First of all, I apologize if this question has been asked before, but using the search engine for this question did not yield any results, as the phrase "-q 0" is not accepted as a search criteria.

I fully recognize the importance of doing searches before asking questions, matter of fact, I have been coming here for years, just to do searches and do research, before I registered.

My question is regarding algorithm quality selection command line paramater ("-q 0. .9)

The LAME documentation says that using the presets is highly recommended over any custom settings, and I agree, that using the "--preset standard" with EAC gives me very acceptable (to my ears) MP3's.

However, wanting to make sure I am getting the best sound for my MP3 size, I was playing with the additional command line parameter, "-q 0". (The default in "-preset standard" is "-q 2" (or is it "-q 5"?).

The LAME documentation quotes:
* -q 0..9 algorithm quality selection
Bitrate is of course the main influence on quality. The higher the bitrate, the higher the quality. But for a given bitrate, we have a choice of algorithms to determine the best scalefactors and Huffman encoding (noise shaping).

-q 0: use slowest & best possible version of all algorithms. -q 0 and -q 1 are slow and may not produce significantly higher quality.

-q 2: recommended. Same as -h.

-q 5: default value. Good speed, reasonable quality.

-q 7: same as -f. Very fast, ok quality. (psycho acoustics are used for pre-echo & M/S, but no noise shaping is done.

-q 9: disables almost all algorithms including psy-model. poor quality.

Some MP3's that I create are slightly bigger in file size, using "-q 0", whereas some MP3's are slightly smaller using "-q 0" (as opposed to using "-q 2"). The additional processing time on my PC is insignificant, so time is not an issue. It also appears that the file sizes even out over time (some larger, some smaller).

So my question is, am I disturbing the fine tuned settings of "-preset standard" by adding the"-q 0", or am I getting a just a slightly better MP3? It makes sense that "-q 0" is the "best", but I want to make sure that it does not conflict with the optimized "-preset standard" settings.

I also realize that I could use "--preset extreme", but then I would create a much bigger MP3, and, for me at least, a 30% smaller MP3 file, means that I can fit 30% more songs on my MP3 player. AND, if the current MP3 "-preset standard -q 0" produces a file that is indistingushible from the CD original, (for my ears), why create a larger file?

BTW, I am using EAC .99 prebeta 4 and LAME 3.98 beta 6 (I just found out today that there is Lame 3.98 beta 7)

Thanks for any comments you may have.

FYI: You are using somewhat obsolete commands. In fact, -Q is not used at all with the new recommended default of --vbr-new.

http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?ti...ncoder_settings

Thank you, I did not realise that.

So, I should just stick to "--preset standard" and not try to tweak my MP3 creations any further.

Thanks.

You should just ditch --preset standard all together. The --alt-preset standard hasn't been used since Lame 3.96.1. With Lame 3.94, the -V switches were introduced. With Lame 3.97, the -V switches can now give one finer control over their audio encoding. So --alt-preset standard has now been changed to -V 2 but it is recommended that you add the --vbr-new switch. I believe the official recommendation is -V 2 --vbr-new over using --alt-preset standard.

With --vbr-new, the -q values don't do much of anything really. It is best just to use -V 2 --vbr-new and not modify if any further.

If you're using lame 3.97, use --preset fast standard or -V2 --vbr-new (they do the same thing). Use the new vbr method! Its faster and better now.

With 3.98 and later (still beta) the new "fast" vbr mode is default, so --preset standard or simply -V2 would work just fine.

The lame devs have never really recommended setting -q0 since it slows things down dramatically without any tangible benefit. Since all the listening tests are done with the default (-q2, or it it -q3 now? I forget), it is even possible that -q0 will make things worse. I wouldn't bother, but i don't think it really makes a huge difference either way.

Even for 3.98 beta, '--preset standard' is equal to '-V2 --vbr-old'; so recommended is '--preset fast standard'.

And, at least for vbr-new, all settings from -q0 to -q4 are identical. And default is AFAIK q3.

Wow, THANKS!

After all the reading I did, I would have bet money that "--preset standard" was the prefered setting!

So, "--preset fast standard" it is! (or, the equivalent "-V 2 --vbr-new")

I JUST converted my entire CD collection over to MP3's, I guess I will start over! And why not, there is a new version of LAME out too!

Thank you for clearing up this matter!

IMO - it is a bit of a waste to start over esp when using higher Vx setting V3 or stronger. The Vx is fully tuned from v3.94 onward. The overall differences between versions and also between vbr old / new are probably marginal - But I stress: Only at the higher Vx settings.