In the lame4.0a relese 14, use of presets is discouraged. It's said that they are obsoleted. They are just aliases. Why is it so?

I think that presets (especially old alt-presets) were combination of many switches, and of course code-level tweaks, ultimately giving the best output, then why in the new versions they are only aliases?

Or is it that the switches used in old presets are implemented as default, so that no more preset is needed?

Aren't there goin to be any new presets giving extreme results, so that long switches need not have to be remembered?

I'm not following development closely, but that, and probably the fact that some switches might "no longer work as intended" is also possible.

If you look at the table here, you'll see that the 'V' switches have the various presets mapped to them: so '--preset standard' is just an alias for '- V2'. So, for example, if all the great tunings within preset standard is now the same as '-V 2' then it seems to be an attempt to simplify the VBR settings.
For example, Ogg Vorbis uses 'Q' values from 0 to 10, and as far as I know has no "presets". Thing is Ogg Vorbis 'Q' setting quality is ascending (Q1 is worst and Q10 is best) whereas LAME settings are descending '-V 0' is best (for 'V' switches) and '-V 9' is worst.

I'm sure one of the LAME devs can give a better explanation of why the presets are "going".

You may want to take a look at my post from a couple of months ago, I believe it explains some things.

Nice post; explains a lot. I didn't know about the presets from 3.90.3 being enabled all the time:
Thanks rutra80

I think basically the whole way LAME uses switches was a design mistake. They gave you total control over everything, but then to combat people coming up with rediculous combinations, people started coming up with presets.

Now, (particularly the --alt-presets of 3.90.3) the are a horrid mismash of tweaks, compiler-specific flags and command-line options that sort of "work", but are a bitch to maintain.

Compare this with something like MPC, where all you have access to is the presets, and you can see why this is difficult for the developers. So they won't be going away really... just the defaults will work correctly so there is no need for "flag packages" like the current presets.

This is all very "IMO", I could be way off-base.

Personally I find "-v2" easier to remember than "-alt-preset standard." That is all they mean by the statement you are concerned about.

A name is easier to remember than a code, IMO. Especially for newbies.
I think that the LAME command line should be simplified. Keeping just presets or a quality related switch such as -q used for vorbis may be a good start.

It would avoid common newbie mistakes and the endless and pointless discussions we are seeing in this forum about command line tweaks that do not tweak anything.

It became common to bump into threads where is discussed nonsense like:

user1: "I use -V2 -q3 --vbr-new -m xxx --scale ddgfgdhhs blah blah blah and it is better than -V0 --nsmfix XXXX --athlower 44333444555 -q3 blah blah blah I know it is better, I can hear it!!!"
user2: "I am sure -V4 --vbr-old -m s -q5 --lowpass 12000 --resample 22050 will improve your mp3 quality blah blah blah"

thread 1 thread 2 thread 3 just to name a few.

Of course the rant above is just my opinion and no offense was intended to the posters in the threads above.

I use --alt-preset bubba.
It sounds great on the Kraco in my pickup truck. \

Edit: Spelling.

Do both:

-V n
-Vn

work? I always used -V n

Yes, both are valid.

Q values in Vorbis and Musepack act more like multipliers (with support of decimal fractures), while Lame -V parameter is not “fractable”.
Lame implementation is more… uhm… stable? while Musepack and Vorbis ones are more flexible.
That's how I see it.

Edit: gr.

There already is such a switch, it's -V.

@Mo0zOoH, yeah you're right, I hope that with time the -V switch will evolve into such a multiplier too. I also hope that it won't be upside-down like it is now (lower value = better quality) and will become a bit wider (-V0 = 8kbps CBR, -V9 = 320kbps CBR, and all between including fractions = proportionally interpolated VBR). It would need a new name though (to keep compatibility).
One of the problems with presets is that there's too few choices (like developers could know what's best for everyone), and partially that's why there's so many command-line tweaking attempts.

There should be an --alt-preset blade or something for these people that guarantees a very messed up mp3 There's a demand for it after all, that's a fact.

And yes, Vorbis style -V is definitely something i'd like, preferably with the same nominal bitrates, 8kbps would end up as -5.

BTW, does Lame's -V support fractions, or only whole numbers?

EDIT: nvm the last bit.

I think you understood what I meant. Hopefully you are not trying to increase noise.

Anyway, here we go: yes there is a "quality" switch, then why is LAME usage so more complex than its competitors? The -V switch has no value to simplicity if you don't enforce just its use in place of other switches.

If switch/ preset modification discussions bother anyone, they neednt take part.
Switches can be useful and hearing about them is interesting for many. I see little problem with switches as they are, but always potential for developement.
It would be folly to neuter lame because of support forum fatigue. Misunderstanding and experimental curiosity is concentrated here, being that its Lames public home on the internet, this doesnt mean lame is being misused in general.

Use of this alpha itself is discouraged, it doesnt say anything about Lame 3xx. They wont be recommending presets for it, because its not finnished!

By all respect - do you really believe what you just wrote??? Or are you trying to be sarcastic?

- Lyx

This is where people come to ask question and put forward pet theories.
I can see how the phrase could be misread now, it would depend on the readers expectation.. hehe..

-M S

to name just one example of widespread abuse of lame-switches. I even got banned from one big public forum by the admins, because i explained that joint-stereo is superior - because they considered me a liar and idiot. Well, okay, on ha.org i instead get ban-warnings for statements about the performance of windows-versions, so maybe its just all the same. But in the case of LAME, the show of idiots is going on primarily outside of ha.org.

What noise?

It's not, "competitors" have a bunch of advenced switches too.

What do you mean by enforce? You want all the switches except -V to disappear from LAME?

-Fair point, well made'

What forum was that for a laugh?

No noise. I just think that average users do not have the perception that the -V switch is related to quality.


I'm not sure I understand you here. Sure they have a bunch of other switches, but why people don't come asking questions about tweaks in the command line for vorbis or musepack so frequently?
One could argue that competitors (such as vorbis and musepack) are less used than mp3. Fair, but does not explain everything.
You see, IMO the focus of vorbis usage, for instance, is the -q switch that is clearly related to quality. See here. Whereas for LAME there is not a similar focus for usage. See here. Instead you have a whole section called "quality related" with several switches that just confuse the average user.


Of course not. To simplify does not mean disappear with every advanced switch. The word is encourage.


Anyway, This discussion isn't going anywhere. I just wanted to share my point with all of you.

OMG...

the --alt-preset parameter was done ~3.90 by dibrom (et al, but mostly dibrom) and hasn't been addressed since (by him)

enter in 3 years of lame development and you have a much different looking lame project. the --alt-preset (and --preset) don't do the same thing any more, and each lame version since hasn't been tested as thoroughly (and some with real serious problems).

that's it. if you want the --alt-preset function, then use 3.90.3 compiles. if you want something else, then use the current stable lame.

that's it. nothing mutinous or famous (INfamous?... INfamous?)


later