Hello all

I try to undrstand some Lame stuff.

Lame 3.90.3 is better than the last 3.96

Winamp 5.05 uses Lame 3.96 to encode

I try to use Cdex anc EAC but I don't understand anything about the preset I need to put for each encoder (ie: -alt-preset standard --id3v1-only --ta "%a" --tt "%t" --tl "%g" --ty "%y" --tn "%n" %s %d)

Because I don't understand anything and as long as I will not understand anything, I will use Winamp encoder. (I am willing to understand but I just need time on internet to learn)

I'd like to know if the Winamp encoder is really that bad.
I know that it's the 3.96 and not 3.90.3 so only with that, I am sure a lot of people will tell me that it's a crap encoder but, seriously, what the difference with an other encoder (except for EAC which I know read twice at least the same part of ...)

for a CBR 320, is there any difference between 3.96 and 3.90.3?

Please help me to understand the preset on EAC.

Or maybe somebody can export and send me is profil from EAC.

Thank you all

one day, I will know

What if you try to replace lame_enc.dll in the winamp plugins folder?

c:>program files>winamp>plugins

Replace the one that is in winamp plugins folder with one from here.

Don't know if it will work, worth a try though.

EDIT: Corrected the name of the DLL to lame_enc.dll (Thanks Sawg! )

collins > Lame 3.90.3 is better than the last 3.96

From an encoding standpoint with LAME.exe (or a 3.96.1 dll) ... Not true...

By last you mean 3.96.1, correct?

3.90.3 does better on some samples...and vice versa. There's been plenty of discussion over this and from what I've seen around here...it's a very close call. So close that the encoding speed gains from 3.96.1 won me over (that is...when I do a mp3 encode...which is rare).

xen-uno

So in that case isit lame3.97 recomended over3.96.1??

3.97 is in alpha state and should only be used for testing purposes.

Just to clarify, Winamp uses two files: enc_lame and lame_enc. Replace lame_enc. enc_lame is the interface to Winamp. lame_enc is the standard DLL uses in many other programs.

Ok ok, I,ve read the forum and I've seen that 3.90.3 and 3.96.1 are the best one even if some people prefer 3.90.3 or 3.96.1

But, my question is :
How is the winamp encoder ? what is the difference with an other one like Cdex or EAC (except that EAC read twice each position of the disc or whatever… )

I tried both of them and I've seen that we need to configure the encoder and choose the lame.exe but in winamp, there is no lame.exe that's why I am confuse. How does winamp work, is it as good as Cdex or other ?

For the dll, I think I will keep the actual one in winamp which is 3.96. It's not that bad, is it ?

Thanks


An other point, in winamp, there is some alt preset settings but we need to choose the lowest bitrate and the maximum bitrate for each settings (standard, fast standard, extreme, insane…) but I don't know what to choose for each settings.

Thank you again

Thank you!!

OK, I should try to clear it up for you...

First, WinAmp is not an encoder, the encoder is LAME!
The difference between WinAmp and EAC or CDex is that WinAmp is mainly a player with plugins which support eg. ripping, encoding and other more or less important functions. EAC & CDex are high quality grabbers of Audio CD's which can also encode PCM (*.wav) into MP3 through LAME encoder.

Difference between lame.exe and lame_enc.dll. Basically it's the same except that *.exe is a console application which you have to use over front-end (RazorLame...) or through a console...

Yes, 3.96 is not that bad.

--alt-presets (standard & extreme) If I'm right both use minimaly 128kbps and maximaly 320 kbps... Fast are the same except the use the -vbr new switch.
--alt-preset insane is a 320 kbps CBR, the best MP3 can offer!

Edit: poor english...

OT, but I would like to point out that the official LAME website does not mention WINAMP as software that uses LAME when it probably should.

I don't know if I should post here or just create a new thread in this forum. I just upgraded my Winamp from 5.1 Pro to 5.11 Pro. According to the version history, one fix Winamp made is "Updated: LAME 3.96.1". I don't know what the previous version of LAME was on Winamp.

However, when I go to Winamp Preferences > CD Ripping, the only encoding formats I see for MP3 is, "MP3 Encoder v1.21". Does that use LAME 3.96.1? All of the other choices are for WAV, AAC, and WMA.

Whether or not MP3 Encoder v1.21 uses the latest (stable) LAME, what is the best way to configure the MP3 encoder options for the best qualty/file size trade-off? Most of my MP3s are at 192 kbps CBR. But it looks like many hear think VBR is superior to CBR. So assuming that's true, how do I select the VBR options? Winamp (in the CD Ripping preferences) has "VBR default", "VBR old", "VBR new", and "VBR mtrh". Should I just use "new"?

And, they have the following choices: "Stereo", "Joint Stereo", "Multi-Channel", and "Mono". Obviously mono is out. But for MP3s, which one should I choose from the first 3? I know CDs are designed for 2.0 speakers, so what benefit do 'JS" and "M-C" have?

If I want 192 kbps VBR, what should I set the minium and maximum bitrates to? If I select 192 for both, wouldn't it essentially be CBR? Finally, how should I se tthe Quality and VBR Q options? Thanks in advance.

BTW, here's a picture of the Winamp CD Ripping Encoder GUI.

The version of the MP3 encoder refer to their dll frontend to the LAME library.
I haven't verified it, but we should believe what they've put in the whatsnew.txt about using lame 3.96.1

For 3.96.1, the recommended VBR setting would be VBR Old. VBR New is started to be recommended in 3.97 due to some intensive work done on it. Anyone here can correct me if this is wrong.

About the Stereo Mode, there are several threads here explaining and discussing them. The recommendation *for LAME* is to use Joint Stereo.

For minimum and maximum bitrate, use min 128 and max 320.

I don't have Winamp Pro, so i am unsure about the "Quality" Option. You could check between High and Very High. ( generally, in LAME it is used -q 2, so I don't know which one is mapped to that one).

And finally, the "Q" setting, set it to 2 or 3.


The only problem with these settings is that they don't use the so-called "presets". They would help increasing the resulting quality, but the options i've told you are the most approximate to them.

I asked former Winamp devs to not show presets options to the users, as it would just clutter the interface and confuse newbies.

Thanks for the info., that helps a lot. I took another screen shot that shows all of the "Quality" options. By setting the bitrates between 128 and 320, that means the average bitrate would be (128+320)/2 = 224, right? I realize that it depends on the contents of the MP3 file itself, but I'm just looking for a ballpark estimate. I'd like to stay around 192, but 224 is doable - file size is still reasonable (i.e. under 2 MB per minute).

No. This is not calculated that way.

MP3 files store information in blocks of a fixed size. These are the bitrates ( 112,128,160...)
When using VBR, minimum bitrate and maximum bitrate tells the encoder to constrain to some limits when deciding which size to use.

But looking at the screenshot that you show, probably the best thing you can do is select "--alt-preset standard" from the Quality list and forget about the other settings. And bitrate will be around 180~210, like you want.

Thanks for the info. When I set "Quality" to "--alt-preset standard", it grayed out the Mode fields and locked them to "VBR old" and "Joint Stereo". I guess I'll go w/ that.

I also played around w/ the other Quality settings to see what they'd gray out various fields to. As far as VBR goes, most simply set the "Mode" to either "VBR old" or "VBR new".