Was wondering if the --alt-preset extreme setting has any flaws or weaknesses compared to say the -aps preset?

I have used -aps in the past with no problems and with the abundance of huge hard drives would like to step up the quality a little for my newer encodes.

I assume that the extreme setting does the same or similar computations as standard to determine what bitrate to use and then just adds a percentage to the bitrate over -aps.

I am in the process of reencoding some files that got damaged and am not concerned about file size (too much), but don't want the excessive bloat of the insane setting.

Just wondering if there is anything in particular I need to be cautious of when using this setting.

Thanks!

I think there is no record in history of lossy audio that increasing bitrate will decrease quality.......

I think it is safe to assume that "extrame is always better than standard" IF the same switch is used

I wouldn't put it that way...I'd say that --preset extreme isn't worse than --preset standard but that doesn't mean it's better. --preset standard is already designed to achieve transparent results and it does a great job. Therefore, --preset extreme is a waste of space in most of the cases, however in some rare cases it happens to be better than --preset standard because it naturally throws more bits on every frame than actually needed, which *may* help to reduce artificats introduced by --preset standard that are caused by misinterpretation of the data and bits needed.

However, --preset extreme does not always solve the problem either...it's pretty much a bloated version of --preset standard. Personally, I consider --preset standard as transparent and if you are not some hardcore audiophile, with extensively trained ears and high-end equipment and that is 100% highly concentrated while listening to music you'll not hear those 'artifiacts'.

Therefore, I suggest people to perform a blind listening test (ABX) and try to spots those 'artificats' on the few known samples where --preset standard may not be considered as perfectly transparent by some people and see if they can hear the difference. I doubt it...these artifiacts are not major flaws or anything. In fact, they could be part of the song and are only reveiled when comparing it to the original.

Considering, how many people are fine with those awefully 192kbps Kaza files with horrible settings and used encoders there's nothing to worry about with --preset standard. It's already overkil for many people...and --preset standard compared to 192kbps Kaza files is a difference like black and white...