Hi there and damn you all !
Before I read through all your topics here, I felt so secure about LAME.exe -h -b 192 and now ...

1. I want to encode my CD collection at high quality for archival (encoding speed doesn't matter). I'm thinking of a bitrate of around 256 kbit/sec . Should I use Lame 3.91 or something else like mpc ( just heard of it, but if the encoder is really closed source, I'd hate that) ?

2. I got really confused about all the stuff I read here, so please tell me again which is the best option for Lame 3.91... I asume "--alt-preset extreme" (since insane is insane) ?! Any other switches ?

3. Does this switch take care of all the artifacts ? And is the joint stereo safe now ? i.e. no chance of it creating artifacts ?


4. What lowpass value does --alt-preset extreme use ?

5. In some razorlamesettings.zip I downloaded from here, it staed quality=4 for ap extreme. Wouldn't q=2 provide higher quality , since speed is not an issue ?

6. I heard a lot about different compiles here... Is Lame 3.91 really uptodate in terms of encoding quality ? Which compile should I use for max quality ? (today is Feb 24, 2002)

7. Does the lame_dll allow for all the same options as the lame.exe ? Which one do you advise to use ?

8. Whats the best encoding frontend for Lame on Windows ?
I'm asking since I had problems with long filenames with Cdex when not using the dll version.

9. Some tools including EAC unfortunately don' allow to turn on only custom settings... so to what value should I set the bitrate in the GUI application, so that it doesn't interfere/alter with the VBR settings of --ap extreme ? ( and --ap standard ?)

10. Is every newbie like me , actually asking that "best setting"-question ?

Thx a lot
freedom4u

Hehe, was in the same situation as you, but a few months ago I was feeling safe with Audiocatalyst Xing VBR (have some 15 mp3 CD's that I'd throw away right now), so you're in a better situation.

For archival I'd go with mpc... mpc is mature enough to handle anything you throw at it, being sure that you won't have any artifacts or any encoding troubles using --standard (~170kps)... if you want to play it safe just choose --xtreme (~200kps).

I started to encode my 400+ CD's a few months ago, and since I have no problems regarding quality using mpc.

OK, you can start archiving using lame, but meanwhile I guarantee you that lame 3.95 or higher will be available; it's fun to reencode everything once again, but that's not for me.

Regarding the closed source, that's no problem, unless you like to compile your own encoder version...

Hi and thanks for your quick reply
I'm just afraid that because of the closed sourced , mpc will just ot be as compatible in future , also I just read in the "Advancing to another format" -Thread that hardware support is unlikely for mpc but likely for Ogg Vorbis...
So Ogg Vorbis sounds promising, but should I use it or LAME for now ? And will Vorbis for sure allow higher quality and less artifacts @~256kbits than LAME ? I mean is the concept/standard behind it really better than the mpeg1 Layer3 standard ?

Should I wait to encode my archive with Vorbis or has it allready reached the level of quality the --alt-preset extreme option offers with LAME ?

Thanks a lot ;-)
btw I'm always looking for further comments on 1 - 9 thx

2 - I would say use --alt-preset standard for casual listening & trading (if you do it) over bandwidth limited connections, --alt-preset extreme for harder to encode musics & "serious" listening (expensive speakers/headphones?), and --alt-preset insane for archiving, if you must use the MP3 format for that purpose.

Just IMHO, and nothing above is "set in stone," since aps is good enough for most music, and it depends on your hearing abilities too (and available storage space).

Edit -- because of the hearing ability issue, I would recommend using a lossless format like LPAC or Monkey's Audio for 'true' archiving (backing up CD's), and if possible save the "cue sheet" generated by EAC too.

Ok, here we go:
1. Lame 3.91 is fine at the moment. There is a sticky thread in the mp3 section that always lists the recommended compiles. To quickly sum it up: if you want superb quality use mpc; if you want open source and better than mp3 use ogg; if you want compatibilty use mp3; if you want to be different try aac. Imho sound quality is of more importance than open/closed source.

2. alt-preset standard (aps) is good enough for many. If you want to enter the bitrate range of extreme you would be much better off using mpc or another format.

3. The alt-preset switches deliver the currently best possible quality that mp3 can achieve at a certain bitrate. As a general rule: don't mess with them. There will allways be artifacts here and there. They can not be avoided because of the design of mp3 itself. They can only be made less audible. aps uses JS and it's pretty safe.

4. ? Should be high enough anyway (>19kHz); don't worry.

5. Dunno about that one either. I don't think q4 is used but either way the value is well chosen.

6. See 1.

7. No. Use the command line encoder. There are hacked versions which allow you to use the alt-presets

8. Can't really tell. Razorlame does it's job well. You might want to try layer3maniac's lamedropp which works like oggdrop. I use the custom menu in my file commander but I've also had issues with very long filenames.

9. In case of aps set the bitrate to 128 since that is the current setting in aps (still allowing 32 for silent parts). In EAC though you can tell the prgramm to use a custom encoder. Scroll down the list to the very bottom.

10. Yes, but many "oldies" (should imho) ask themselves the very same question over and over again . Check the "recommended settings" sticky thread in the mp3 section.

You're welcome

MPC's encoder is closed source.
Your choices for LAME (ranked by quality):
--alt-preset extreme
--alt-preset 256
--alt-preset cbr 256

Another good option will be to use Ogg Vorbis at -q 8

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/showth...s=&threadid=260

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/showth...s=&threadid=759

19.5kHz or 20kHz, forgot which. Shouldn't matter to you anyway

There are known problems with -q0 and -q1 (which corresponds to q=2 and q=3), so -q2 (q=4) is used

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/showth...s=&threadid=551
Lame 3.91 is the latest and is pretty much exactly the same as the 3.90.2 in the thread. 3.90.2 may be a bit faster though.

Nope, you can't use the --alt-presets with the lame_dll. However there are a few hacks around which translates qvalues to certain --alt-presets. You have to look around for that one.

I like LameDrop at http://www.inf.ufpr.br/~rja00/ You might want to check this out too:
http://ikonboard.napigator.com/ikonboard.c...c79cf0d63f3ffff;act=ST;f=2;t=57

128 kbps for both

Yeah, that's why I keep the URL in the answer to question 2 handy.

Hi and thanks for all your help
I guess I could have spared a bunch of questions if I read through this and forums some more, but I'm writing a major exam tomorrow and I wanted to get all them spooky mp3 quality settings out of my mind quickly...
Unfortunately I kept discovering more and more most interesting facts here which made me less and less sure of what I did concerning music encoding up to now

And also most of you made a comment like " if you must use mp3" etc. which made me start my Ogg Vorbis vs mp3 thread where I'm planning to continue this discussing ...

Thanks for all your help

btw I'm sorry I accused EAC wrongly. It does allow for all custom settings if you select "user defined enc" in the parameter passing scheme...

If you really have been happy using the very simplest of 192kbps settings until now, there's no reason for you to change you encoding attitude completely. Just use --alt-preset cbr 192.