I know there are many other threads which are very similar to this, but non of which really told me a definite answer as to what i should or shouldn't use in the command line, so pelase excuse yet another post asking abut hte best command line to use.


I have lots of lossless audio files which I want to convert to mp3 in the best quality possible, and I have lots of friends who want to do similar. Now I'm using LAME 3.98.2, as I've read that it is considered to produce the best encoding quality when compared to other encoders, but I'm not sure about he command line to use. Normally i just use:

-b 320 -m j

but having had a discussion with a friend, he tells me that the command line

-b 320 -m j -h -q 0

would be a better idea.


Could you please tell me if my friend's command line is indeed better than mine, or if i should stick to what i currently use?

-b 320 is all you need.
-m j is redundant.



Is it my mistake or are -h and -q 0 opposing options?

For the best possible quality just use -b 320. The -m j and the rest are superfluous.

Refer to http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?ti...ecommended_LAME if you're ever not sure

I would recommend you to go -V 0 (variable bit rate).

-b 320 would be wasting a lot of bits on things not needed.

Doesn't -h mean high quality, and -q 0 mean the highest quality algorithm? I think it says this on the swtiches.html that comes with the lame encoder.


Would these switches improve the quality in any way?



Otherwise I'll just stick to -b 320. lame 3.98 by default encodes as joint stereo doesn't it?




I plan to do this also, have v0 as well as cbr for those who want to put the music on their mp3 players. Space isn't much of an issue really, I'm only encoding to mp3 for compatibility issues.

Last I looked -h maps to -q 2

I didn't know that, soap. So if I had -q 0, -h would be pointless, even self defeating?

And would it actually be a benefit using -q 0 ? If not, why is it even an option?

-q 0 likely can't hurt. It is an option because it is so far into the long tail that it's hard to justify the increased encoding complexity for the slimmest of possible improvements.
Just as Prius owners (likely) don't spend time picking seat covers which save a few grams of weight (and thus microscopic amounts of fuel.)

Oh ok,

right, thanks for the help guys, in conclusion: -b 320 is effectively the best, but just for the placebo effect i'll also include -q 0 to strain the last drops of quality out of it.

I'll also include -m j, just to be certain that it is encoding as joint stereo (even though it encodes as joint by default).

Thanks

Strictly speaking, that only gives you highest-possible file size.

As others have said, V0 will attempt to optimize for highest quality while not wasting bits it doesn't need.

Don't include -m j, though. LAME is very good at figuring out what stereo mode to use.

All modern (meaning 4 years ago?) mp3 players play v0 fine (vbr).