ok, so if the devil is six then god is seven and if god is seven then...

here's a rough approximation of soundquality on a 10 pt scale

Lossless- 10 (duh)
mpc- (9.5)
mp3 lame aps (9)

now, what would r3mix be on this? or ogg gtb?

maybe add a lower anchor to make the scale more clear.

- Lyx

Threads which could truly answer this question are lost within the dead r3mix forum.

this Monkeyaudios gone to heaven

--r3mix would be somewhere between gpsycho CBR 192 LR stereo and --aps. You do the math =).

Try this r3mix.net forum @ www.ezboard.com
The mirror is gone now.

Later, tec

That is the OOOLD r3mix forum...
Not very interesting...

Here's one way of thinking about r3mix. Imagine you grew up somewhere that only had a Taco Bell to eat at. You ate it 4-5 times a week for lunch. One day you left your scenic valley and went to the a land that had many authentic mexican restaurants and hot chicks. You then realized you had been eating dog food for the last 19 years. This is how r3mix is compares to the rest. Think of Roel as a gourmet chef of easy to prepare microwave bean burritos.

It depends about which LAME version we're talking about.

As of ~LAME 3.95+ --r3mix has now been remapped to -V3 --vbr-new. So in that context, I'd say it's not that bad at all.

When people complain about the quality of --r3mix it's generally because they've just read others complain about it and then repeat this parrot fashion.

It's the home of the --alt-presets, what do you expect?

I have the album Nirvana-In Utero encoded with LAME 3.89b --r3mix & it doesn't sound the best, I could easily ABX most tracks, average bitrate is 172 kbps. I would rank 3.89b --r3mix close to the current LAME 3.96 --preset 128 as far as quality.

LOL! You sure have a way with words! Lead me to the land of "authentic mexican restaurants and hot chicks".


The r3mix recomended command line (and later preset) changed over time. IIRC the nspsytune based r3mix has temporal smearing problems. There's an older gpsycho based r3mix which didn't have such bad pre echo, but had other problems. In some lame versions, r3mix wasn't bad for the time. The problems came when people started trying to fix the remaining faults, while the preset author claimed they weren't worth fixing.

I wouldn't bother re-encoding anything if I couldn't hear anything wrong with it. However, I never used r3mix after the dm-presets (later alt-presets) became available - not even to reduce the bitrate.

Blind test results for r3mix vs dm-presets are quoted here:

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....ndpost&p=183841

hope this helps.

Cheers,
David.