What do you all think of my page (click here); I targeted newer users but I think anyone would like it.

Feedback is appreciated!

Well, I checked the faq page very quickly. Seems like you have been copy-pasting from r3mix.net regarding nspsytune... It's not exactly correct.

--nspsytune doesn't use -X0 by default in CBR mode (nor vbr).
If you use just a basic cbr/vbr line with nspsytune (no preset), it uses -X1. You can check this with --verbose switch.
It'll show:
"experimental X=1 Y=0 Z=1"

Also it's good that you tell about Lame's better joint-stereo, but it isn't exactly true that:"Other CODECs just use mid/side frames all the way, thus destroying the stereo image on very "stereo- independent" songs."
Other codecs use also m/s and l/r -frames when encoding with joint-stereo.

Not sure also about the --nssafejoint description. If you say it keeps the stereo image "tight", it gives in my opinion just the opposite impression it should..

"I totally endorse the LameEnc CODEC, which is also available from the Files section of this site. This piece of software is based on the FhG CODEC's source"

The site is very good! Lots of useful information, but:




So why are you using -m s, why not use the highly tuned alt-presets even for cbr?

%s %d --alt-preset cbr xxx

About the -q0.. I wouldn't use it with anything except with lowbitrate without nspsytune at the moment. -q0 was changed in 3.90a stage, and it's still regarded experimental.

It may give higher quality (has anybody noticed?) at lower bitrates, but it does not give higher quality with higher bitrate nspsytune at least with "noise shaping type 2". Better to recommend the tested and high quality -q2.

Hmm. I think someone should finally test this -q0 issue properly.. I'll try if I have time.

In case it is not clear what Gabriel is saying here, the statement he is quoting is not accurate.

Lame is open source and is not based at all on FhG code. I don't think FhG has ever made their code available.

FhG was used as a comparative tool for Q/A for a time, but I think most would now agree that Lame is a superior encoder, especially for VBR.

The Lame developers would likely appreciate you changing this.

Wow, what a great response! Thanks for all the observations everyone.
I will make the changes you all suggested later this evening.

Thanks for proof-reading it! (These forums kick ass.)