Hello,

I understood the unmodified stable compile of lame.exe 3.90.3 included the --alt-preset medium preset.

Running lame.exe and looking into the help commands, it even lists --alt-preset medium as an option.

But when I tried compressing a wav to mp3 using --alt-preset medium %s %d in EAC with lame.exe I got an error message relating to use of that command line option. Changing the line back to --alt-preset standard %s %d everything works perfectly!

So it's as if --alt-preset medium just isn't included in the compile.

But if that was the case, why would --alt-preset medium appear in the file when I browse it from the cmd window? Wierd! Please advise!

PS I'm using LAME 3.90.3 stable bundle 2004-02-10 from rarewares

I think you'll have to use the modified version from said place...

The standard 3.90.3 does not support the MEDIUM presets, they were added into the Modified compile. The standard 3.90.3 source of 'parse.c' on Rarewares makes no reference to the MEDIUM presets, so you may be looking at the Modified version.

Edit: Or, I may have been having a bad day!!!!! But, seriously, I've checked the sources and it all looks correct to me.

Yep, I've found the source of the problem. And it was me. Going temporarily insane

Medium doesn't appear in the help lists for either compile, and as you guys have suggested it's only included in the modified compile of 3.90.3.

Thanks for clearing it up. I'm off to be crazy someplace else, lol

why not use LAME 3.96.1?

Because ***** recommends not using it.

MOD: please don't mention illegal ripping/sharing groups.

Don't they also recommend using Stereo instead of Joint-Stereo?
Anyway, I'm pretty sure that they have their knowledge from this forum...they probably never bothered to perfrom a blind listening test and see if they can tell the difference. LAME 3.96.1 is not all bad...you can argue about --preset standard (personally I still prefer LAME 3.96.1), but when using other settings LAME 3.96.1 might be superior...search the forums...

Not true... actually, my reason for using 3.90.3 over 3.96 is neatly summarised in the stickies:

Since I am encoding using a VBR preset in this case (my initial question was about --alt-preset medium) I am going putting my faith in the HA consensus that at this preset (possibly, but with --alt-preset standard certainly) 3.90.3 will give improved results compared to equivalent settings in 3.96.

Anyway, this is now way off topic and my Q is already resolved so we're done here I think!

I just felt compelled to point out that I'm using 3.90.3 due to what I've learnt on these boards (or think I've learnt!), which makes me believe it is the best choice for my needs right now, and not out of being a dinosaur or because some illicit 'group' (*****?!?) told me too

If you're using --preset standard, then you can stick with Lame 3.90.3 - it's more carefully tested than 3.96 --preset standard, is better on some samples while 3.96 is better on others. Generally this is considered a tossup. People say that 3.96 gets lower bitrate, but I've had the reverse experience on some --preset standard encodes that I've tested.

However, if you want to use --preset medium... you should definitely use LAME 3.96, not the modified 3.90.3. Why? Because the medium preset has gone through a lot of evolution, between those versions, unlike the standard preset.

Actually, the real reason to use 3.96.1 with the Medium presets is that they were a back port to 3.90.3 and aren't specifically tuned to the 3.90.3 encoding engine.

Well, I initially introduced medium preset in 3.93. It is this version that have been backported to 3.90.3. Considering that 3.93 and 3.90 are not that different, I think that preset medium in 3.90.3 is probably safe.

However, it will be different than the medium preset in 3.94 and upper of course.

Lame 3.90.3 doesn't have a built-in preset. Some people use the --alt-preset -Y option as a medium preset. But this one doesn't use lower bits, only cause a lower quality.

For using a medium preset, just use my self-made preset, optimized for

Lame 3.90, 3.90.1, 3.90.2, 3.90.3 and 3.91.

the preset (parameters):
---------------
-b 128 -m j -h -V 4 --nspsytune -B 320 --lowpass 19 --lowpass-width 2.85
---------------

our listening-tests resulted that this preset has good quality while using lower bits. You can try this one if you want. We think that this is the best medium option for the older lame versions.

-----------------memomai-------------------------------

False, it uses less bits.


Results please

Example:

Missy Elliott - Go To The Floor

Lame 3.90.3 @ --alt-preset standard: 176 kbps (clear)

Lame 3.90.3 @ --alt-preset -Y: 175 kbps (we realized some places which weren't clear)

Lame 3.90.3 @ -b 128 -m j -h -V 4 --nspsytune -B 320 --lowpass 19 --lowpass-width 2.85: 148 kbps (clear)

plase use the preset and write down your opinion (you can use other tracks of course)

--well, and please don't argue about 3 less bits, this is useless for an medium preset.

We still need ABX results and sample.

Well, it's only my recommended suggestion. I didn't say that this one IS THE MEDIUM PRESET. I said it could be an ALTERNATIVE ONE for the missing medium preset in Lame 3.90 - 3.91.

You may try my user defined preset...

ABX tests are not very useful for this, because why should I compare it to the WAV file, the quality in medium mode (--alt-preset standard -Y AND my option) isn't as good as CD quality. But I think my preset is a good alternative between quality and file size

Some of these answers about the backporting of medium and its evolution etc have been really interesting and I've learnt a lot here.

I'll certainly try out 3.96.1 @ -V 4 in preference to the 3.90.3 @ ap medium I was using for ~160kbps mp3s.


ABXing both the personalised preset and --alt-preset -Y (or --preset medium) against the wav would complete the test, but the clincher [and this, I think, is what Gabriel is especially looking for] would be an ABX of your personalised preset against --alt-preset -Y (or --preset medium). If your personalised preset is truly indistinguishable from --alt-preset -Y (or --preset medium) you might expect a 50% result, or if your personalised preset was clearly better a >95% result in its favour.

to find this out you have to perform an ABX test. A lot of people suffer from the placebo effect and even though it is known, that LAME 128kbps isn't CD-Quality, there are still people that can't tell the difference to the original CD...no lossy codec will ever achieve CD-Quality, but there's a point when one can't tell the difference anymore when just listen to it. However, some people are fine with 128kbps mp3, others need --preset standard.

So to find your personal limit, you have to perform an ABX test...give it a shot you'll be surprised that sometimes so obvious artifacts aren't that obvious anymore once you have to do it blindly...