I'm about to rip and encode 450+ CD's. I've been reading and reading post after post and there is a lot that I dont understand! I want to make damn sure that I get my settings just right because I'd go nuts if I got through 200 CD's and found out that I made a mistake of not putting a letter in the command line!!

I'm going to be using EAC obviously this is one of the best secure ripping progams available today and the only one that I am somewhat familar with. I have read on a couple different forums about which version of LAME to use, I never knew there were "custom" builds of it. What I am looking for is the absolute best MP3 I can get. I am not in anyway concerned about file size, I have over 500 GB available to me in one of my systems (mostly for video editing, but thats another forum )

I'd like to know two very important things.

1 - Which version of LAME to use for all 450+ CD's, even if a new version comes out - I'm not changing. I want the same all across the board.
2 - What switch to run w/ LAME?

ie - Is 320 CBR better than alt-preset-extreme? (VBR 256+)?

also I have never seen the -Z switch anywhere before, I looked thru some posts and still have no idea if I *should* or should not use it.

Thank you for your time and any information you can supply will help a lot!

Thank you

xan2k1

If your not concerned by file size, then by all means go with a lossless compression. I preffer FLAC and it seems to be rapidly growing in popularity over the others. I was in the same position as you, I had tons of cds and I only planned on encoding them once. The lossley encoders are always changing with updates and there are a million arguements over which setting is the best. It's way to confuseing and complicated. I am also a perfectionist when it comes to lestioning to my music files, and I have to say FLAC has done great(Thanks to CiTay for telling me about it!).

-Darin

:alien:

I can not go w/ anything other than MP3. Playback is the most important thing for me. I have an 20 GB iPod, and my wife has a 10 GB iPod. So "lossless" would be the best quality wise, but it would suck for what I am trying to do. I''m sorry if I wasn't real clear about that.

I need the best MP3 I can possibly encode....

Use a trusted LAME compile with --alt-preset insane

First read this , 7.



If you would have used the search function (which should be a forum rule IMO) you would have found this & this


It's a sticky. --alt-preset standard -Z is the best quality/size compromise.

I
V



So 'insane' is likely better. I dunno if -Z is needed, I think not, also not for --alt-preset standard even, but the recommended settings thread will surely help answer that question.

Edit: ok, I stand corrected, use -Z with APS, no need to use it with API as it's defaulted

AFAIK APS switches from gpsycho/nspsytune psymodel, -z disables nspsytune. API uses nspsytune only so -z is not needed.

@Garf -z

Wrong. -Z is a switch for the noise shaping mode, not the psymodel.

nspsytune=NS1+2
gpsycho=NS1

What's that supposed to mean? gpsycho can use noise shaping 2 as well (just add -Z).

Why don't explain to us what -z does specifically then? As I said I don-t really know I just thought it had to do with the psymodel

-Z is a toggle switch for noise shaping modes 1 and 2. Mode 2 allows for more noise, mode 1 is less aggressive (= sometimes higher quality). Naturally, NS1 can lead to a slightly higher bitrate with VBR. The switch --alt-preset insane already uses NS1 from the beginning, because it's CBR and the filesize stays the same. This also means that using -Z with --api toggles it to NS2! --alt-preset standard/extreme use an adaptive mode that switches between NS1 and NS2, but some problem samples have recently proven that plain NS1 performs better. -Z forces --aps/--ape to NS1.

BTW, i hope you know that LAME switches are case-sensitive... (try it with -b and -B, -f and -F, -s and -S)

Lol...

The guy sais he has read and read and read and there's a lot he doesn't understand, and then people start spewing about NS1+2 psyhco BS in reply...


Most people here recommend using LAME 3.90.2 with --alt preset extreme or --alt preset insane.. (extreme is VBR high quality, insane is the best you can make out of constant 320kb/s). The idea is you can use those commands without having to add 50 random letters afterwards and you'll get the best

I'm not totally sure if 3.90.2 is the best anymore, but it's a safe bet still.

Hope that helps!

Thanks for all the info I read on another web site that 3.92 is what they recommend and to use --alt-preset-extreme for the best output!

Still not 100% on what I am going to do, but I'm getting closer...

edit: I've decided I'm going to go w/ what hydrogenaudio.org says...
"Lame 3.90.2 found on this website is the recommended version."

So all thats left to decide is which sounds better?

--alt-preset-insane (CBR @ 320kbps)
--alt-preset-extreme -Z (VBR ~ 256kbps)

I think you'll have to decide for yourself with double blind testing. Both of these presets are going to sound very good.

If you're not worried about space or bandwidth considerations at all, just use insane and be done with it!

--jth

I disagree...

LAME doesn't sound "better and better" the higher you go. --alt-preset insane is insane overkill (hence the name), --alt-preset extreme is extreme overkill (ditto).

--alt-preset standard -Z will sound EXACTLY AS GOOD as the above two presets for even people with golden ears. The -Z tends to make the files a bit bigger but fixes some problems on the occasional track. I know size isn't an issue for you, but why waste space? Just use --alt-preset standard -z , try it on some files, and I guarantee you won't be able to tell the difference between it and the original wave, or insane/extreme settings.

P.S. I am under the impression that 3.92 is essentially identical to 3.90.2, but I would recommend using Dibrom's 3.90.2 compile because it is the best tested (some compilers/options screw things up).

Oh, you might want to correct the offset in EAC before ripping as well. Not a big deal (if you don't tracks will begin/end a few milliseconds off), but why not?

I disagree with Jebus, I believe that alt-preset-standard is quite good, but LAME still has a bit more to offer (not a whole lot, though). Generally, though, what he said is VERY true. Most people on here are audio nuts, and will tell you to go to insane lengths to get the best audio quality. Hopefully, you'll understand that your iPod will not have the hardware quality to really make a difference, and that even if it did your ears would most likely need to be trained to hear the difference (and for you to care). If I were you, I'd check out a few MP3s myself. Nothing like some testing to figure out what you like the most. One important thing to remember, however, is that greater size does NOT necessarily mean greater quality (often just greater waste). Try --alt-preset standard -Z, and if you find that the sound is glassey or icey (cymbal crashes sound more like splats, guitars sound too grungy/distorted, etc), then try something else. Personally, I've found that with portable players (for the most part), I have great difficulty telling the difference, mainly because of a poor DAC in the machine, or the ever-present problem of outside noise. jth, also, suggested double blind testing. You can do this with ABX (do a google search for it), but if that's a bit too involved for you, just trust your ears, I think that you can come out with something you'll enjoy. I've been ripping music for about 4 years now, and I can tell you that lossy compression changes constantly. As a result, I've re-ripped my collection of CDs (about your size) 3-4 times. I've settled on MPC (you probably won't, it won't work in your iPod), but if I ever encode to LAME, --alt-preset standard -Z offers me all the quality I have ever needed for portable players (not archiving, mind you, but portable players). Just my $0.02, but I hope it helps

xan2k1:
I think you would most certainly be satisfied with --alt-preset standard -Z. It offers very good quality (nearly the best mp3 can offer), at a quite reasonable size.

The only substantial reason for going 320kbps CBR (ie: --alt-preset insane) is to improve a few pathological cases, in which most lossy codecs (mp3, ATRAC, Vorbis etc) will more or less fail to provide transparency anyway. In those special cases (in practice: very rarely), raising the bitrate will typically lessen the problems.

In the forementioned cases, there are usually better alternatives to mp3 anyway.

One more thing: there's a slight distinction between "best quality" and "best mp3 quality"

(1) fail = introduce slight distorsion on high-quality equipment, - most of the time - when listening carefully several times...

I agree.

Since you have a wallop of available GB you can be assured that you'll attain the best quality that is currently available with the mp3 format, also insane will allow for faster encoding of your collection.

I've decided on what I'm going to use...

LAME 3.90.2(Dibrom's compile) with the preset setting of --alt-preset-extreme -Z

I'd rather have a little larger VBR to get the most of out the compression. I did some testing tonight with this setting and I was very pleased with its sound.



I have never heard of this! Could someone help me out here? I will be using a Plextor 48/24/48A CD-R/RW drive...

Thanks a lot for all the help here guys, you've been a big help!