IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

> Hydrogenaudio Forum Rules

- No Warez. This includes warez links, cracks and/or requests for help in getting illegal software or copyrighted music tracks!
- No Spamming or Trolling on the boards, this includes useless posts, trying to only increase post count or trying to deliberately create a flame war.
- No Hateful or Disrespectful posts. This includes: bashing, name-calling or insults directed at a board member.
- Click here for complete Hydrogenaudio Terms of Service

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Lame okay, what next !
zpro
post Jun 6 2005, 01:21
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 5-June 05
Member No.: 22543



Well, got Lame install with iTunes.. ( Mac OS X ), and all is well,
however, want to make a better recording that what I was using.

in iTunes;
MP3; 256 vbr / Stereo with Subsonic filter, and Error Correction, Sound Quality Excellent.

So, what I been using is:
-v -V0 -b256 -ms -q0

however, I still feel it could use further tweaks...
using 3.95 Lame ( for now )

So, what should I add or take away..., and space is not a problem
800 GB of storage. tongue.gif

Thanks -
cool.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
btberger
post Jun 6 2005, 01:33
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 22
Joined: 19-April 05
Member No.: 21564



If space is not an issue, why are you not using a lossless format?

Also, try a newer version of LAME and 3.90.3 and see which you prefer, if there is a reason for a lossy version.

I would recommend you look at something like WACK, if you have that kind of storage. With WACK, you could rip both to lossy and lossless.

Brent
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Lyx
post Jun 6 2005, 01:38
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 3353
Joined: 6-July 03
From: Sachsen (DE)
Member No.: 7609



Try the sticky topics in the mp3-forums and the MP3-FAQ.

This post has been edited by Lyx: Jun 6 2005, 01:39


--------------------
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
AtaqueEG
post Jun 6 2005, 01:43
Post #4





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 1336
Joined: 18-November 01
From: Celaya, Guanajuato
Member No.: 478



Yeah, you could do better on your command line.

Try the presets.

And a newer version (or a tested one)


--------------------
I'm the one in the picture, sitting on a giant cabbage in Mexico, circa 1978.
Reseņas de Rock en Espaņol: www.estadogeneral.com
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
zpro
post Jun 6 2005, 02:11
Post #5





Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 5-June 05
Member No.: 22543



QUOTE (AtaqueEG @ Jun 5 2005, 08:43 PM)
Yeah, you could do better on your command line.

Try the presets.

And a newer version (or a tested one)
*



Try some of the present, like insane.. however,
they still need some tweaks... like: -ms
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
DreamTactix291
post Jun 6 2005, 02:30
Post #6





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 552
Joined: 9-June 04
From: A place long since forgotten...
Member No.: 14572



zpro: Could you possibly explain exactly why --preset insane needs any tweaks? Especially one theoretically can lower quality like -ms. One or two problem samples isn't much of a reason to go against what they are tuned to use IMO

Anyhow with 800GB of space I'd seriously recommend looking into a lossless format.


--------------------
Nero AAC 1.5.1.0: -q0.45
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dreamliner77
post Jun 6 2005, 02:35
Post #7





Group: Members
Posts: 2150
Joined: 29-June 02
From: Boston
Member No.: 2427



QUOTE (zpro @ Jun 5 2005, 09:11 PM)
QUOTE (AtaqueEG @ Jun 5 2005, 08:43 PM)
Yeah, you could do better on your command line.

Try the presets.

And a newer version (or a tested one)
*



Try some of the present, like insane.. however,
they still need some tweaks... like: -ms
*




Sure, all the people here at HA that tested the presets couldn't figure that one out. Thanks for letting us know!


--------------------
"You can fight without ever winning, but never win without a fight." Neil Peart 'Resist'
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Lyx
post Jun 6 2005, 02:55
Post #8





Group: Members
Posts: 3353
Joined: 6-July 03
From: Sachsen (DE)
Member No.: 7609



i sense a trashy thread.


--------------------
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
zpro
post Jun 6 2005, 05:45
Post #9





Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 5-June 05
Member No.: 22543



QUOTE (DreamTactix291 @ Jun 5 2005, 09:30 PM)
zpro: Could you possibly explain exactly why --preset insane needs any tweaks?  Especially one theoretically can lower quality like -ms.  One or two problem samples isn't much of a reason to go against what they are tuned to use IMO

Anyhow with 800GB of space I'd seriously recommend looking into a lossless format.
*



Well, when I did it , the rip mp3 was in joint stereo.
not stereo., and being a 267 kbps rip, joint stereo should not be used.

So, that why I add -ms ( to make it stereo..) also notice that it does a -h
instead of -q0

cool.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dreamliner77
post Jun 6 2005, 05:53
Post #10





Group: Members
Posts: 2150
Joined: 29-June 02
From: Boston
Member No.: 2427



What makes you think that joint stereo SHOULD NOT be used?

There's plenty to read about JS and also q0 on the forums.


--------------------
"You can fight without ever winning, but never win without a fight." Neil Peart 'Resist'
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
xmixahlx
post Jun 6 2005, 06:00
Post #11





Group: Members
Posts: 1394
Joined: 20-December 01
From: seattle
Member No.: 693



what a great thread!

recycle bin time!


--------------------
RareWares/Debian :: http://www.rarewares.org/debian.html
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
navin
post Jun 6 2005, 10:03
Post #12





Group: Members
Posts: 177
Joined: 27-May 05
Member No.: 22324



QUOTE (btberger @ Jun 6 2005, 06:03 AM)
If space is not an issue, why are you not using a lossless format?

Also, try a newer version of LAME and 3.90.3 and see which you prefer, if there is a reason for a lossy version.

I would recommend you look at something like WACK, if you have that kind of storage. With WACK, you could rip both to lossy and lossless.

Brent
*


Synthetic Soul has been helping me set up my EAC>WACK>LAME+WAVPAK so that in one rip i can get MP3 as well as a lossless file. this thread covers quite a lot and i am grateful for the time these guys have spent helping me. It mighthelp you too.

the link is http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=34384

This post has been edited by navin: Jun 6 2005, 10:04
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
PoisonDan
post Jun 6 2005, 10:26
Post #13





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 678
Joined: 10-December 01
From: Belgium
Member No.: 622



zpro, please read the FAQ.

Especially the MP3 section.

And especially the answers to "Why is joint stereo better than pure stereo".

There are dozens of threads about it on this board, please do a search.


--------------------
Over thinking, over analyzing separates the body from the mind.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
tgoose
post Jun 6 2005, 10:59
Post #14





Group: Members
Posts: 407
Joined: 12-April 05
Member No.: 21399



Arghhhhhh
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 16th September 2014 - 08:33