I am a fairly competent ripper. I have been using CDex for several years but not, I just realized, to its full potential. I have found Jason Antony's "Guide to Using CDex" very helpful (http://www.users.on.net/~alexanderino/cdex/), but I am still a little confused. I have 2 questions:
(1) why use LAME 3.90.3, and not 3.96.1?
(2) I don't understand if it is CDex or LAME which ultimately sets the bitrate (internal, not external command line mode). What would happen if, against Jason's advice, I were to change the min/max bitrate (128/320 now) and VBR quality (2) options in the CDex Encoder settings tab? Do they even do anything at all? or does the alt-preset always take precedence?
I think I'm hoping that CDex doesn't override LAME-- I don't want to agonize over theory; I just want to trust LAME's presets to do their thing. I greatly respect the work and thought that has gone into the project. (Note-- I also use EAC, but I have a fondness for CDex and want to experiment.) Thank you very much.
Full Version: Lame Bitrate Settings In Cdex
QUOTE(moogy @ Feb 5 2005, 02:54 AM)
(1) why use LAME 3.90.3, and not 3.96.1?
Status quo.
Lame 3.90.3 is effete
just a question, but why arent you using eac. i know the learning cure is alittle steep, and its not as... user friendly i guess you could say as cdex, but it is such a great progam, and there are good tutorials and helps out there for setting it up, making it managable to learn. i would highly recommend it. its error correction system is very accureate and pawerful, making problems very rare, but if there is any problem in ripping your cd, such as a skip, pop, or any other problem, it tells you exactly where it occured so you can go listen to it to see if it is acceptable. great software, definatly worth looking into
HAHA! I knew someone wouldn't resist, completely ignore the fact that the thread starter didn't ask for alternatives whatsoever and shove EAC on him.
Some things won't ever change.
Some things won't ever change.
QUOTE(moogy @ Feb 5 2005, 04:54 AM)
(1) why use LAME 3.90.3, and not 3.96.1?
QUOTE
The presets (--alt-preset xxx) for the 3.90.X branch of LAME were designed by many of the original members of this site and were exhaustively tested to make sure that they utilized the best possible settings for quality. Subsequent versions of LAME broke compatibility with these presets to allow for many other improvements (faster, bug issues, etc), thus making a temporary regression in quality. LAME 3.96.1 seemed as though it might be about the same quality as 3.90.3 in some of the tests done after it was released. However, in the minds of the administration of this forum it has not yet been tested extensively enough, thus 3.90.3 is still the recommended version. LAME 3.96.1 has been proven to be of superior quality for some bitrates where there are no VBR presets for 3.90.3, only ABR. Thus 3.90.3 --alt-preset standard is considered to be better than 3.96.1 -V 2 (--preset standard) but 3.96.1 -V 5 (approximatly 128kb/s) is better then 3.90.3 --alt-preset 128. It is also worth noting that 3.96.1 is at least twice as fast as 3.90.3 for encoding and that -V 2 produces slightly smaller files then --alt-preset standard.
From Pinned: List of recommended LAME compiles
QUOTE(rjamorim @ Feb 5 2005, 05:02 AM)
Lame 3.90.3 is effete
Come again?
QUOTE(Mac @ Feb 7 2005, 10:01 PM)
Come again?
• effete [ef·fete || ɪ'fiːt]
adj. degenerate, decadent; worn out, exhausted
or: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=effete
QUOTE(rjamorim @ Feb 7 2005, 04:02 PM)
QUOTE(Mac @ Feb 7 2005, 10:01 PM)
Come again?
• effete [ef·fete || ɪ'fiːt]
adj. degenerate, decadent; worn out, exhausted
or: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=effete
who uses such words...the people in Brazil
? I doubt it... 
QUOTE(rjamorim @ Feb 8 2005, 08:02 AM)
QUOTE(Mac @ Feb 7 2005, 10:01 PM)
Come again?
• effete [ef·fete || ɪ'fiːt]
adj. degenerate, decadent; worn out, exhausted
or: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=effete
Eh, last time I read somewhere in this forum that there were some regressions with 3.96.1...
In any case, relax man, evangelists DO exist. People choose to believe them or not. I believe you should be directing your sarcasm and cynicism at spammers instead. I have seen a few people here recommending LAME over competing encoders without bothering if it mattered to their targets.
QUOTE(sld @ Feb 8 2005, 05:13 PM)
Eh, last time I read somewhere in this forum that there were some regressions with 3.96.1...
Talking only about quality, yes, there might have been some regressions.
But talking about speed/quality tradeoff, 3.96.1 is enormously superior to 3.90.3. That's enough to make it my lame version of choice.
QUOTE
I believe you should be directing your sarcasm and cynicism at spammers instead.
Beg your pardon?
I am not being sarcastic or cynic there. I really believe 3.90.3 is an outdated version and people should move on to 3.96.1 already. That's my (not humble) opinion.
QUOTE(Jojo @ Feb 8 2005, 03:42 PM)
who uses such words...the people in Brazil ? I doubt it...
? I doubt it... Hehe, I think not even native English speakers use such words. Just deranged people like me that like to hunt for unusual and bizarre words
QUOTE(rjamorim @ Feb 8 2005, 07:37 PM)
Just deranged people like me
Amen
QUOTE(rjamorim @ Feb 4 2005, 11:34 PM)
HAHA! I knew someone wouldn't resist, completely ignore the fact that the thread starter didn't ask for alternatives whatsoever and shove EAC on him.
Some things won't ever change.
Some things won't ever change.
QUOTE(moogy @ Feb 5 2005, 04:54 AM)
(2) I don't understand if it is CDex or LAME which ultimately sets the bitrate (internal, not external command line mode). What would happen if, against Jason's advice, I were to change the min/max bitrate (128/320 now) and VBR quality (2) options in the CDex Encoder settings tab? Do they even do anything at all? or does the alt-preset always take precedence?
I have to admit I'm curious about this one too.
QUOTE(rjamorim @ Feb 8 2005, 03:37 PM)
Hehe, I think not even native English speakers use such words.
Confirmed.
QUOTE
Just deranged people like me that like to hunt for unusual and bizarre words
You are not alone. But keep in mind that your penchant for the outré curtails your comments' pertinency.To the OP: try one of DLLs modified to use INI file from RareWares. They are a fool-proof way to get presets working without extraneous switches getting in the way.
QUOTE
To the OP: try one of DLLs modified to use INI file from RareWares. They are a fool-proof way to get presets working without extraneous switches getting in the way.
Thank you-- that's a great suggestion. I'll definitely give them a try. I notice there is a version for both the effete 3.90.3
, and the presumably hardworking and virile 3.96.1 
. The quest for best possible quality being what brought me here, I will probably opt for 3.90.3, now that I know the difference.A sincere thanks to ethos, too, just for sharing my curiousity. Perhaps somebody knows the answer?
QUOTE(moogy @ Feb 5 2005, 04:54 AM)
(2) I don't understand if it is CDex or LAME which ultimately sets the bitrate (internal, not external command line mode). What would happen if, against Jason's advice, I were to change the min/max bitrate (128/320 now) and VBR quality (2) options in the CDex Encoder settings tab? Do they even do anything at all? or does the alt-preset always take precedence?
I think I'm hoping that CDex doesn't override LAME-- I don't want to agonize over theory; I just want to trust LAME's presets to do their thing. I greatly respect the work and thought that has gone into the project. (Note-- I also use EAC, but I have a fondness for CDex and want to experiment.) Thank you very much.
I think I'm hoping that CDex doesn't override LAME-- I don't want to agonize over theory; I just want to trust LAME's presets to do their thing. I greatly respect the work and thought that has gone into the project. (Note-- I also use EAC, but I have a fondness for CDex and want to experiment.) Thank you very much.
It's all about how and where the options are set within the dll. IIRC, changing the min and max bitrate options will affect the encoder settings, but changing the quality options will not as these are only taken into account when the (alt) presets are not specified.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.