So, I've read through as many threads as I could pull up searching for the terms "medium" or "APM" and unfortunately, I'm still quite confused about this.

It really seems like hardly anyone encodes in the medium range (~144Kbps to 160Kbps), as I just could not find substantial info about APM or V4 since not too many people use it.

Basically, I would like to aim for bitrates around 160Kbps, so I want something in between --APS and -V5 --athaa-sensitivity 1. (both of which I realize are highly recommended, but I just want something in between)

I've narrowed it down to a choice between using
1. LAME version 3.90.3 --alt-preset medium
or
2. LAME version 3.96.1 --V 4

My question is: Are the two exactly the same? Or has there been some code tweaks/settings in the different versions of LAME that are different, and would make one choice more recommended than the other?

And what are your thoughts about a 3rd choice (ABR):
3. LAME version 3.90.3 --alt-preset 160
How would that stack up against the above 2?

I'm not concerned about slow encoding speed, so if the older version of LAME is has less quality issues, then I'm willing to use it.

I'm just really confused since 3.96.1 is recommended for bitrates at where there were no VBR presets in 3.90.3, except that originally 3.90.3 did not have a medium preset... it was modified later.

Anyway, sorry for the newbieness, and TIA for your help!

No. There have been many changes made to LAME between 3.90.3 and 3.96.1.

Use the search function to find some of the listening tests that have been done. They will give you a very good idea of the quality differences between 3.96.1 and 3.90.3.

They are not exactly the same, but they are meant to serve exactly the same purpose :)

Poll?
Well, I think you can consider --alt-preset standard -Y
It cuts most of the frequencies above 16 KHz and it's proven that many people are not able to hear the difference between --APS -Y and --APS...

Where's the proof?
I'm not disbelieving you or having a go; just interested in seeing the proof.

I'm sorry this was the conclusion I've earned from other discussions here on HA, try searching...
I'm sorry, I have no proof...

PS: I hope it won't add me a warning...

I'm using lame 3.97a10 -V3 --vbr-new. It gives high quality (transparent to me), small files (165-185kbps), fast encoding (20x), and I can play it on every dvd/car/handheld player out there - almost .

This is slightly above your target bitrate, but for archival purposes, do not go below this. People here say that -V2 is the minimum for archiving, but I claim that most people, even in this forum, are not able to ABX encodings with lame -V3 on most music.

I base this on the fact that getting enough people to participate in listening tests with these quality settings has shown to be very difficult. I believe that this is simply because people are having a hard time to hear any differences at all. And if they do, it requires a lot of concentration, which is stressful. These tests also uses known encoder problem samples to make it easier (but less realistic). Listening tests with 128kbps and below has not been a problem to carry through.

I do. Lame 3.96.1 --preset medium