Perhaps posting a topic such as this on this particular forum isn't the wisest move for my first post, but I wanted to share my recent experience with others who may be lurking on this forum but have not yet posted themselves.

Before discovering hydrogenaudio.org, I got it in my head (some time ago) that I should encode my entire music collection. I spent many hours comparing the pro's and cons of various formats & encoders and doing my own listening tests with each of them. I'm sure we can all recognize what kind of excersize in self torture this can be.

For a variety of reasons, I eventually decided on MP3 as my format of choice. My goal was to encode with the most transparent output possible. I'd used LAME for years previously, but I did a bit of research and discovered --remix and started encoding. I was a ways along when I discovered --alt-preset standard -Y. I figured that was the way to go and I used the opportunity to grab the latest encoder (LAME 3.95.1) I could find and start over. This time however, I didn't go through the rigors of testing and just proceeded to encode.

Later, after actually listening to my encodes using LAME 3.95.1 --alt-preset standard -Y , I found the quality was not anywhere near what I'd envisioned it to be, and it was during my quest to find out why that I found hydrogenaudio.org. HOW on earth I missed this site for so long is a mystery.

Now, after doing some comparison tests wth the recommended LAME 3.90.3 --alt-preset standard (no -Y), the difference is night & day. The results I'm getting now are far better than what I was getting previously and are as transparent as I require. Once more I'm back to re-encoding my collection.

With these lessons learned, I have this advice to others. Do your research, trust what your ears tell you, and don't be so proud as to ignore the work and recommendations that others have done before you.

Perhaps my trials can be of some benefit to someone else. I so, it was worth posting.

Thanks.

Did you also try lame 3.95 --alt-preset standard (without -Y)?
-Y switch is very agressive, removing most high frequencies contents. -Y is generally used for portable playback, but is not adviced for archiving.
Anyway, if you like comparisons, 3.90.3 vs 3.96 tests with preset standard are welcome

It occurred to me immediately following my post that someone would most likely question that. Yes, I did test 3.95 without the -Y switch. I'm not sure if it's all in my head (which is most likely the case), but 3.90.3 still sounded better to me. I for one have no incentive now to move to any other version - 3.90.3 sounds great.

Thank you for coming, 31bitwonder, but you should first read the Terms of Service linked at the top of this page. The number 8 is the most important : sound quality discussions must always be based on evidence, never on opinions. In this case, this would be a successful blind listening test between 3.90.3 and 3.95, or more easier, between 3.95 and the original file.

Some important recommendations :

-An ABX test must be run only once ! You have no second chance.
-It follows from the above that you must only give confident answers to the test. If you are not sure about an answer, pause the test for some time, or just note the results so far, and go on later. There is no time limit. Some people have carried blind tests over several days, just a little bit each morning.