Everyone

Last night I ripped some tracks (Mahavishnu Orchestra - Inner Mounting Flame) with the new rarewarez compile of 3.93.1. To my surprise APE was much faster than 3.90.3 APE, even faster than its own APS! I was getting X2.8 cpu/real ratio on 3.93.1 APS, but on 3.93.1 APE the ratio was up around 4X. The files were also slightly larger than CBR 256 files. The sound seemed more open than 3.93.1 APS, more open that CBR 256.

Is this version optimized for APE?

Is there any testing planned for this version vs 3.90? APS vs APE?

It's rarewares, not rarewarez .

You need to do a LOT of reading up on LAME and its preset modes. May I refer you to the sticky FAQ in the mp3 forum.

This is a version of Lame 3.93.1 supporting decoding of .ape (Monkey's Audio) files
and .apl (Monkey's Audio playlists) for cue sheet support.

3.90.x is much slower than 3.93.1, every version.

/EDIT\
BTW, do some blind testing before posting your opinions - read FAQ for more information.
\EDIT/

I was referring to --alt-preset extreme, not Monkey's audio

As you wish - there are three Rarewares' compiles: standard, Modified with APE and cuesheet support and Modified --aps only.

The one modified with APE has support for Monkey's Audio.

Presets should be exactly same between 3.90.3 and 3.93.1, but files produced won't be bit-identical.

There are AFAIK no samples where --aps fails but --ape doesn't.
Both use VBR mode, maybe different options (esp. lowpass) and code tuning.