In lame there are some --preset switches (btw they need to be updated).
They are official switches. Now in alpha there are the --dm-preset-xxx.

I think it would be better in order to try maintening consistency to have them under --preset dm-xxx. It should be done now if we want to switch them, because it will be near impossible after the beta release.

I'd like your opinion about this.

All I can say is the shorter the line the better.
Why not just -dm xxx e.g. -dm standard?

And now for the real reason I'm posting: Shouldn't gabriel and robert be more than Junior Member? Shame on the moderators

Regards, stoff

Well one of the original reasons I didn't just add the --dm-preset's to the --preset switches is because I felt they didn't belong there at the time. What I was looking at was a more in depth tweaking and construction of presets and I felt the normal --preset switches were a bit outdated (as you seem to agree with). However, this was only in my custom compile and I had never originally actually intended that they be included in the mainline.

I'm not 100% sure yet what would be the best approach to take here, but perhaps a name change would be appropriate. To be honest, I would actually be interested in totally revamping the preset system and including the --dm-presets as some of the defaults. Currently, using these presets over the normal ones or just the typical LAME switches, results in much higher quality. Unfortunately for those that don't know about them (and don't read the help), they won't be able to realize this quality.

Perhaps what I would suggest in order from highest to lowest default settings:

dm-preset insane
dm-preset xtreme
dm-preset standard
--r3mix
(another setting somewhere between)
ff123 and Han's suggested ABR line

and then some other stuff further down. I think all of this should be automatic. In fact, maybe you could even set up a system which could dynamically interpolate between presets (I know it already does this with the lowpass and ATH, but I don't think this is enough personally). Say you would specify -V100% and it would pick insane, -V90% and it would be somewhere between insane and xtreme, and so on. A somewhat less verbose switch than the current one could then be added which could show what is the "base" preset, and what tweaks were made to it (ATH modifications, noise measuring modifications, joint stereo threshold modifications, etc.)

I think I would really like this idea and many others would as well. A Lame 3.90 release with a totally revamped and vastly improved preset selection would be one of the best things that could happen to the project IMO. As it currently stands, there are way too many experimental switches in common use which shouldn't be. The presets should take care of all of this for the user.

Believe it or not, it appears most developers aren't interested/don't have time to be moderators Robert actually does have mod rights to the news section though so he can post news, same as with Monty and Ivan, and now that Buschel joined I'll have to give him access too

Ooops, I was more thinking about upgrading these good fellows too something like Senior Members. Something in the line of a nice gesture! :drink:

Regards stoff

automatic stuff: yes, LAME should automatically select the best settings, according to the target bitrate or quality level (for vbr).
But the current default settings are not the most efficients, specially at very low bitrates. I'm not sure about automatically selecting a preset, but the idea and result would be similar.

About the --preset thing: it seems that you wouldn't disagree if your presets were moved into the --preset area, is it right?

About the junior state: I really don't care. In fact I care more about the first capital missing in my name.

Btw, I'm not sure (but it's only my understanding/opinion) that there will be so much more work in 3.90 before beta/release.
It doesn't means that further tuning work is not important, but we really need another release soon, as too many people are still using the 3.70 as it's the latest "stable".

Gabriel,

Are the lame developers going to make the final 3.90 the "stable" or are they going to release 3.90beta, then stabilize it, then release 4.0 "stable"?

Thanks,
RD

I can't give you a definitive answer. All I know is that some expressed the desire to have 3.90 promoted to release, and some didn't expressed anything. So far no one (to my knowledge) has objected.