Hi Folks,

Its just a minor issue.... as i now have seen some comments/remarks that sounds like -h now defaults to -q 3 in lame 3.95.1 ....
and if I invoke it from CLI with just -h %in %out as parameters the verbose information displayed by lame states qval=2.... whereas it is true that the --alt-presets now default to qval=3 instead of the old 2...
As I am using the compile from mitioks site ... is this some misinformation I encountered in regards of the -h switch, or is it that it even behaves different on various compiles ?

The new q3 is equal to the old q2, so -h is still pointing to the same code. There's an additional mode which is q0 now (was something about optimization of huffman encoding IIRC) - that's why q numbers were shifted. If you want more information about this do a (n extended) forum search for recent posts by Gabriel.

gday..

my 3.95.1 (rarewares)
with --preset extreme says q2..

just my two bits..

Ok - i think my english may need some adjustment....
btw. I've searched for gabriel and found a lot of usefull information but not to the one question if different compiles of one lame version behave differently on the switches....

As I have written above if I use the -h switch on mitioks stable release Lame tells me it is using q=2.... so when old q2 algorythm now is q3 -h in fact uses a different code, or (thats were I see the contratiction to the quote) is that a false assumption in regards of the fact the verbosed lame output says qvalue=2 (if the old 2 is now 3.... shouldn't it then tell me qval=3 (if -h was ment to invoke the used to routine?) ??? (At least the html files that are included with lame still says -h is same as -q 2 )... see " me is confused now " ))

ok, posted while I was writing....
thanks n68 - I think thats answered then.....

Mine says q3, and it should be q3. It should only be q2 if you used -h.

-h with 3.93 and 3.94/3.95 is q2.
The former q2 from 3.93 has been moved to q3, so yes -h in 3.95 is different from -h in 3.93.

Thanks for clarification, Gabriel.

ciao..


yes youre right tigre.. i checked my line.. and there is a -h
at the end.. sorry to miss-inform..