I am using LAME 3.90.3 and have been using the alt preset standard -z and alt preset extreme -z settings. Now I'm told that this version of Lame has that built in. Am I doing any harm by having the -z?

I dont think so. It probably just ignores the -Z part of the commandline. If i were you though, I'd not include it from now on as its unneccesary!

That's what I was hoping. Thanks.

i think i remember reading somewhere that using the -Z setting in that version is not a good idea, i could be wrong though. i would hold off encoding until you get an answer from some who knows alittle bit more about this.

try encoding a few songs with & without the -Z and see what happens. if you get different results then you might be screwed and have to start over.

My understanding is that -Z toggles the psychoacoutstic model. 3.90.3 by default enables the alternate (now recommended) model, so if you use it with -Z then you are toggling to the original model which is the same as using 3.90.2 without the -Z switch.

Bottom line: if using 3.90.3 use --alt-preset standard [or extreme or insane]. If using 3.90.2 use --alt-preset standard -Z [or extreme or insane].

I think there is a thread under LAME settings that explains it better (correctly?)

>>Edit: clarified that the -Z switch is now the recommended model<<

I'm a little confused now. According to the encoder I am using, I have Lame version 3.92. Did you really mean 3.90.2 or are there actually three versions of Lame? If so, what settings should I use for 3.92?

There are actually a lot more than three versions of Lame. I'm pretty sure only 3.90.3 has a "default" -Z setting built into it. Yes, v3.90.2 is different than v3.92.

You would want to use -Z with v3.92, as the 'recommended' setting. But if you haven't, don't worry too much about it... -Z went unused for a long time on HA, and nobody complained too loudly about SQ issues. From what I understand, it helps with a small number of problem samples and that's about all (somebody correct me if I'm wrong).

On that same note: If you used -Z with v3.90.3 (thus toggling it off), don't worry too much about that either unless you're hearing troublesome artifacts.

I use v3.92 myself and I'm still not bothering with -Z, personally.

Thanks for the info. I think I'll follow your advice and not use -z anymore. I am just glad that I wasn't degrading the quality by using that setting. I'm almost afraid to ask, but what are the pros and cons of each encoding version? Is there one considered the 'standard'?

Using -Z with 3.90.3 is like using 3.90.2 WITHOUT the -Z switch. What I mean is, using -Z when -Z is already included turns that feature OFF.

Not a big deal, but you are basically reverting to 3.90.2 behaviour when using -Z with 3.90.3.

v3.90.2 is the most widely tested over a long period of time (by the golden ears on HA), and 3.90.3 is (in my opinion a little impulsively, without a lot of testing) the same as v3.90.2, but with the -Z switch "built in" (on by default).

V3.92 is very similar to v3.90.2, afaik only a different compiler and compiler switches were used when building the executables. Some (including myself) say they hear a difference between the two versions, and bitrates are definitely a little higher with v3.92 and --alt-preset standard. I seem to hear a sort of "fuller" sound with v3.92 (please take this with a grain of salt, as I'm going on subjective impressions without ABXing).

LAME 3.90.2 is the "official" HydrogenAudio version, compiled by forum-founder Dibrom and fine tuned by exhaustive listening tests and input by the most respected members of this community (the so called, "Golden Ears"). 3.90.3 is the same one, but with added "-Z", which was found to help on some problem samples without affecting everything else. This was compiled by John33.

LAME 3.92 is the official development branch's "equivalent" compile to 3.90.2. Remember (or maybe you don't know) that Dibrom implemented some code-level tweaks on his compile. That is, "alt preset standard", "insane" and "extreme" use way more than just average LAME switches to achieve their high quality. The code itself was altered to produce better sounding MP3. The 3.92 compile incorporates such tweaks, but this compile has not been as tested as 3.90.2/3 (no where near!).
3.93.1 also has support for the alt presets, but it is the same story.

So, the smartest thing to do to get the best quality LAME has to offer is to use 3.90.3 (without -Z, okay?)

Nope. In john33's compile of LAME 3.90.3 (which is the only one around AFAIK), the -Z switch was completely disabled (it's hardcoded in), if you try encoding with it, LAME will quit with an error message.

Ah, that explains something! A while back, in RazorLame, I tried to use --alt-preset standard -Z after updating to Lame 3.90.3 I was puzzled for a minute as to why the material was not being encoded. As soon as I removed the -Z, everything was fine.

Thanks Volcano.