Many people claim they can tell a difference in quality between VBR 100% and 320kbps CBR. Is 320kbps CBR really the best way to go? Ah yes... there's this preset "insane"^^ And even if it's true, do you still prefer VBR like me?

Well, whatever I'm using LAME 3.93.1 with this command (wav made with EAC (secure mode)):
"lame --vbr-new -V 0 -q 0 -m j track.wav track.mp3"

I get high quality mp3 files which are usually even under 192kbps in average (joint stereo is magic).
Because I'm new in this forum I still don't understand why you are using the presets and the older lame version (yeah... it's more tested, but it's kinda old and the people who are working on lame wouldn't release a bad new version; that's what i think. maybe you can give me links where different lame versions are compared.) If I read well, those presets has some changes with filters and stuff? There's also this discusion about -h & -q 0 (same again... in the faq -which comes with lame- stands it's the highest quality. Why do the programmer note this in the faq, when it's not really true? :/).

i'm sure many people here must be so tired to answer such questions. You'd better read more on this forum.

just use --alt-preset standard with 3.92. why ? just read some threads here! and btw forget your setting!

I think in a 320cbr stream on most material, a high fraction of frames are getting too many bits and are over-masking the quantization noise.

With vbr each frame is analyzed separately, and the correct amount of bits provided based on the V setting selected.

Transparent is transparent. Anything more is a waste of bits.

Having said that though, transparency is in the ear of the listener. Some on this site can abx preset standard from insane, but only on critical samples or on the basis of lowpass which is easy to adjust.

Best thing is to abx a few samples yourself to decide. But use an abx programme. It's easy to start playing tricks on yourself otherwise.

@twlkwind
Sorry... but... lucky~~~ There are some people who are willing to respond thx!

@Benjamin Lebsanft
Argh! Forgeting my settings :/ I'll try your command, but could you at least tell me what settings this preset use?
*edit* Hm... it uses -V 2, -h and the old vbr mode. Also min bitrates 32/128 Ô_o (--r3mix switch?) Well, I want a higher quality VBR mode But even with these settings it should be better than my command line? The file size is bigger and average bitrate is higher. I'll try "lame --vbr-old -V 0 -h -m j"

@kennedyb4
That's just what I'm thinking :/ A waste of Bits :/
We'll see how much the next lame versions can improve VBR.

seriously, look around and read, your question's been answered zillions of times. --alt-preset standard is the way to go, with 3.92 or dibrom's 3.90.2

Ah which settings does it use? Well there are many settings it uses 'most' of the time. The reason I say that is because --alt-preset standard and --alt-preset extreme (which you can use for higher quality) have the ability to switch dynamically between settings. Such as noise shaping.
If you need higher vbr quality than --alt-preset standard use extreme. If you need more speed use --alt-preset fast standard or fast extreme. The only difference is that they use vbr new instead of vbr old.

Now --r3mix, was a tuned preset for an average bitrate of 192 it is the best quality I have seen for that bitrate with just normal switches. Higher vbr quality could be obtained with normal switches, but not without a bitrate increase.

If you want the best quality use --alt-preset extreme. If you want the best quality for 192 use --r3mix.

Now Lame versions. 3.90.2 is reccomended for use by ha.org with the alt presets because it was the version they were the most tested with. 3.92 is reccomended by many users because there weren't any changes that should affect quality. 3.93 is reccomended by no one. 3.93.1 is reccomended by developers because of bug fixes and quality improvements. You shouldn't experience any problems with 3.93.1, but people don't use it simply because it hasn't been used long enough and they aren't sure there aren't problems.

I personally use 3.93.1 because it has a preset medium I occasionaly use for my portable. Also how is 3.93.1 going to be proven bug free if no one uses it?

If it would be possible to get better quality at comparable bitrate, these settings would be --alt-preset standard now. Period.

If you're using Alt presets, v3.90.2 is the way to go because it's the version they were designed for. The communication between Dibrom and the Lame developers isn't the best, so lately when they change or improve things, it screws up the functionality of the VBR presets a bit.

But if you're going to keep fooling around with your own lines (which, by the way, can't be any better than the Alt presets), you might as well go with v3.93... it's got one or two more properly functioning switches to play with. Or better yet, if you're testing just for the heck of it, rather than to archive MP3's, you might as well try out a v3.94 alpha... they've got some new stuff to fool around with.

hey hey, no need to make me down like that Ô_o ... fooling arround ...
Well, i feel no shame to ask... as long as i understand more about the difference and quality it's ok for me.

You can find some answers in the FAQ

I disagree. First, --r3mix doesn't "guarantee" 192kbps (average) by any means. Second, --alt-preset standard tends to average out to around 192kbps with my music (ymmv of course), and it's better quality than --r3mix.

And finally, I don't think --r3mix is a quality oriented preset. It's outdated, and under-tested.

I don't understand about 192kbps either, it it some kind of magic number? If you get 202kbps or even 220kbps with --alt-preset standard, is it going to wipe out all the space on someone's 120GB hard drive?

Your right no garuantees, but everything I've read has pointed to r3mix being aimed at 192 kbps and it usually either is or is below.
Aps on the other hand is usually about 20kbps higher although aimed at the same range.

And your right a few more kbps is not going to hurt someones hard drive. Personally I like r3mix because it is lofi. I use it on my chromex, my panasonic and my dvd player. In the first two situations I don't need transparent, plus it is always faster than preset standard or even fast standard.

People have brought up gogo, I have even used it for quite a while, but its just easier not have to change your settings, let alone encoders just to encode a few songs.

I find r3mix to be the best compromise between speed and quality.

you'd do better than r3mix with --alt-preset standard -Y at around the same size, if not smaller

file size is improved. But I like the predicatability. And the speed, I really can't get past the speed. Don't say gogo I would rather not switch settings let alone friggen encoders just to backup some songs. 1 pc copy 1 portable copy.

We have no blind tests between --r3mix and --alt-preset 192 or --alt-preset 170 have we ?

use --alt-preset fast standard (-Y) if you would like some more speed, the quality difference won't be that great, most likely not noticable, but it will be much faster

Good call pio. I'll try --alt-preset 192 and 170, perhaps even 184. Abr is fast.

I already said fast standard was still slower. and unpredictable. --alt-preset 192 may be just what I want.

LordofStars:



Just FYI - when I was using --r3mix, bitrates of >210kbps were nothing rare, far from it. So much for "predictability"...

No comment about that signature