While I am new to these forums I have been lurking for a little while. I’ve done a few searches and haven’t seen this question posted before, so here it goes.

I have about 140 GB of MP3s that I have ripped (about two years ago) using EAC and then RazorLAME/LAME (don’t remember what version) using the --r3mix setting. As I have been reading the forums I see that everyone recommends using --alt-preset standard. I have two questions: 1) Why --alt-preset standard over --alt-preset extreme? Is the file size that much smaller? And/or the quality not that much different? Any reason not to use extreme? 2) Now that I have the 140 GB of MP3s that were done using --r3mix (at the time it seemed that it was the best setting) is it worth the effort to re rip using an --alt-preset setting? How much better would it be?

Thanks in advance and hopefully I can contribute more than I leach.

/SloppyB

1. APS is transparent to most people's ears. No need to waste bits if you cannot hear a difference. For harder samples, where audible artifacts are hearable, use APE.
2. If your r3mix MP3s sound fine to your ears, there is no need to re-rip.

--alt-preset standard is on average around 170kb/sec --alt-preset extreme is on average around 250kb/sec IIRC. I can't usually tell an audible difference from standard and extreme. If your --r3mix mp3s sound fine then it's just a personal choice whether or not you rerip. 140GB is a lot to rerip though

EDIT: You are too fast Sebastian