I know this has been a topic of discussion in the past, but I'm having some interesting behavior I've noticed with Lame encoding. Everyone swears that Lame 3.96.1 is much faster than 3.90.3, though 3.90.3 is the preferred encoder due to its more thorough testing. When I encode using the command line option in EAC:
( V1 -b192 -F -q0 -mj )
3.90.3 seems to encode much faster!!! In fact, play/CPU indicator in dos window is usually ~7x as opposed to about 1.6 with Lame 3.96.1. So what gives, is 3.96.1 just optimized for preset settings, but actually much slower when it comes to user input configurations? Anyone care to offer an opinion as to which Lame I should be using with the above settings if the only concern is quality, not speed? Thanks,
-Tiki

Incidentally, 3.96.1 yields larger files at the same settings. When I bump up V1 to V0 using 3.90.3, resultant files are still smaller than mp3's from 3.96.1 setting V1 (and resultant avg. VBR slightly lower too, e.g. 209 kbps vs. 214 kbps). Should I be at all concerned that 3.90.3 is actually running 5x faster, or should I just go with it and enjoy my new found free time?

The -q0 on 3.96.1 causes the slow sleed.

just stick with the presets and you are fine...

Lame 3.96.1 is faster than 3.90.3.

What you have failed to notice is that -q 0 in 3.90.3 is -q 1 in 3.96.1 so your line is NOT doing the same in both encoders.
(Edit: basically, all q's have increased in an unit, because there is a new q 0 )

Ps. People, please, reply with answers rather than filling posts with relevant but not explanatory sentences.