Hello,

I'm sorry to ask such a lame question (no pun intended, lol) for my first post here, but I haven't been able to find the answer.

At some point in the last month or two I stumbled across some switches someone online that sounded good to me, so I started using them in EAC with LAME 3.96.1 ... I'm basically wondering if these are in fact good settings. I'm in the process of ripping some of my CD collection to MP3 and I would like the MP3s to be VERY good quality, being mindful of disc space to some extent (20GB iPod) ...

Here's what I've been using: --preset standard -V0 %s %d

Is this any good? Thanks in advance for your help!

Just use --preset standard. Drop the -V0 part.

I am curious whether that would spark -V2 for standard or instead use -V0 which is preset extreme. If you are indeed shooting for standard than just drop the -V0 part.

I believe (but am not 100% positive) that invoking a --preset overrides any commandline parameters that come before it, but not after it. So this file would end up being encoded at -px.

Well, I would like the BEST quality (I mean, within reason - I've only got a 20GB iPod) so would the -V0 sound better than --preset standard ??

In other words, should I just leave alone?

So, should it look like this:

--preset standard -V0 %s %d

or

-V0 %s %d

or

--preset standard %s %d

assuming I want the best quality ... ? Thanks again for your help!

ok well I just did a test, using EAC and LAME 3.96.1

I encoded Nirvana-Smells Like Teen Spirit, and here are the results:

--preset standard -V0 %s %d = 30 seconds to encode, 7.35MB, WMP says it's 203Kbps

-V0 %s %d = 23 seconds to encode, 9.63MB, WMP says 266Kbps

-V2 %s %d = 27 seconds to encode, 7.34MB, WMP says 202Kbps

So I guess that --preset standard -V0 %s %d thing I was using was slightly better than -V2.

Although, I can't seem to hear any difference between the three files. Am I just stupid or is the difference really that negligible?

Preset standard was created to be transparent. So no, your results are considered normal.

Just use either --preset standard or --preset extreme or it's equivalents -V2 or -V0.
They shoud produce the same files.
You can also consider -V1 which is somewhere in between them.
If you want the best quality go for --preset insane aka --preset cbr 320

I think you should go with --alt preset standard ....when people here talk a about problem samples you won't most likely not hear it...you probably can't even tell the difference between --alt preset standard and a 192kbps file...which is not surprising.

I don't like a newbe to think that --alt preset standard sometimes isn't prefectly transparent and thinks, oh well, than I rather stick with CBR 192kbps since I never had a problem with that... Compared to --alt preset standard, CBR 192kbps files sound like shit...

So believe me, what you want is --alt preset standard - I have an iPod myself Everything else is overkill...but --alt preset standard on an iPod is already a bit overkill...

There is a 95% chance everything will be transparent to you with preset standard. Personally, I use -V 1 based on the testing I did, preset standard wasn't quite good enough for me. Keep in mind I have good equipment and probably very good hearing, and I'm listening in a pretty quiet environment.

-V 0 (preset extreme) is higher bitrate still, but as you go above preset standard, there is diminished returns. The very slight quality increase on only the toughest samples does not necessarily outweight the large increase in bitrate.



In the first paragraph, you say he wouldn't be able to tell the difference between 192kbps and preset standard, and in the second, you say compared to preset standard, 192kbps sounds like shit. Besides, he already says he uses higher quality settings anyway. Sounds like this guy wants something at least as good as preset standard.

well, I meant the people that say aps is not good enough would consider CBR 192 as crap. I think newbies can get easily confused when they are told that --aps is not 100% transparent...and therefore they might come to the cunclusion to stick with their old setting (which is way worse) since they couldn't hear the artifacts there...

I think that's the case here. mavis wants to have best quality, so the answer for that would be preset insane...but he probably doesn't know how hard it is to distinguish already --aps from the original...and that one need to have trained ears + proper equipment (not an iPod or something like that) and a very quite environment. Therefore, unless he is some audiophile --alt preset standard is more than enough...for an iPod --alt preset medium should be sufficiant...but --preeset extreme is overkill...so I'd recommend --aps

--preset standard works just great on my ipod. And is probably the best setting for quality and size consideration. Although 20 gig does go quickly

When using EAC I personally like to populate the ID3 tags as well, to save time. I use the following:
--preset standard -V1 --add-id3v2 --pad-id3v2 --ta "%a" --tt "%t" --tl "%g" --ty "%y" --tn "%n" --tg "%m" --tc "EAC, lame 3.96.1 ps (vbr 192) (--preset standard -V1)" %s %d
Just be sure to have all fields populated in the main EAC screen before extracting and compressing.
The --tc is the comment field and the above format satisfies both ID3v1 and v2 tagging. i.e. older winamp 2.91 only supports v1 tagging and the comment field only displays the first 30 characters (I think) but other programs that display v2 will show the whole comment. Tweak it to your liking

Before 3.96.1 came out and we were using 3.96 some of us were adding the -V1 switch to bump quality a little bit. Some could here the difference, most couldn't.

Well, thanks for the replies, everyone!

I decided to just leave it alone - I couldn't really hear the difference between the --preset standard -V0 %s %d and the --preset standard %s %d ... But, the --preset standard -V0 %s %d gave me a SLIGHTLY higher bitrate, which I guess is a good thing. I tried the -V0 by itself and the file size was too big (ripped about 260 songs yesterday - it adds up!) and TBH I couldn't really hear the difference.

All I really care about is having good quality on my iPod with my new Etymotic ER-6i headphones, I just don't want obvious compression artifacts and stuff. It sounds like the -preset standard should be good enough for me ... ?

yes, in that case --preset standard is more than enough

DON'T use the -V0 thing. --preset standard is good enough.
Either you believe HA.org or you should present us samples (upload 'em)

It was alread said: I'm very sure you can't hear the difference.
Otherwise please post us some material like samples or ABX-Results.

BTW: Higher bitrates doesn't harm the quality of your songs but
MAY be some kind of space-waste.

...and therefore will drain your iPod battery faster...

You should also test & consider by going to --alt-preset standard -Y (or --preset standard -Y in newer LAME compiles) which uses some smart lowpass that many people can not distingish from the original signal...

I wouldn't do that though...there is enough space on an iPod and --preset standard should average ~200kbps...he even was fine with a higher bitrate than --ps

He can also use --preset extreme %s %d
I wouldn't do that because I can't hear the difference.

And there are reported problems with high bitrates+iPod

YES!!!

The presets are already tuned for the best possible quality — so when you start adding switches to them, you will either increase the bitrate, make it sound worse, or both.

The only exception to this rule is music with a lot of high-frequency content (>16kHz). In that case, you may easily get better quality to your ears by adding -Y or --lowpass 16 to the commandline.

OK OK I get it, I think. LAME isn't like most software where a "standard" preset, or a standard default kind of sucks. I guess I just have the mentality where if it says STANDARD it must not be good enough.

Anyway, thanks again to all - I changed it to just use APS. I guess that'll be good enough for my needs.

This is not the same, AFAIK the -Y switch don't lowpass everything above 16 Khz...
But how does it work certainly I don't know. Gabriel (or others who are more familiar with LAME) can help with this...