r3mix.net and use teh setting of *-V1 -b128 -b320 -h -c -p* to achieve CDs since Lame 3.86 and I sactify with the quality and size.
But now,I thing the setting is "too old" for achieving and I want to have a new setting for saving music.
I got Lame 3.91 but I don't know if the *--alt-preset x* are safety enough to use.
I have never try *-r3mix* so I don't know what it sounds.Should I use *-r3mix* or *--alt-preset standard* or *--at-preset exterm*?which one does better in quality and produce mp3s below 220kbps?
And how about the *-q0* and *-b128*,Should I leave them out?
Btw,is it really hard to explain what are *--alt-preset x* stand for (explain in regalur setting ,such as *-V1*)?And how about *vbr-mtrh*?Does it sounds as good as *vbr-old *in quality?

P.S.sorry for my poor english.

Should I change my old setting to *--alt-preset*?

Reply #1 –
"--alt-preset standard" should be the setting you are looking for. Average bitrate will be around 192kbps. "--alt-preset extreme" will give you something around 256kbps. It is not possible to tell you what exactly it stands for because it represents a lot of custom internal tweaks which is not available from the command line.

"--alt-preset standard" gives far better quality than --r3mix for a small bitrate increase. Pre-echo is heavily reduced and most of the problem clips which plague --r3mix has been fixed in "--alt-preset standard"

--vbr-mtrh is seen to be slightly inferiour than --vbr-old in quality and produce slightly bigger files, but encoding is much faster.

Should I change my old setting to *--alt-preset*?

Reply #2 –
Agree totally

auldyin

Should I change my old setting to *--alt-preset*?

Reply #3 –
I decided to use lame 3.91 with options "-F -alt-preset standard" to prevent to very low bps for digital silence. The resulting mp3 now never drops below 128kbps. I know this is a bit (extreamly little?) wastefull, but I play my MP3 CDs on a Samsung DVD player (M405), where in the manual says there my be problems with very small kbps.

I just want to check that using -F will not interfear with the aps setting?

Should I change my old setting to *--alt-preset*?

Reply #4 –
Thanks!
But I want to know does the *--alt-preset standard* (aps)
doing better than my old setting?If it does and it will not cost my more a lot bitrate,I 'll turn to use it  (As my old setting,It cost 150~210kbps.)
Btw,should I add *-b128*&*-q0*&*-h* for *aps*?

P.S.I have read though teh froum but no people asked for the *-b -h -q*.

Should I change my old setting to *--alt-preset*?

Reply #5 –
Quote
Originally posted by Aaron_Law
Thanks!
But I want to know does the *--alt-preset standard* (aps)
doing better than my old setting?If it does and it will not cost my more a lot bitrate,I 'll turn to use it  (As my old setting,It cost 150~210kbps.)
Btw,should I add *-b128*&*-q0*&*-h* for *aps*?

P.S.I have read though teh froum but no people asked for the *-b -h -q*.


The alt-presets have been designed so that you'll get pretty much the best possible quality for a given bitrate range (depending on the switch you choose) .  You shouldn't need to add any additional switches.  Doing so may actually hurt more than help.

Should I change my old setting to *--alt-preset*?

Reply #6 –
Quote
Originally posted by NickSD


The alt-presets have been designed so that you'll get pretty much the best possible quality for a given bitrate range (depending on the switch you choose) .  You shouldn't need to add any additional switches.  Doing so may actually hurt more than help.

How about adding a lowpass firtter?Some people claim that it does not harm the *aps*.I want to know what can I add to *aps* without harming it.
Anyway,thanks for reply.java script:smilie('')

Should I change my old setting to *--alt-preset*?

Reply #7 –
--alt-preset standard already does a low-pass at 19000. You can change, though, if you wish. Just add it after the APS switch.

john33

Should I change my old setting to *--alt-preset*?

Reply #8 –
Does -F hurt aps?

Should I change my old setting to *--alt-preset*?

Reply #9 –
Probably not, but since these presets were designed and tuned by a guy whose probably forgotten more about audiocoding than most of us will ever know, I doubt there's really too much point in trying to tinker with them further. 'Suck it and see' is probably the answer.

john33

Should I change my old setting to *--alt-preset*?

Reply #10 –
OK cool, thanks. I'm not trying to improve qual, just trying to be safe with hardware

Should I change my old setting to *--alt-preset*?

Reply #11 –
-F won't hurt APS - it just forces digital silence frames to be 128kbps rather than 32kbps.  The resulting file should be identical in sound, only slightly bigger.  Dibrom mentioned elsewhere that lowering the lowpass filter is probably okay, and might in fact improve quality - it's kept fairly high right now to be conservative, but if it turns out that a lower lowpass filter would also be okay, then using it would increase the number of bits available to encode the rest of the frequencies.  I personally just use -aps as it is though.

Should I change my old setting to *--alt-preset*?

Reply #12 –
Quote
Originally posted by sam
OK cool, thanks. I'm not trying to improve qual, just trying to be safe with hardware


I do the same thing. My Apex DVD/MP3 player doesn't like 32kbs.

Should I change my old setting to *--alt-preset*?

Reply #13 –
I don't understand why people want to use -q0 especially with vbr? It enables experimental noise shaping and it's meant for low bitrate cbr. -q0 is not even the same it was in early 3.90alphas and earlier versions.

At higher bitrate and with vbr you only risk quality by using -q0 since it tries to save bits and still sound the same. Well, everybody knows wheter these kind of things are perfect or not...
With low bitrate cbr it might actually be useful by allocating more bits for more important frequencies. (Not sure if anybody have ever really tested it)
With higher quality vbr settings there's no reason to use -q0, since it's experimental and more cutting edge (more possibilities to fail).
Juha Laaksonheimo