IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
LAME Encoders - Which alt-preset, Which do you use?
Which LAME preset do you use for the majority of your encoding?
You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.
Total Votes: 247
Guests cannot vote 
ReD-BaRoN
post Mar 26 2005, 16:04
Post #1





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 130
Joined: 24-March 05
Member No.: 20884



EDIT: The use case would be encoding albums. As Digga mentioned, you might use a different preset for other applications (which might be a topic for another poll, but not this one wink.gif).

A brief note on why you choose the one you did and what type of music you genearlly listen to would be helpful.

Thanks!

This post has been edited by ReD-BaRoN: Mar 26 2005, 16:51
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dev0
post Mar 26 2005, 16:17
Post #2





Group: Developer
Posts: 1679
Joined: 23-December 01
From: Germany
Member No.: 731



I edited the poll, so it applies to LAME versions newer than 3.95 as well.


--------------------
"To understand me, you'll have to swallow a world." Or maybe your words.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Digga
post Mar 26 2005, 16:44
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 1047
Joined: 28-June 03
From: on the dock of the bay
Member No.: 7423



I voted aps.
however, for me it depends heavily on the purpose.
--> what about other presets, cbr and abr?!

- aps for album / song rips from CD
- ap cbr 128 or ap cbr 160-192 for DVD rips (1CD or 2CD)
- ap 160 for most friends with tight space.


--------------------
Nothing but a Heartache - Since I found my Baby ;)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ReD-BaRoN
post Mar 26 2005, 16:48
Post #4





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 130
Joined: 24-March 05
Member No.: 20884



QUOTE (Digga @ Mar 26 2005, 11:44 AM)
I voted aps.
however, for me it depends heavily on the purpose.
--> what about other presets, cbr and abr?!

- aps for album / song rips from CD
- ap cbr 128 or ap cbr 160-192 for DVD rips (1CD or 2CD)
- ap 160 for most friends with tight space.
*



Sorry Digga, I think what you I should do is limit the application, i.e. for song/album rips.

Thanks for the useful info on how you use your presets!

Edit: Changed using info to useful info

This post has been edited by ReD-BaRoN: Mar 26 2005, 16:52
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Digga
post Mar 26 2005, 17:12
Post #5





Group: Members
Posts: 1047
Joined: 28-June 03
From: on the dock of the bay
Member No.: 7423



QUOTE (ReD-BaRoN @ Mar 26 2005, 04:48 PM)
Sorry Digga, I think what you I should do is limit the application, i.e. for song/album rips.
then it would be good idea to indicate that in the thread title wink.gif
QUOTE
EDIT: The use case would be encoding albums. As Digga mentioned, you might use a different preset for other applications (which might be a topic for another poll, but not this one wink.gif).
smile.gif

This post has been edited by Digga: Mar 26 2005, 17:13


--------------------
Nothing but a Heartache - Since I found my Baby ;)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
madoka
post Mar 26 2005, 17:19
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: 16-November 03
From: Syracuse, NY
Member No.: 9864



I usually encode with --preset extreme. It's probably excessive if one considers my hearing abilities (average), my taste in music (mostly J-Pop, especially the fluffy variety), and my audio equipments (iPod or a pair of $50 computer speakers).

I reckon that even --preset medium would probably be acceptable to me, but hey HD space is cheap. And one never knows; I may win the lottery tomorrow which would allow me to buy better speakers...


--------------------
When a man sits with a pretty girl for an hour, it seems like a minute. But let him sit on a hot stove for a minute--and it’s longer than any hour. That’s relativity.
-- Albert Einstein
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ReD-BaRoN
post Mar 26 2005, 18:08
Post #7





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 130
Joined: 24-March 05
Member No.: 20884



QUOTE
then it would be good idea to indicate that in the thread title  wink.gif


Is there anyway for me to edit the poll title? Seems that I can only edit my post, not the poll.

Thanks!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jaybeee
post Mar 26 2005, 20:30
Post #8





Group: Members
Posts: 410
Joined: 20-October 04
From: UK
Member No.: 17750



3.97 alpha (latest version) '-V 4 --vbr-new' for my H120 iRiver portable.

This post has been edited by jaybeee: Mar 27 2005, 11:28


--------------------
http://www.health4ni.com/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
shadowking
post Mar 27 2005, 02:34
Post #9





Group: Members
Posts: 1527
Joined: 31-January 04
Member No.: 11664



3.96.1 -V4 --vbr-new for my zen touch dap.


--------------------
Wavpack -b450s0.7
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
HDClown
post Mar 27 2005, 04:21
Post #10





Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: 27-March 05
Member No.: 20979



Just got a 60g iPod Photo and am slowly ripping my 600+ CD collection to MP3.

Currently using EAC w/ LAME 3.90.3 with standard.

I had done a few dics with 3.96.1 and standard but after reading the recommendation of the forum, I went to 3.90.3 as the indication was the standard preset had better quality in 3.90.3.

I'm curious as to how much better quality standard in 3.90.3 might just really have, because the average filesize was about 1.0 to 1.5 megs less using standard in 3.96.1

I figured standard was a good way to only have to do this once for many many years (I hope). I did not feel like spending the cash for HDD space to FLAC everything to save myself some ripping time in the future if I want to re-encode with something better. Afterall, only reason I got an iPod is because it was a gift, so by the time I may buy a new portable media device, I figure the average HDD size will easily be 120gigs or more and they will play FLAC or whatever the lossless compressed format is of the day and it won't be an issue about loosing quality and all these crazy encoder settings.

This post has been edited by HDClown: Mar 27 2005, 04:24
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ReD-BaRoN
post Mar 27 2005, 05:32
Post #11





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 130
Joined: 24-March 05
Member No.: 20884



QUOTE (HDClown @ Mar 26 2005, 11:21 PM)
I'm curious as to how much better quality standard in 3.90.3 might just really have, because the average filesize was about 1.0 to 1.5 megs less using standard in 3.96.1
*

Yes, it would be interesting to see a listening test for this.

Given that you have an iPod, why did you choose MP3 over AAC. I'm in the midst of deciding this myself (MP3 standard vs AAC128 VS AAC192)?

Thanks!

This post has been edited by ReD-BaRoN: Mar 27 2005, 05:39
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ameyer17
post Mar 27 2005, 06:14
Post #12





Group: Banned
Posts: 78
Joined: 7-October 04
Member No.: 17551



3.96.1 --alt-preset standard
probably a little bit of overkill but that's ok
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
HDClown
post Mar 27 2005, 06:19
Post #13





Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: 27-March 05
Member No.: 20979



QUOTE (ReD-BaRoN @ Mar 26 2005, 11:32 PM)
QUOTE (HDClown @ Mar 26 2005, 11:21 PM)
I'm curious as to how much better quality standard in 3.90.3 might just really have, because the average filesize was about 1.0 to 1.5 megs less using standard in 3.96.1
*

Yes, it would be interesting to see a listening test for this.

Given that you have an iPod, why did you choose MP3 over AAC. I'm in the midst of deciding this myself (MP3 standard vs AAC128 VS AAC192)?

Thanks!
*



Opted for MP3 for the more universalness of it, but in reality, I'd probably stick with iPod type devices in the future, so it's kind of a moot point. I think I ultimately did it because MP3 is just what everyone knows.

Good news is, iTunes rips to AAC waaaaay faster then EAC + LAME on my current DVD drive, so if I want to go AAC in the future, it won't take nearly as long.

If I remember correctly (Read a lot on here today before making my choices) AAC128 was comparable to MP3 192 CBR. Given that I'm using VBR with standard preset, I could have saved space and gotten a similar type of quality with AAC 128 or AAC 160, but I wasn't overly concerned with the space, I have 60g afterall and will not put 100% of my collection onto the iPod.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
HisInfernalMajes...
post Mar 27 2005, 06:28
Post #14





Group: Members
Posts: 116
Joined: 15-October 03
Member No.: 9325



I use "--alt-preset standard" with LAME 3.90.3 for my albums. These encodes I mostly listen to on my Creative Nomad Jukebox 3 (20 gigs), which can hold about 3,000 songs with this setting, which is just about how many songs I have total when all said and done... Although APS is probably too much for my listening conditions (pretty good headphones (Sennheiser HD-555s) in a noisy environment =/) but it comes in handy when I hook it up to my stereo or listen in a quiet environment...


--------------------
http://www.last.fm/user/mattimeo18
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
DreamTactix291
post Mar 27 2005, 06:32
Post #15





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



I mostly use mp3s for friends and then I use LAME 3.96.1 --preset standard. I pretty much don't use mp3 for anything else anymore.


--------------------
Nero AAC 1.5.1.0: -q0.45
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
boojum
post Mar 27 2005, 08:00
Post #16





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 819
Joined: 8-November 02
From: Astoria, OR
Member No.: 3727



I listen to all music except hip-hop/rap. APS works fine for me on my computer. When I get my stereo set up again I will see how the MP3's sound on it. If they sound fine, I will continue with APS. Or, just play the CD on my very old ReVox CD player (1983). cool.gif


--------------------
Nov schmoz kapop.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
nvivison
post Mar 27 2005, 23:58
Post #17





Group: Members
Posts: 25
Joined: 23-February 03
From: Oxford, UK
Member No.: 5136



I used to use APS, but I am considering dropping down to -V3 or -V4 to save on space and because I doubt that I could hear the difference now*.

*It looks like I might have damaged my left ear after an injury received last year.

This post has been edited by nvivison: Mar 28 2005, 03:42
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
beto
post Mar 28 2005, 00:31
Post #18





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 713
Joined: 8-July 04
From: Sao Paulo
Member No.: 15173



-V4 --vbr-new, aka --preset fast medium

good enough for me.


--------------------
http://volutabro.blogspot.com
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
AtaqueEG
post Mar 28 2005, 01:08
Post #19





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



LAME 3.97 latest alpha V4-vbr new
Souds awesome to me. I cannot tell it from my old -aps encodes.

Gabriel really deserves the highest props.


--------------------
I'm the one in the picture, sitting on a giant cabbage in Mexico, circa 1978.
Reseñas de Rock en Español: www.estadogeneral.com
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jojo
post Mar 28 2005, 02:18
Post #20





Group: Members
Posts: 1361
Joined: 25-November 02
Member No.: 3873



QUOTE (HDClown @ Mar 26 2005, 09:19 PM)
Good news is, iTunes rips to AAC waaaaay faster then EAC + LAME on my current DVD drive, so if I want to go AAC in the future, it won't take nearly as long.

yea...try EAC in burst mode...the reason why EAC is slower is because it makes sure your rips will be as perfect as possible...

QUOTE
If I remember correctly (Read a lot on here today before making my choices) AAC128 was comparable to MP3 192 CBR.  Given that I'm using VBR with standard preset, I could have saved space and gotten a similar type of quality with AAC 128 or AAC 160, but I wasn't overly concerned with the space, I have 60g afterall and will not put 100% of my collection onto the iPod.

read again... http://www.rjamorim.com/test/multiformat128/results.html
also, it's hard to compare two different codecs...but AAC 192kbps could be roughly compared to mp3 preset standard...

This post has been edited by Jojo: Mar 28 2005, 02:18


--------------------
--alt-presets are there for a reason! These other switches DO NOT work better than it, trust me on this.
LAME + Joint Stereo doesn't destroy 'Stereo'
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
AtaqueEG
post Mar 28 2005, 04:31
Post #21





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



QUOTE (Jojo @ Mar 27 2005, 07:18 PM)
QUOTE (HDClown @ Mar 26 2005, 09:19 PM)
Good news is, iTunes rips to AAC waaaaay faster then EAC + LAME on my current DVD drive, so if I want to go AAC in the future, it won't take nearly as long.

yea...try EAC in burst mode...the reason why EAC is slower is because it makes sure your rips will be as perfect as possible...


And if you use Burst mode AND Test and Copy onEAC, you get fast rips that are also secure (that is, if the CRC's match). I rip a 60 minute CD in less than 5 minutes this way.

I only use secure if I can't get a matching CRC after three tries


--------------------
I'm the one in the picture, sitting on a giant cabbage in Mexico, circa 1978.
Reseñas de Rock en Español: www.estadogeneral.com
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Vietfobster
post Mar 28 2005, 04:46
Post #22





Group: Members
Posts: 19
Joined: 5-August 04
Member No.: 16058



i would use aps
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
VCSkier
post Mar 28 2005, 04:46
Post #23





Group: Members
Posts: 447
Joined: 26-January 05
From: LynchburgVA(US)
Member No.: 19325



QUOTE (HDClown @ Mar 27 2005, 01:19 AM)
Good news is, iTunes rips to AAC waaaaay faster then EAC + LAME on my current DVD drive, so if I want to go AAC in the future, it won't take nearly as long.
*

also, just so you know, you can use itunes encode to create quicktime (itunes) acc files. smile.gif


--------------------
a windows-free, linux user since 1/31/06.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
R.A.F.
post Mar 28 2005, 04:48
Post #24





Group: Members
Posts: 281
Joined: 4-August 02
From: Nuremberg/Bavaria
Member No.: 2924



--alt-preset standard. All above that is overkill and just wasted diskspace in my eyes. Don´t understand those guys who use --alt-preset insane. 320 kbps is far too high for a lossy file!
Btw: The generating of CRC-checksums seems to be broken in both 3.90.3 and 3.96.1. At least with the formerly mentioned presets I get very often a wrong CRC for the last frame (checked by the utility MP3Test).

This post has been edited by R.A.F.: Mar 28 2005, 04:49


--------------------
My used codecs and settings:
FLAC V1.1.2 -4 / APE V3.99 Update 4 -high / MPC V1.15v --q 5 / LAME V3.97b2 -V2 --vbr-new / OGG aoTuV V4.51 Lancer -q5
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
NeoRenegade
post Mar 30 2005, 22:49
Post #25





Group: Members
Posts: 723
Joined: 29-November 01
Member No.: 563



I use --alt-preset cbr 128, --alt-preset cbr 160 or --alt-preset cbr 192, for maximum compatibility with hardware players.

When I want something just to sound good for playaback on the computer, I use --alt-preset standard or I use a different format altogether, such as Ogg Vorbis.

This post has been edited by NeoRenegade: Mar 31 2005, 08:32
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
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: 21st September 2014 - 07:06