... what happened to 3.90.3. I assumed it had not yet been released by Dibrom, but people seem to be discussing it like it exists somewhere. Does it? The "recommended compiles" list does not have it linked to.

Also, if it does exist am I right assuming the only change is the addition of -Z to the alt-presets?

You'll find it at RareWares, link on the Portal, as a .dll and .exe. You're partly correct. The only difference with 3.90.2 is the addition of '-Z' to --alt-preset standard and only APS.

I thought -Z helped extreme as well as standard?

Is 3.90.3 recommended or not? If so why is the sticky not updated?

Jebus, you are really jebus!
Jebus ty jestes pojebany

Good question. I was expecting one of the other mods to get to this, but I guess I should have said something. If nobody else does it, I'll update it myself later, though I suppose I should probably check out the compile "just to be sure". This means I won't get around to it for awhile, since I'm already working on a bunch of other stuff right now.

Thank you, Dibrom.

ADAM...

Masz moze bogatszy zasob slownictwa?
Jezeli tak, to spruboj go zastosowac!

CU
Bobby Black

Please observe Forum rule #10 - All posts must be in English.

Hi Dibrom!

This was only a comment to <adamjk>
He should don't use the bad words in foreign language.

CU
Bobby Black

Really nice post... (pojebany = f**ed) when we take into the account it's the post Nr. 3 from you

OFF-TOPIC: How come so many people here understand Polish? (Me included)
Anyway, bitching, especially in foreign language is forbidden here.
Look rules 2 and 10 and learn them by heart before posting anything else.

ON-TOPIC: Is 3.90.3 recommended or not? I haven't noticed any clear answer...

AstralStorm: It should be recommended, the issue is it hasn't been tested thoroughly (so as to ensure that 3.90.3 really is the same as 3.90.2, just with -Z). Does it really matter, though? Using 3.90.2 --aps -Z does the same thing and you'll get that warm fuzzy feeling knowing there's not something wrong with your compile...

Although, does anyone feel like we're a little too hesitant to accept new versions because of possible minute quality differences? This is understandable, of course, but really, is anything ever going to be more thoroughly tested than 3.90.2?

There's enough confusion about LAME versions and alt-presets yet. I think it is more practical to recommend -Z.
It's OK to have an unofficial compile with -Z included (e.g. a CDex-dll). But regarding non-windows users, it is smarter to recommend -Z for APS/APE.

...couldn´t find in the Lame-Doc...
What does the "Z"-Setting do?

Thanks
Hiwi

Hate quoting myself, but here you go

Anyone wanting to find out what we're talking about with the -Z, and -Y switches etc., should print a copy of the LAME Long Help for their own usage by running this command from a command prompt or batch file:

LAME --longhelp > "LAME Long Help.txt"

Yes it does.

For anyone interested, I've recompiled and uploaded all the 3.90.3 variants with '-Z' added to APE as well as to APS.

tnx john33. downloading...

is it possible for you to update the 3.90.3 compile so that it accepts a --preset command alternatively to the --alt-preset command (like newer versions of lame do, they accept both...). just to get conformity with newer LAMEs??? (and it's faster to type).



@elmar3rd: now with lame 3.90.3 out in the public, I think it's more practical to recommend one safe preset: that's --alt-preset standard.

strange switches like -Z, -Y, -X etc. could confuse some.

A reasonable suggestion, I'll look into it.

wow great.


that shouldn't harm anyone and would make the use of the presets more "clear". (we don't have to explain the difference between the presets of the old lames and the new ones - or to explain that there aren't any).

and there is another good reason. the formerly alternative presets (therefore --alt-presets) aren't alternative anymore. they ARE definitely the presets to touch.

EDIT: and if it's possible, please don't forget that there are abr and cbr presets too.

tnx, amano

Bobby Black...

uje sie nie kreskuje

THANKS!!!

CU
Bobby Black

Post in english only! If you want to say something in polish, send a private message...

Probably a good idea to get a known stable version (i.e. based on 3.90.2) tweaked to use --preset as a synonym (i.e. alternative) to --alt-preset as well as for the existing presets of very old Lame compiles.

A minor interface niggle is also the need to specify the destination filename so you don't get an output file called file.wav.mp3. This might simplify EAC commandline options, where users wouldn't have any problems if they left out the %d (for destination filename) when setting up a user-defined encoder.

Frankly, it may also be worthwhile to modify some of the text output too, including the output of --help and --longhelp to advocate --preset standard as the default setting for transparent encoding.

How about indicating that --r3mix is superceded by extensive blind testing (suggest --preset standard for transparent quality, or suggest --preset standard -Y for similar bitrates at better quality, or even hardcode the latter as a replacement with an appropriate informational message).

It might also be worth printing on-screen warnings when non-recommended psychoacoustic mode switches are added to presets and suggesting those that are safe. (It might also safe repeated questions on these forums)
Apart from mono downmixing and -Z, the only switches I understand to be artifact-'safe' modifications to -APS, -APE and -API are:
-F
-Y and
--lowpass
providing the lowpass doesn't exceed the level used in insane, where it might seriously risk hitting 320kbps too often and lacking enough bits to encode the audible stuff properly. I guess higher -b values are possible too.

Here's an example warning as a suggestion (perhaps a bit long).
What do you think?

User types:
lame --preset standard -k -noshort -q 0 --tt "Test file" test.wav test.mp3


Edit: typo

I disagree. What should happen is that the -Z option should be removed completely. Once again, this is the problem with exposing experimental options to the normal frontend...

Recommending -Z not only goes against the whole idea of the preset supposedly doing everything you need, but it also encourages people to use experimental options without really knowing what they do.

@john33:

any success yet in adding the additional commands/texts??

I should have something for you to look at tomorrow.

*yeeessayin'amano*

just added 3.90.3 to the sticky "recommended compiles thread". I hope dibrom won't kick my ass.

OK, people, try this version of 3.90.3 for size!!

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jfe1205/lame-...0.3modified.zip

This version has been modified to allow for the use of either --alt-preset or --preset in the command line. The encoded results using our beloved presets are bit identical with the current 3.90.3 compile.

Further modifications:

1. As in 3.93.1, the old presets - phone, voice, fm, etc., are now alias's for ABR settings.

2. I have added Gabriel's MEDIUM and FAST MEDIUM presets. These do NOT give bit identical results with the 3.93.1 compile because there have library changes in between. However, I can't detect any audible differences but, no doubt, those of you with 'golden' ears will advise whether this is so. I put these presets in because it was easily done. If the consensus is that they shouldn't be in this compile, they are easily removed; it's up to you.

Comments would be appreciated.

downloading...

tnx, old guru of compiles.

EDIT: just checked the compile. the result was exactly the same as with the normal 3.90.3 compile.

I can't see any harm in adding the medium presets, and I welcome the idea, as they're an added tool for when bitrate takes a little more precedence over complete transparency, but you want to lose transparency as gracefully and unannoyingly as possible. Without the ability to choose fractional quality levels, like mppenc -quality 4.26 --xlevel would do, this is a decent option, and ought to retain a little more quality than an equivalent bitrate ABR option.

I haven't tested the medium preset before, so I can't comment on the differences, but it might be a good option for EAC's Low Quality switch:

EAC Additional Commandline Options example:

hey,

I've been using LAME 3.90.2 with --alt-preset standard, and then --alt-preset standard -Z to use noise shaping 1 with the standard profile once it became recommended. Is 3.90.3 worth downloading over 3.90.2 if you already use -Z with the --alt-preset standard command in 3.90.2?
thanks

In a word - no! If you already use -Z, the only advantage of 3.90.3 is that you don't need to remember to add it to the command line.

thanks for your quick concise reply John33! B) , I'll continue using 3.90.2 then

@ CiTay, john33 or any other person that knows a definite answer to this question:
Is --preset insane better with the -Z option or not?
Here is why I am confused:

CiTay's post
Dibrom's post (updated by CiTay May 13th)

From what I understand, CiTay is saying that api does not need -Z. -Z helps with aps and ape but not api. -Z forces api to NS2 instead of the default NS1 which is better in the first place.
Then, in the recommended compiles, CiTay (he is the one who updated the post) says that 3.90.3 produces better quality for aps, ape, and api compared to 3.90.2 when used without -Z.

So which one is it?

I am interested in this because I need a selected few CDs to be ripped at max quality in MP3s.
Thanx.

Edit: Yes, I read LAME's long help, but it does not talk about the -Z in a lot of details. I ran it using LAME.exe in the 3.90.2 pack. I noticed that -Z was taken out of the 3.90.3 help . Good idea .

-Z toggles between NS1 and NS2. --api uses NS1 by default (its not like it costs anymore kbps anyhow with CBR), so using -Z will switch to a higher noise threshold, aka sound worse.

@boiling_ice2k4:

I think a 200 kbyte download is worth forgetting about the -Z switch mess. out of soght, out of mind.

just give the latest compile a try: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jfe1205/lame-...0.3modified.zip

I love it.

@john33: why don't you host the modiefied 3.90.3 at rarewares??

and what about removing 3.90.2, coz it isn't the recommended version anymore??

then you host 3.90.3 as the recommended compile,
3.93.1 as the latest official compile
and 3.94 alpha, and 4.0 alpha, to make us see the near and the far future.

just some ideas,
amano

@ John33, Can you please provided a lame-3.90.3modified With APE and CUE support? I'd love to be able to use --preset with these option
Cheers,
Burgerings

Another Note, Won't it be so good when FINALLY one day Lame 3.94 is fully tested, is the recommendard compile to use and we just use the OFFICIAL LAME version again?

I did really plan to do that but I was waiting for some more feedback on the modified version regarding acceptability, etc.

However, I guess I'll add it as an optional d/l.

@burgerings: OK, I'll do that and post when it's done.

The modified versions (--alt-preset and --preset enabled) of lame.exe, 3.90.3, with, and without, APE and Cuesheet support are now at RareWares MP3 page.

I've also just uploaded the complete sources for the modified 3.90.3 which include the standard version and the one with APE and Cuesheet support (approx. 1Mb d/l).

@ Jebus: Thx a lot

@ amano: NO don't remove 3.90.2. I need it when I encode using api. 3.90.3 should not be recommended for api if I understand what -Z does to api and 3.90.3 adds a -Z to api too.
Edit2: The previous statement is pure BS . Read on in this topic to know my mistake .

@ john33: does 3.90.3 affect api? In the recommended complies topic, it says it does. In this topic, the only two forms you are mentioning are aps and ape (and the fast presets too).
Edit2: No need for an answer , I got it from CiTay. Thx.

Edit1: typo.

No, i don't say that. All i said is that -Z is used for --aps, --ape and --api, which is correct... the fact that --api always used NS1/-Z is secondary. But i will edit that post to avoid confusion.

Thx a lot CiTay. Now I get it . 3.90.3 does not change anything for api (compared to 3.90.2), but makes ape and aps use NS1 which api uses as default. So all three now are using NS1.

Edit: The editted post in recommended compiles makes it much clearer now.

I assume everything is clear now? Excellent!!

yes. everything is clear now. and 3.90.3 is recommended for api too (so perhaps remove 2.90.2 to avoid confusion, but I don't really care).

YES . Now it is fine. Thanks for being so patient with me . ( )

Edit: You can remove 3.90.2. I have no objections.

@ John33, Thanks for making a Lame 3.90.3modified with APE and CUE support
Cheers,
Burgerings