I've been lurking here on and off for years and just wanted to send a shout out to all the people on HA helping people avoid some of the n00b mistakes that are listed elsewhere here. I have made those mistakes, and will probably make many more on the way to audio bliss.

The amount of information is almost over whelming!

I have a few burning questions.

What are the fundamental differences between the LAME 3.90.3 --alt-preset standard and --preset standard in LAME 3.96.x?

It looks like the old --alt series of presets is being terminated in the new releases in favour of -V settings which are aliases of the --preset tree at some points. But what happened to the --alt presets?

...and just for historical reference... why were the alt presets even created when a full set of presets already existed?

Why the heck does the -Z switch get moved in and out of the presets?

Thanks guys.

The alt presets were created at a time when no presets existed. "Alt" was dropped from the syntax later on.

That's not correct AFAIK. The presets existed, but generally weren't very good. The alt-presets (alternate) were added for the development of a different goal: a setting that would reach transparency.

That's what I get for posting what I assumed to be true rather than what I knew to be true. And you know what happens when you assume things...

So have they now merged?

is --alt-preset standard the same as --preset standard? In version 3.90.3 or just in the newer 3.9.6.1?

It is important to note that the alt-presets will still work for the rest of the 3.9x series, as backwards-compatibility is necessary until the major version number changes.

So you can keep using them, no problem... its just that the standard presets (which used to be different and rather sucky) have now been mapped to use the alt-presets as well.

Things went like this:

LAME had some predefined settings (presets), which could be called simply by --preset x (where x was tape , cd , studio...), and they were simply aliases to command options.

Afterwards, it came r3mix.net and created the --r3mix preset , which was the first attempt to have a switch that would create an VBR MP3 which had good quality and small bitrate. (No need to enter in more detail).

Unhappy with this setting, Dibrom, Hydrogenaudio's founder, started other presets, which initially were named --dm-preset , (after his name). These ones had the same intention than --r3mix, but these ones where extensively tested.

Also, the important thing is that it contained code changes, so --alt-preset was no longer just an alias to commandline switches.

The problem is that these changes never went completely back to LAME (some compiler switches, at least), so newer versions of LAME ( 3.92 ) weren't recommended.

Then, with LAME 3.94, the development of LAME took another way, and the code started to change. So much that the code tweaks from LAME 3.90.2 do not fit inside LAME 3.96/7.

So now, we have LAME 3.90.2/.3 with the original --alt-presets, and lame 3.96/.97 which have --presets. Different code that tries to do the same. In some cases one is better, in others, the other. Version 3.97 is in testing, so we can assume it will become better.

(hope to have sumarized it correctly)

So, to answer the question, 3.90.3 alt presets are the same thing as
3.96 alt presets?

and...

3.90 was released with darin's changes to --alt-preset (changed from --dm-preset) but the release sucked.

HA released 3.90.1 which addressed some bugs, afterwards LAME devs released 3.91 which included these changes.

from this point on, changes to lame weren't exciting or particulary well tested, so these changes were backported to 3.90.x as the community saw fit.

with the development of 3.96+, lame finally sees real advancement and possible replacement of "recommended version", but --alt-preset settings still fail to meet the needs of the community


later

[edit: typo]

most of darin's work was done before the 3.90 lame release.

3.92 wasn't recommended because the community already had 3.90.x, and the backporting that john33 (John Edwards) was doing to the codebase.


later

LAME 3.90.3 is recommended in this forum, even though most people around here have switched to LAME 3.96.1 (including myself). Anyway, all that confusion is over soon since LAME 3.97 once it is stable will be the new HA recommended release...

are you sure about that?

Have a look here.

They meet my needs, and dare I say "the community's," very well, thank you. What are you talking about?

They meet both yours, mine and the community's needs. More people are using 3.96 and more people are downloading it. The moderators' decision to keep 3.90.3 as the recommended version may seem wrong now, but there's no point in discussing it ad nauseam. 3.97 is around the corner and will be the new recommended version, said dev0.

Sorry for disturbing, but aren't "-v <n>" the new recommended preset terminology?

Who is responsible and allowed to establish a new "HA" recommendation?

Discussed amoung mods/admins.
Dev0 has been in contact with Gabriel and has been responsible for the decision AFAIK.

It's funny. Members were bitching incessantly asking for 3.96.1 to be the recommended version, and several people - mods included - demanded tests before that would happen.

Now, mods and admins (alone) just decide 3.97 will be recommended and that's it, without testing or even checking for regressions. Without even waiting for it to be released!. Or waiting if there'll be a 3.97.1 to fix some ugly bug that showed up in the last minute.

Go figure...

That I imagine means a stable version - not an alpha, not a beta, but the real deal. There's been quite a bit of 3.97 alpha testing so far. I suspect that when a beta is released there will be more. When stability has been seen and results are pleasing for the beta testing, then it'll be released and should be the recommended version. rjamorim, you know the process right?!
If it never goes beta or stable then I doubt it will be recommended (before anyone says, that's not to say it can't cos a alpha or beta mpc version was/is(?) recommended).

Well, 3.96.1 was a stable and release version. Neverthless, tests were demanded if it were to become the recommended version.

The very logical implication seems to have been that 3.97 won't be released without serious testing first.

And now I get warned for trolling because I am concerned that the new recommended version won't be tested and might have regressions.

I don't understand things anymore...

From dev0's post, one can understand that it has been decided to be recommended, no matter if whatever tests that happen show it is better than 3.90.3 or not.

Also, Tobias never mentioned tests would happen or would be a prerequisite.

I kind of assumed that (and hoped that would be the case), but it wasn't implied at all.

Tests were done and published during alpha stage of 3.97. There were mostly positive (gain in speed, features and sometimes in quality). That's why 3.97 should logically be safe, even for recommandation.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the "tested" label of lame 3.90 doesn't apply to the final release (3.90 GOLD), but to all work done by Dibrom and early members of HA.org reporting progressions and regressions with each 3.90 alpha of --alt-preset standard, extreme and even the rare --alt-preset normal (which appeared IIRC with on of the latest alpha of 3.90). alphas were tested, the stable version was recommanded.

Thanks for the clarification, Guruboolez. I didn't know about those tests.

Additionally I talked to Gabriel at the beginning of the 3.97 development and we agreed on what had to be done to make 3.97 the recommended version:
1. Fix the ABR/CBR quality regression.
2. Improve VBR quality.

Both aims have been reached, so nothing prevents 3.97 from becoming the recommended version anymore.

Gabriel also hinted at the possibility of a 3.97 beta to ensure no 'minor bug' would sneak into the next stable LAME 3 release.

dev0

They are. Once 3.97 is released the recommended settings thread will be replaced with a new version to accommodate this change.

nice. a beta release should be a good thing, to avoid the 3.96 problem (3.96.1 had to be realease soon)