Hey I use eac and lame to rip my cds and i rip them at 320kbps. I want to know if I need to put a preset in order to get the full effect because right now all I do is go to the bitrate and select 320. Maybe this doesn't matter but I just want to know cause I don't want to be missing out on anything. Thanks.

um... sticky thread:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=28124

Yeah I just want a simple answer.

If you want full control over the encoding then configure EAC for external encoder and use the command line switches. OTOH if you are setting EAC to use 320 kbps then there is not much to go wrong, you are probably getting as good as it gets.

Use external program is checked I just don't have any presets its set to 320. So is lame enabled or is eac doing the encoding?

Take a look at the wiki article EAC and LAME, which has a screenshot showing how the External Compression dialogue should look.

Check the wiki article LAME to discover more about getting the best out of LAME.

You really need to do some tests to discover what setting would be best for you. 320kbps is no doubt overkill. I would suggest starting with -V5 --vbr-new and then increasing to -V4, -V3, etc., until you are happy with the quality. Many of us use -V5 though.

I can only assume that you are currently using LAME with "LAME MP3 Encoder" selected under "Parameter passing scheme". By selecting "320 kBit/s" from the bitrate dropdown you are creating 320kbps CBR files.

The picture is exactly what I have, only I have nothing in the command line option.

If you do have "User Defined Encoder" selected in the "Parameter passing scheme", and have no "Additional command line options" then you can't actually be creating any MP3s.

Are you sure it's not set as "LAME MP3 Encoder"?

Either way, my advice still stands.

I have lame mp3 selected under the parameter passing scheme

OK, so I guess you don't make any MP3s then. And, my advice still stands.

Here's a hint: Try putting something in the "Additional command line options" text box. Here's another one: Read the articles I took time to link to, and do some testing, to see what that something should be.

What? I get mp3s. I'm just asking if I really need to put something in the command line.

And can you take a guess as to what that answer may be, given everything I have typed thus far?

I guess it doesn't matter but thats all I was asking from the beginning.

And I answered you in my first post. If you read the wiki articles my response may make more sense.

Well not really I wanted a straight forward answer but its all right.

Dude, just to step in here before Synthetic Soul gets a headache, what could be more simple than the Wiki.

I'm an audio hobbyist, but certainly no audio genius, and the Wiki's are as well laid out as they could possibly be. Credit to the HA community.

If you're having trouble understanding how EAC and LAME work together still, then (AFTER reading the Wiki pages!!) I recommend you use an external version of LAME, such as LAMEDrop XPd (can be found at www.rarewares.org). Then you'll have a very easy to use MP3 encoder.

Regards,
- Spike

All right.

Thanks for bringing some sanity to this thread.

... and it seems you have no interested in putting any effort in, or a desire to learn. Kudos.

If you just want a simple answer: Use the following in your Additional command line options text box:


This will provide excellent sound quality, with both ID3v1 and ID3v2 tags.

In reality though, audio encoding is quite a personal thing, as everyone hears differently, and has different hardware and software requirements. You should really spend just a little time reading about the LAME encoder, recommended settings, and methodologies. You should also test various settings, to find the sweet spot for you - the best compromise between quality and filesize. You may find that it was indeed -V2, but equally you may find -V5 is transparent to you, and save yourself hundreds of MB.

i understand that noobs demanding simple answers can be anoying, but in this case i can understand what they are asking.

they have been using 320kbps mp3 and are happy with that. they are just wondering if there is a known "better" (higher quality) way to use 320kbps encoding than the standard -b 320.

so a simple answer would have done. it'd be nice if everyone did abx's and blind testing to find their own transperancy level, but most people don't care enough or have the time or patience to do that.

i honestly don't know if there is a better way to encode 320kbps using lame, i have often wondered if slightly different settings, relating to frequency response and low/high pass filters or the psychoacoustic model used, or the method of stereo used (LR MS etc.) or something else might improve the way 320kbps encodes.



if i were to answer the OP's question, and from looking at their responses, it looks like they are using the included mp3 encoder with EAC, and not using any external compression, and selecting 320kbps with EAC's mp3 settings.

I'd instead switch to useing the external compressor, and use lame, either 3.90.3 (oldest and safest) or the new 3.97 (newer, maybe slightly better or worse but faster) and using the following switch in the command string box:

--alt preset insane

that way your using the fine tuned alt presets, for whatever advantages they might give over standard options, and "insane" refers to 320kbps CBR.