Hello everybody, I'm insteresting by using this switch because of the speed of the encoding process and the average bitrate, but I want to know wich version of lame I should choose because I'm actually using 3.90.3. And if someone could tell me the command line equivalent of this switch..
Thanks by advance

The command line is equivalent to "--preset fast medium"

Thanks But i know I just want to know what are the switch equivalents of that command line?

IIRC there are some internal tweaks that can't be accessed by any other commandline (switches). If you want to know details about what settings lame uses, add --verbose switch (when encoding from commandline) and there'll be some info displayed.

Thanks for the tips but now I forgot this preset because of treble serious troubles on several test samples!!! cbr 160 is better!! I just want to make mp3 for my discman and my MuVo, but quality is not absolutly my goal!! I'm looking for Speed in encoding and musicality!! still searching..

Well, in LAME, the way to get the best quality out of an mp3 is not by using your own, or somebody else's, custom commandline. Stick with the presets, because they have been tuned beyond what all switches can possibly do.



Well (again ) in LAME, ABR mode is probably better than CBR. If you want to squeeze the best possible quality out of 160 kbps, use --preset 160. It's really quite simple.
Hope I have been of a little help.

What test samples: Problem samples that are linked in the FAQ - or your own samples?

What kind of serious troubles - Have you checked if the reason could be something else, e.g. eq activated (-> diasable all DSPs of your player), crappy decoder (what do you use for playback?), clipping (use mp3gain/replaygain), incompatible hardware player (some players can't handle 320kbps frames)?

Easiest way (IMO) to avoid these problems: Download foobar2000 and play back the encoded files with Replaygain enabled (+ "Use peak info to scale down tracks that still clip after applying replaygain" checked). Still obvious problems? Please report/describe here.


In case it's a problem with your portable player not able to decode 320kbps frames properly, you could try "--preset fast medium -B 256" or "--preset <bitrate> -B 256".
Using mp3gain after encoding is recommendable for portable use, no matter what encoder/settings you use (more information: -> FAQ).

lame 3.90.3, No EQ, MAD decoder with winamp2, No Gain used on them. I can hear serious troubles in high frequencies!!! Try on "60.wav"!!!
It's strange but I can't hear that ABR is best than CBR, sometimes (--preset 128)when average is 152 with "fatboy.wav" the quality is the same as cbr 128!!! and on music CBR seems to be better.. maybe I'm wrong..

Have you done a blind test to verify that CBR sounds better? Please see rule 8 of the HA terms of service. Is the problem only occuring on a couple troublesome samples or is it happening on lots of music?

No didn't used ABX for that, but I will

As you mention fatboy.wav I guess "60.wav" is from some test sample page too. Could you provide a link please (or - if not - upload it)?

So do I understand correctly?
You hear serious troubles in high frequencies (what kind of?) listening to "60.wav" using Winamp2.x+MAD/no EQ for playback with --preset medium used for encoding - or are you talking about --preset 128? And at what <bitrate> of --preset CBR <bitrate> setting is it sounding better --preset CBR 160 - or are you using -b 160?

on the hydrogen audio sample page the file "60.wav" which is a tonality check
http://lame.sourceforge.net/gpsycho/quality.html
use --alt-preset fast medium and compare. I have listen that with my high quality senheiser headphones on a SBaudiy2 card.

Thanks.

The crackling noise added is very obvious - even with onboard sound + PC speakers. It's the same with --preset medium, fast standard and standard. With --preset extreme I don't notice it anymore, --preset cbr 128 sounds okay too.

The sample consists of 2 constant sine waves at similar levels, one 60 Hz, one sligtly lower than 1000 Hz. On one hand it should be very easy to encode (Flac compresses it from 862Kb to 99KB, 7-zip even to 5 Kb losslessly! B) ), on the other hand it has nothing to do with real music! Codecs for compressing audio are designed and tuned for compressing music (or speech) and not to compress artificial test signals like this one. You wouldn't jugde the quality of an image compression codec designed for compressing fotos in the 1st place like jpeg by looking closely at a picture consisting of nothing than blue and yellow parallel lines, would you?

So If you want choose your encoding settings based on your own tests you should use test samples that consist of real music. Then you'll most likely find that you can't get better mp3 quality at comparable bitrates than with --preset (fast) medium (or --preset <bitrate> for lower bitrates.

Well but on music I can hear it!! I will try to post a link where you'll can hear it!! Didn't notice that on APS!!!

If you're able to ABX it you can ...
... start a thread in upload forum and upload a < 30 sec. sample (losslessly compressed) there.

Hi Yull.

Obviously you have enough time to post here and warn people not to use --alt-preset fast standard without having provided a proof that there's a problem.
I'd appreciate if you would use some of this time to keep your promise and post a sample you've ABXed successfully - as I have spent time trying to help you. Thank-you.

Cheers tigre