For a long timw now I use EAC and LAME but today, after upgrading to the most recent recommended LAME compile, I discovered something that's quite disturbing for me.

I was using the previous recommended LAME compile and in EAC compression options I had defined that I wanted to use the LAME MP3 Encoder (instead of user defined encoder) and used the command line --alt-preset fast extreme. In the bitrate box, on the compression settings tab (in EAC) I set it at 192kbs but i never tought it would be used (I think I did read it somewhere). Today I was trying Mr. Question Man and my mp3 say the command line used was --alt-preset fast extreme -b 192.

My question is, how does --alt-preset fast extreme compare to --alt-preset fast extreme -b 192. I really could use some help to determine if the possible quality differences justify a re-rip and rencode or not (or maybe there are no quality differences).

Sorry for my english!

Thanks

-b192 means that no frames excepted digital silence were encoded below 192 kbps. Your current encodings should only be less efficient (i.e. wasted space as consequence of a very high bitrate floor), but there's no reason for them to be worse.

Are you sure no frames below 192kbps where used? I would scan with Encspot to be sure.

I checked with EncSpot and guruboolez is right...

With exeception of a very few frames (maybe digital silence, as guruboolez said), all frames we're encoded at 192kbps or above.

Thanks for your help!

IIRC, I have heard of this before.

I believe that, if you set the dropdown to anything but the deafult 128Kbps, it effects the command line in this way (IIRC).

Update: See this thread.