Should I update my MP3 encoder?, I've been using RazorLAME for a decade now Options

[teh roxxors]

I would like to know if there is a superior alternative to RazorLAME, which (as far as I know) hasn't been updated since 2006.

I'm saving my music as 320kbps CBR MP3's (until someone makes FLAC players with 500Gb of RAM). My LAME options are -b 320 -m s -h.

It appears that BoncEnc and LameDropXP are being actively developed & supported, but are they any better? Or is there something else I should look at? I should mention I'm not interested in buying any audio suites at this time.

If I should change software, change LAME options, please let me know. Thanks so much for any advice you can offer!

[Slipstreem]

If I should change software, change LAME options, please let me know.

Drop the "-m s -h" and, ideally, grab LAME 3.98.2 if you don't have it already and all will be well.

Cheers, Slipstreem.

[Synthetic Soul]

You should be more concerned with the version of LAME that you are using. The latest is 3.98.2. I seem to remember reading that RazorLAME has issues with later versions of LAME, but I have no idea whether that is correct. Edit: Ah, looking at the RazorLAME homepage I suspect that 1.1.5a resolved the issues I vaguely referred to.

As a side note, did you perform listening tests to decide upon 320kbps CBR? Even if you dropped to -V0 VBR you could save a fair amount of disk space. Many here use -V2, which could save you a huge amount. It is always recommended to perform some listening tests to determine what setting is best for you though.

Edit: I just tested by encoding a WAVE using both RazorLAME and foobar with LAME 3.98.2. The settings I used with RazorLAME gave me the (reported) command line:

-b 8 -m j -V 2 -B 320

The files' audio data is identical. With this in mind I would have no qualms about using RazorLAME, although it is well worth taking a look at LAMEDropXPd, which is even easier to use, and maintained.

This post has been edited by Synthetic Soul: Mar 24 2009, 14:55

[memomai]

Give foobar2000 a try, if you haven't done it yet.

EDIT: Sorry, you've asked for the encoder. If you're using RazorLame for a while now, I guess you're still with lame3.90.3? Then replace lame.exe with the newest LAME v3.98.2 Version. Make sure you're using the right compile (especially when you're using an old windows.). You'll definetly gain higher speed generally.

PS: Why not using alt-presets (3.90.3) or simple -b 320 (3.98.2). Notice that your settings are not using optimal lame tunings for both quality and speed at this bitrate range.

This post has been edited by memomai: Mar 24 2009, 15:32

[teh roxxors]

If I should change software, change LAME options, please let me know.

Drop the "-m s -h" and, ideally, grab LAME 3.98.2 if you don't have it already and all will be well.

Cheers, Slipstreem.

This is a matter of replacing the old lame_enc.dll with a new one? Or do I need to run an executable, such as this one: LAME for Audacity.

Why doesn't the LAME home page have a .dll download?

[memomai]

RazorLame uses an executable, lame.exe. Download newest lame at www.rarewares.org, there you'll find the EXE and the DLL in the zip of the compile.

[teh roxxors]

Give foobar2000 a try, if you haven't done it yet.

EDIT: Sorry, you've asked for the encoder. If you're using RazorLame for a while now, I guess you're still with lame3.90.3? Then replace lame.exe with the newest LAME v3.98.2 Version. Make sure you're using the right compile (especially when you're using an old windows.). You'll definetly gain higher speed generally.

PS: Why not using alt-presets (3.90.3) or simple -b 320 (3.98.2). Notice that your settings are not using optimal lame tunings for both quality and speed at this bitrate range.

Still haven't found a .dll for v3.98.2; I'll keep looking.

the -m s come from setting my Mode to stereo; is the default mode preferred to this?

[twostar]

The LAME bundle here includes the dll.

[teh roxxors]

The LAME bundle here includes the dll.

Got it! Thanks!

RazorLAME itself hasn't changed since 2006, right? Is it OK to use, or should I switch to something like LameDropXP?

Thanks!

[uart]

the -m s come from setting my Mode to stereo; is the default mode preferred to this?

Yes the default mode is preferred.

[teh roxxors]

As a side note, did you perform listening tests to decide upon 320kbps CBR? Even if you dropped to -V0 VBR you could save a fair amount of disk space. Many here use -V2, which could save you a huge amount. It is always recommended to perform some listening tests to determine what setting is best for you though.

Edit: I just tested by encoding a WAVE using both RazorLAME and foobar with LAME 3.98.2. The settings I used with RazorLAME gave me the (reported) command line:

-b 8 -m j -V 2 -B 320

The files' audio data is identical. With this in mind I would have no qualms about using RazorLAME, although it is well worth taking a look at LAMEDropXPd, which is even easier to use, and maintained.

With a decent set of headphones, I can pick out the differences between 320kbps and 192kbps. I settled on 320kbps as it gives me a sense of security, which may be completely undeserved. I've read a LOT of people say that high-quality VBR is equally good or better, and it saves disk space. But I'm not worried about disk space as long as I'm using the MP3 format, and I imagine I'd have to have much younger ears to appreciate any quality differences between 320 CBR and good VBR.

I imagine I set up RazorLame according to an old Coaster Factory guide I no longer have, or just guessed at the best settings to use.

[teh roxxors]

the -m s come from setting my Mode to stereo; is the default mode preferred to this?

Yes the default mode is preferred.

Does choosing the high quality optimization make ANY difference in CBR encoding?

[Slipstreem]

Probably not. Can you hear any difference?

I don't know how much tuning has gone on in the CBR department with LAME of late (little if any if the changelogs are anything to go by), but defaults are generally regarded as providing the best possible output for a given bitrate in CBR, target bitrate in ABR, or -V value in VBR when encoding from a CD-quality (44.1/16) source. The defaults have been tuned. Random selections of switches haven't.

Additional switches may produce sub-optimal results under some circumstances, so why risk breaking it if you can't hear any difference.

Cheers, Slipstreem.

[kornchild2002]

With a decent set of headphones, I can pick out the differences between 320kbps and 192kbps.

Did you actually ABX the differences or just switch the tracks back and forth in your media player?

[teh roxxors]

Probably not. Can you hear any difference?

I don't know how much tuning has gone on in the CBR department with LAME of late (little if any if the changelogs are anything to go by), but defaults are generally regarded as providing the best possible output for a given bitrate in CBR, target bitrate in ABR, or -V value in VBR when encoding from a CD-quality (44.1/16) source. The defaults have been tuned. Random selections of switches haven't.

Additional switches may produce sub-optimal results under some circumstances, so why risk breaking it if you can't hear any difference.

Cheers, Slipstreem.

You rock.

Thanks for all the help, folks!!!!

[NeoRenegade]

For best control with RazorLame, I check the “use custom options only” box and just enter my commandline (e.g. -b320 or -V2) in the nearby textbox.