Hi,

I have been reading as much as I can for the past few hours and I understand that --aps is the best option for general use, etc. However I notice that --aps uses a quality of 3. Would I get better results using -h as well? I just did a test and the filesizes where identical and they sounded the same. I originally thought the files were identical but there SHA1 values were different so I know they are identical.

I would appreciate some input as I am a little confused.

Also, just one more quick thing, I have been using the following command line options and just wondered if --aps is better (I assume it is but wanted to ask the experts).

--abr 192 -b 64 -B 320 -h -m j

I recently changed from using stereo to joint stereo as I (now) know that joint stereo is just as good/better. Thanks in advance

[edit]
I am using batch files on the wav files extracted with EAC and LAME 3.95.1
[/edit]

the presets will be better than pretty much all command lines due to code-level tweaks in LAME. these don't occur at all presets... and i forget which ones they workd for, but it give an idea about how much time and testing has gone into them.

personally i use --aps -Y

-Y could break transparency if you have bat-ears, but it shaves ~32 kbps off the filesize for various reasons (mp3 format's sfb21 problem) by not bothering to do noise-shaping on the highest band in mp3 (16k up). the highest band doesn't have its own scalefactor, which causes it to inflate the other bands at no real benefit to the output. you don't lose this band altogether - you just get a much "coarser" version of it that depends on the global scalefactor used for the whole block in question (hehehe. i can see you glazing over ).

this setting will give you an average of 192kbps on most music, but being true VBR you can't rely on that figure 100%

I'd recommend you to read the 'recommended settings' and 'recommended encoder' sticky threads in the MP3 forum.

AFAIK what you describe only happens with the newer (not so well tested) encoder versions.

In general, if APS doesn't use a 'maximum quality' setting, it's because the bitrate cost far outweights the gain, or because it was found not to improve (or actually worsen) quality.

I assume you mean "not identical". As Garf has hinted, what is happening is that the audio data is the same in both versions because -h is ignored, but the exact command line you used (including with or without "-h") is being recorded at the very start of the file - hence the two files are slightly different, but the audio in them is not!

If --alt-preset standard isn't good enough for you, try --alt-preset insane. You can't generally improve --aps by adding extra command line options, because of the internal tweaks triggered by --alt-preset standard, which you'll probably break or upset by adding other switches. For example, --alt-preset standard is already much better than -V0 -h.

Cheers,
David.

P.S. welcome to the forum! Take a look at the FAQ - it's quite long and detailed, though there are always new questions to ask!

Beware... in current Lame V3.95.1 the -Vx switches are mapped to "--alt-preset" switches.
See http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....topic=18091&hl= or http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....ndpost&p=176097

i have read in some thread here that adding -q0 to --preset standard, in the latest releases, will not change the quality, but will sometimes result in smaller files due to the use of the better algorithm. Of course such an encode will take a lot longer to finish, but personally I think it's worth it. (this would need lots of testing to gain acceptance with this group, so if you're up for it, test away)

But let's just stress this point: at the moment the tested and recommended encoder version and settings are listed in the FAQ: It's Lame v 3.90.3 with various alt presets.

By all means test the newer versions, but remember that's exactly what you're doing: testing.

An improvement on one or two samples (or someone claiming that the bitrate is lower and they "don't hear any problems") doesn't prove that the new encoder+setting is as good as --alt-preset standard - let alone proving that it's better!

So, testing is good - but sticking with what's in the FAQ for large scale encoding (until the tests are completed) is also good!

Cheers,
David.