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: Newbie Question - is \'alt...160\' better than plain 160 in LA (Read 2534 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Newbie Question - is \'alt...160\' better than plain 160 in LA

I've been a happy user of Easy CDDA Extractor for the last year. it may not let me use extra command-line options, but it was fast, encoded on the fly using LAME w/o a WAV, and had great tagging options.

having tested with EAC, i'm wondering if the newest '--alt preset 160' tag will sound better than a default 160 HQ tag in LAME. sorry if this is a corny question, but i'm new to the command-line options in LAME.

Newbie Question - is \'alt...160\' better than plain 160 in LA

Reply #1 –
Yes.
Any of the --alt-presets have been tweaked to a higher quality than the standard settings.
You can't kill the Elephant.