Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Newbie question : LAME 3.xx.xx ? (Read 50836 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Newbie question : LAME 3.xx.xx ?

Reply #50 –
Quote
Isn't it clear enough? Or can't you read? 3.90.3 is recommended because tests were done by some people in the past. And not because quality is proven to be superior to any other lame version.
It should be clear enough.


Meh. Everything before 3.96.1 was clearly inferior, if I read the ABX results properly. 3.96.1 didn't make the recommended version list because of unknown possible regressions; ergo it was placed there because its use could theoretically lead to lower quality in yet-untested situations. Okay, perhaps its quality is equivalent in most situations. So, if the versions are exactly equivalent quality-wise, 3.90.x is better tested, and should be considered superior, as there is no improvement being made.

Quote
LAME 3.96.1 seemed as though it might be about the same quality as 3.90.3 in some of the tests done after it was released. However, in the minds of the administration of this forum it has not yet been tested extensively enough, thus 3.90.3 is still the recommended version.
I can read just fine, thank you.

Quote
False. Gabriel and Robert worked to improve quality as well as encoded speed. All recent tunings made on recent alphas had no impact on speed but on quality. Read changelog if needed. And if you can't understand it, just count the lines coloured in red...


I wasn't referring to recent changes, I was referring to the ones shortly after Dibrom branched development for 3.90.x. I'm talking LAME v3.94, etc. here.

Quote
Good Lord? What's this nonesense? LAME is not GOGO... To improve speed and lower quality in the same time, it should be easier to make -q 9 as default. I wonder why developers were irrational enough to spend so many hours to work with various switch in order to achieve the same results.


Please refer to my comment about 3.94. Quality regressed. There wasn't a continual iteration towards perfection, there was a clear regression in the releases after 3.90.

Quote
For someone who can't ABX difference between 2 release of lame, you have many things to tell...


Stop the ad hominem. I was piecing together my logical statement.

Quote
Did you read HA TOS? Conclusions and claims must be based on listening tests, and not on syllogism or phantasmas.


If you're going to discount syllogism (and therefore logic), don't even bother with ABX. ABX is fundamentally based around concepts introduced by predicate and prepositional logic and scientific rigour.

Quote
Then read all tests that were performed on lame during the last year, etc...
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=302527"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Like I've stated before, I'll accept that the new versions are superior when they make it onto the Recommended Version page. If they're not there, there's a reason. I've made my reasoning crystal clear, even going to the extent of breaking it down syllogistically for you. I've read the threads. I've seen that there's been a gradual increase in LAME's quality since 3.94, and through the 3.95 alphas.

Until then, let's keep quality debates out of threads where new members are asking for help. 3.90.3 is the recommended version, and therefore should be the one recommended. Yeah, people have opinions, but it is much less confusing if we can just agree that the Recommended Version is the recommended version.

I can read just fine. If we're going to argue comprehension here and include ad hominem attacks, your English could use some work. It would have been much simpler and less aggressive to point out that my claim that 3.90.x was superior quality-wise to 3.96 was incorrect, and that the two were apparently equivalent. That is the kind of feedback I was asking for, not the kind I'd have to whip out the asbestos underwear for.

Edit: Can we please get a mod to split all this off-topic quality discussion from this thread?

Newbie question : LAME 3.xx.xx ?

Reply #51 –
Okay I'll keep my commentary this time short:

3.94 was only a development branch for 3.95. It was never released. To say that LAME regressed after 3.93 gives no credence to the whole development lifecycle, where things tend to get broken before they get better.

A lot of work went into changing Dibrom's compiler-specific alt-preset hacks (which is what they were - he admits it... that's why 3.90.3 needs special compiler switches) into proper code-level adjustments at that time. Yes some breakage occured, but generally speaking, 3.95 was pretty good, and within a few short months replaced by 3.96. There WAS no 3.94 release, so don't complain about its quality!

Newbie question : LAME 3.xx.xx ?

Reply #52 –
Oi. You guys are completely missing the point. I was making a simple statement to a new member. I simplified things to their most basic to show what was going on fundamentally. It worked. They understood. Then guruboolez attacked.

I'll try making things even simpler and write what I mean for the third time.

LAME v3.90.3 is the Recommended Compile.
LAME v3.96.1 is not.
Recommended Compiles are chosen on the basis of transparency, reliability, well-tested-ness, recommendability, wtfever (hereinafter referred to as ASDF, and previously referred to as "quality").
So, LAME v3.90.3 must be more ASDF than 3.96, as it is the Recommended Compile. (I've previously just used quality to refer to ASDF; I consider it equivalent.)
LAME v3.96.1 is faster than v3.90.3.
Therefore LAME v3.90.3 is more ASDF than 3.96.1 and 3.96.1 is faster than 3.90.3.
Therefore choosing 3.96.1 is a choice for speed rather than ASDF.

Jebus: 3.95 was never "officially released" either. That doesn't mean it didn't exist. And yes, I'm aware of the development lifecycle and so on. Again, I'm simplifying things so I don't spend half my life writing on HA. It doesn't seem to serve any useful purpose, as every time I attempt it, I'm thoroughly raped by pedants. The point is, however, that things got broken and there were regressions in between here and there.

Newbie question : LAME 3.xx.xx ?

Reply #53 –
Quote
Meh. Everything before 3.96.1 was clearly inferior, if I read the ABX results properly.

Clearly inferior? Which samples? Which presets? Give links, please. Many people used 3.91, 3.92 & 3.93, and there were few complaints. 3.95 was selected for Roberto's collective listening test, not because it was "clearly inferior", but simply because quality proved to be superior to 3.90.3.

Quote
I wasn't referring to recent changes, I was referring to the ones shortly after Dibrom branched development for 3.90.x. I'm talking LAME v3.94, etc. here.


I quote your own words:
use 3.90.3. Using anything else will give suboptimal results in terms of quality. Every other choice is a decision to trade off quality for speed.
Did you ever mention the fact that 3.95, 3.96 & 3.97 are excluded from your first statement? No. You explicitely said that 3.90.3 offers the best quality, without any proof.

Quote
Please refer to my comment about 3.94. Quality regressed. There wasn't a continual iteration towards perfection, there was a clear regression in the releases after 3.90.

Who cares about 3.94 beta? People are interested by 3.96.1 or even 3.97, and are not requesting opinions about 3.90.3 vs 3.94 since two years.

Quote
ABX is fundamentally based around concepts introduced by predicate and prepositional logic and scientific rigour.


Then begin to respect scientific rigour, which supposes to make experimentation after exposing any theory. If you think (dream?) that all improvements made since 3.90.3 were done in order to improve speed with negative impact on quality, that's OK. But then perform listening tests to confirm or infirm this theory. You're not rigourous at all. You explicitely said that you can't detect any difference, but you continue to claim that 3.90.3 have a better quality. It's more than pathetic.
There are a lot of people on this board who can't ABX any difference. But they're consequent (call it scientific if you want) enough to not make claims which contradicts their own experience.


Quote
Like I've stated before, I'll accept that the new versions are superior when they make it onto the Recommended Version page. If they're not there, there's a reason.


Yes, and the reason have nothing to do with quality, but is linked to the lack of testers.


Quote
Until then, let's keep quality debates out of threads where new members are asking for help.

Spreading wrong informations doesn't help anybody. You said four things in this topic which are simply invalid or false:

1/ that 3.90.3 offers the best quality
2/ that administrators said that 3.90.3 is better and therefore recommended
3/ that subsequent versions of lame were optimized for speed only
4/ that speed optimisation conduced to lower quality.


The 1st one is a simple violation of TOS#8.
The 3rd and 4th one are a denigration of Gabriel and Roberto's work, which are constantly requesting from HA.org readers serious listening tests in oder to check the impact on quality of their changes.
Therefore, don't say that you're helping the community by answering to people which are looking for advice about LAME quality.

Quote
3.90.3 is the recommended version, and therefore should be the one recommended. Yeah, people have opinions, but it is much less confusing if we can just agree that the Recommended Version is the recommended version.


When people are looking for the most secured LAME version, then 3.90.3 as recommended version for security should be recommended. That's right. But when people are looking for LAME release offring the best quality (what XP_98 asked for), then 3.90.3 is not the recommended version. Recent tests revealed that 3.97a10 offers better quality than 3.90.3. If you're not agree with it, then prove it, and don't invoke official recommendation which doesn't claim anything about relative 3.90.3 quality, except that "3.96.1 has been proven to be of superior quality for some bitrates where there are no VBR presets for 3.90.3, only ABR"  .

Newbie question : LAME 3.xx.xx ?

Reply #54 –
Quote
The subsequent versions of LAME were optimized for speed. Therefore, subsequent LAME versions are faster than 3.90.3. These speed optimizations caused degradation of audio quality, resulting in builds that produced poorer audio quality, and requiring retuning to provide quality equal to 3.90.3.

Regarding this specific point, I would like it to go away.
The speed optimizations caused absolutely no audio quality regression. They are purely computationnal optimizations, like not computing things twice and the likes.

There has been some audio regressions and some audio enhancements, this is not my point. But I would like this "they reduced audio quality in order to increase speed" argument to go away, as it is just wrong.

Newbie question : LAME 3.xx.xx ?

Reply #55 –
Quote
I am in the process of ripping a collection of a similar size to yours. My hard drive was 160GB. Ultimately, what I realized is this is an extremely time consuming process. As such, I changed my plan from ripping EAC/Lame to EAC/Flacattack.

I purchased a new 400GB hard drive for $220 on eBay and encoded both .flac and .lame at the same time.
7.5GB per 100 discs using 3.90.3 --alt preset standard
30GB per 100 discs using flac 1.1.2 --best (8)
Good luck with your project and remember, this is supposed to be fun. You are not the Anti-Christ if you choose 3.96 or 3.90. I assure you, no one will die.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=302586"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


ok i live in india so we dont have ebay and my hardware guy could not find me a bigger drive than 250GB. I have now pleaded with him to try. this idea of yours seems great. if I can rip FLAC and LAME at the same time I would save the effort and have FLAC and MP3 formats in one rip.

Ofcourse this is fun. the only reason I intend to use 3.96.1 is because 3.90.3 might hiccup if there are tag errors. 3.96.1 has the --ignore-tag-errors switch. is there a way to get 3.90.3 to not hiccup due to tag errors? I would feel safer with a better TESTED version.

Whew, thank god i was not quoted in that flame war. You all seems to be very passionate about this encoding thing.

Newbie question : LAME 3.xx.xx ?

Reply #56 –
Quote
this idea of yours seems great. if I can rip FLAC and LAME at the same time I would save the effort and have FLAC and MP3 formats in one rip.

A few of us have been suggesting that you archive to lossless (FLAC is lossless) right from the start.  I guess we should have confirmed that you could transcode to lossy (MP3) at the same time, or any time you wish.

One thing I will say: If you are considering using FLAC to archive, may I suggest Monkey's Audio or WavPack as an alternative? Although the few percent saving you will get doesn't sound like much, when you are talking 600 CDs it will add up to a number of GBs (~10-15 in my estimation).  You could use poncharage's other utility, WACK, to convert to lossy at the same time (or possibly MAREO).

Check out the comparisons here and here - then make your own decision.

Quote
Whew, thank god i was not quoted in that flame war. You all seems to be very passionate about this encoding thing.

FYI: Gabriel is a LAME developer.  guruboolez has completed numerous listening tests, and has (it appears to me) worked very closely with Gabriel to improve LAME to the point that it will soon become the HA recommended version.  Both have my utmost support and gratitude, as I have neither the skills or the time to do either.
I'm on a horse.

Newbie question : LAME 3.xx.xx ?

Reply #57 –
One point: If everything after 3.90.3 is so much better than 3.90.3, why hasn't the Recommended Compile changed yet? Both Gabriel and guruboolez are asserting that there were no (edit: major) regressions in "quality".

Quote
3.95 was selected for Roberto's collective listening test, not because it was "clearly inferior", but simply because quality proved to be superior to 3.90.3.


Mind backing this one up? If I remember correctly, this wasn't the way things were. 3.95 was selected to try and test it more.

Quote
1/ that 3.90.3 offers the best quality
2/ that administrators said that 3.90.3 is better and therefore recommended


So if there is no relation between 1 and 2, why the hell is 3.90.3 still the recommended compile?

Don't misunderstand, I don't intend to criticize the hard works that's gone into LAME on the path towards optimization. I just assumed (and if this is false, I'm going to really need to rethink some things) that the Recommended Compile was chosen on a bit more than pure whimsy.

Newbie question : LAME 3.xx.xx ?

Reply #58 –
Quote
One point: If everything after 3.90.3 is so much better than 3.90.3, why hasn't the Recommended Compile changed yet? Both Gabriel and guruboolez are asserting that there were no regressions in "quality".

Nobody is claiming that "everything" is "much better" than the currently recommended version. Recent listening tests revealed that ABR is working better with latest 3.97 alphas (and also that 3.96.1 have serious issues) than with 3.90.3. They also revealed that 3.97 alphas are also slightly better with a majority of tested samples with --preset standard setting, slightly worse on others; than on average, 3.97 alphas offered a slightly better performance than 3.90.3 with --presets standard. Nobody has currently tested --preset extreme and preset insane (xp_98 asked for them).

Quote
Mind backing this one up? If I remember correctly, this wasn't the way things were. 3.95 was selected to try and test it more.


IIRC, 3.95 -V5 --athaa-sensitivity was selected because users & testers noticed that the new VBR preset added to lame 3.95 performed better than 3.90.3 ABR (V5 is untuned with 3.90.3). Roberto never included in his listening test an encoder without serious proofs about its superiority. 

Quote
So if there is no relation between 1 and 2, why the hell is 3.90.3 still the recommended compile?

Because the old one was "tested" (understand what you want by this), and not the new one. 3.96.1 could be twice or even 6 time superior to 3.90.3, 3.90.3 will stay recommended as long as nobody will spend time and energy to test it. Something I strongly suggest you to do, rather than spending your free time to misinterpret HA.org recommendation and telling to newbies fertile stories about the technical relation between speed improvements made by developers and obvious negative consequence on quality. If current recommended LAME version doesn't match with the best one (in quality), it's simply because there are more people on this board to talk and retalk about possible and virtual regression than people spending time to test and re-test multiple encoders.

There's no need to parrot recommendation (especially when you don't understand the logic): a simple link should be enough. If you really want to be voluble, then mention all works made recently and all results of blind comparison performed between 3.90.3 and 3.96.1/3.97 alpha: they are all in contradiction with your unfounded claims (3.90.3 superiority, relation between quality and speed, developers's priority, etc...)

Newbie question : LAME 3.xx.xx ?

Reply #59 –
Quote
Both Gabriel and guruboolez are asserting that there were no (edit: major) regressions in "quality"

Did I asserted this? I do not think so.
I only pointed that the speed improvements had no impact on sound quality.

Newbie question : LAME 3.xx.xx ?

Reply #60 –
Navin, I don't have any tag related issues. I am almost done with my ripping. I suppose it is a possible you will encounter an error I haven't, but I have a pretty large collection. So far 3.90.3 has worked perfect. I do use allmusic.com for reference on proper tagging and I don't have any blanks. My fields are Artist, Title, Year, Genre, and Specific Genre.

If you feel more comfortable, as I do with 3.90.3, than I would use until there is a problem. There's too much debating on this thread over semantics. Some are saying to use 3.90.3 because it is recommended and others are saying 3.96 sounds slightly superior. Those aren't mutually exclusive. The bottom line is, if 3.96 is supposed to be used, than make it the recommended compile. That's it. There shouldn't need to be a debate. Also, a new reader would come to the conclusion that the differences are as great as mono and stereo. Have you heard the two? I am not going to enter this debate, but if ANYONE thinks they can walk into a room and say, "Oh, that was ripped with version X.XX.X." Than my hats of to them, you’re a better listener than I am. The double blind tests are helpful and do provide guidance on the progress of lame, but I would just keep these differences in some perspective.

If you are able to make a lossless compression, you can easily change. Once you finish with 600, you really won't feel like ever attempting this again. I can appreciate your hardware challenge and wish you the best in procuring a large drive.

As for the advice regarding other applications similar to flacattack, all I can say is, if you plan on using .flac try flacattack. Synthetic Soul (sorry for the spelling) has done a lot of wonderful testing on the other applications and certainly is in a better position to know than I am, but I just wanted you to know flacattack has a wonderful gui and works like a champ.


Good luck,
Brent

Newbie question : LAME 3.xx.xx ?

Reply #61 –
Quote
Regarding this specific point, I would like it to go away. The speed optimizations caused absolutely no audio quality regression. They are purely computationnal optimizations, like not computing things twice and the likes.

There has been some audio regressions and some audio enhancements, this is not my point. But I would like this "they reduced audio quality in order to increase speed" argument to go away, as it is just wrong.[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=302716"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Okay. Then, to fit your pedantic desire, it's most accurate to say that speed enhancements and quality regressions were added simultaneously. Agreed? To the end-user, that's roughly "optimized for speed". I know that to a developer, the concepts are different.

Quote
Because the old one was "tested" (undestand what you want by this), and not the new one. 3.96.1 could be twice or even 6 time superior to 3.90.3, 3.90.3 will stay recommended as long as nobody will spend time and energy to test it.


So, the only reason to use 3.90.3 is because it's "better-tested" and not because the administrators prefer audio quality? I remember near-equivalence between the two versions on the few ABX tests done testing 3.96, but my memory is apparently rusty.

Like I've said before, the ad hominem (which means attacking me rather than my arguments and/or accusing me of ignorance or whatever; you apparently aren't understanding this) is most certainly un-useful, guruboolez. I'm trying to figure out what's going on here, not drag myself through the mud. Thank you for being kind and thoughtful.

I do sincerely thank you for the time you've spent tutoring my sorry ass, and you won't have a problem with me regarding this in the near future. If anything, I intend to get 3.90 off the recommended compile spot, if things are as rosy as you claim. I'd like to help test, but I've no desire to learn to hear the artifacts in high-level MP3 compression.

At bare minimum, thanks for reinforcing my rationale for using lossless primarily.

Newbie question : LAME 3.xx.xx ?

Reply #62 –
Quote
So, the only reason to use 3.90.3 is because it's "better-tested" and not because the administrators prefer audio quality?

Before talking about audio quality, you must perform an evaluation before. Administrators are not working on lame anymore, and they probably don't spend their time to test all recent changes made on LAME. Dibrom is now a "mpc developer", JohnV a "Nero engineer", Garf is also working for the same company. JanS or Gambit don't submit listening tests (as far as I know), and consequently don't make any claims about 3.90.3 superiority (or inferiority) compared to recent changes introduced in LAME. Administrators and moderators (as Dev0) are waiting from HA.org members listening tests before changing the recommendation. The recommendation is fully based on a collective work, and is not a dictatorial decision. Unfortunately, there are few members to do it. But even with few testers, HA.org admins & moderator have decided to make 3.97 the new recommended version (based on the good results 3.97 obtained during testing sessions).


Quote
I remember near-equivalence between the two versions on the few ABX tests done testing 3.96, but my memory is apparently rusty.


Does near-equivalence means that 3.96.1 is "suboptimal" as you claimed it?

Quote
Like I've said before, the ad hominem (which means attacking me rather than my arguments and/or accusing me of ignorance or whatever; you apparently aren't understanding this)

I'm not attacking you. I don't know you personally, and I've no element to attack you ad hominem. Your argumentation is 100% guilty. You didn't respect HA TOS, you're telling stories about many things, and last but not least, you simply can't understand the sense of the invoked recommendation. It's simply too much for someone who haven't contribute to LAME development (testing ABR/CBR for lame_may2005 at 128 kbps is probably not in impossible task, and you could do it if you're interested to see LAME offering better quality).

Quote
I'd like to help test, but I've no desire to learn to hear the artifacts in high-level MP3 compression.


Fine, then stop to discourage people to use something that is working 100% fine to your ears.

Newbie question : LAME 3.xx.xx ?

Reply #63 –
EDIT: here.

Newbie question : LAME 3.xx.xx ?

Reply #64 –
Quote
I'm not attacking you. I don't know you personally, and I've no element to attack you ad hominem. You argumentation is 100% guilty. You didn't respect HA TOS, you're telling stories about many things, and last but not least, you simply can't understand the sense of the invoked recommendation.[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=302776"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Perhaps it is just translation error, but that sentence is rather inflammatory to me. I respect the TOS greatly (although perhaps I posted things which did not comply), I told no "stories" (which implies that I was completely inventing post content), basing my entire argument around a logical structure with a flawed premise or two, and I certainly understand the sense of the recommendation, although I've missed its intent.

Maybe I will do some ~128kbps testing again. I did some before if you'll recall, but I hardly felt my recommendations and observations were useful there.

Newbie question : LAME 3.xx.xx ?

Reply #65 –
Quote
I respect the TOS greatly (although perhaps I posted things which did not comply)

not perhaps: you did it here.


Quote
I told no "stories" (which implies that I was completely inventing post content), basing my entire argument around a logical structure with a flawed premise or two, and I certainly understand the sense of the recommendation, although I've missed its intent.

A little and imaginative explanation about lame, the priority of Gabriel Bouvigne and Robert Hegemann during the three last years, and the consequences of improving speed. A complete story based on a solid knowledge about lame code and illustrated with several listening tests of course 
All claims are unfounded. It's therefore a work of imagination rather of the product of your rational abilities.

Newbie question : LAME 3.xx.xx ?

Reply #66 –
Quote
not perhaps


Translation issue; it's a known practice to use "perhaps" to soften things somewhat.

Quote
All claims are unfounded. It's therefore a work of imagination rather of the product of your rational abilities.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=302786"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I explained the rationale behind my thinking. Like I said, it was a logical conclusion that I came to through invalid premises.

(And you still insist on attacking!) 

Newbie question : LAME 3.xx.xx ?

Reply #67 –
Quote
I explained the rationale behind my thinking. Like I said, it was a logical conclusion that I came to through invalid premises.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

By following HA.org rules, people shouldn't make syllogism based on unfounded premises. You have two ears, and if you want to prove that developers introduced changes with negative impact on quality linked to speed optimisation, then download ABC/HR. I'll follow by quoting Gabriel who answered to Dev0 on the same question (18 months ago!):

Quote
On this board you have to back up your claims with facts. Can you provide facts?

[a href="http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=17499&view=findpost&p=174192]source[/url].

We want facts, and nothing else.

2Bdecided explainded in a nice message how HA as community should work :
Quote
We're an objectivist audio community here. We don't necesarily believe that everything can be measured (psychoacoustic codecs prevent that anyway), but we do believe that subective opinions should be backed up by rigorous tests, intended to remove all possible bias from human subjective judgements and opinions.
[...]
We are an objectivist audio community.


Start to be objective, and trust your ears more than your neurones

Newbie question : LAME 3.xx.xx ?

Reply #68 –
Quote
Okay. Then, to fit your pedantic desire, it's most accurate to say that speed enhancements and quality regressions were added simultaneously. Agreed? To the end-user, that's roughly "optimized for speed". I know that to a developer, the concepts are different.

That means "optimized for speed", but certainly not "optimized for speed against quality", which would imply that potential quality regressions would be the result of a deliberate choice. We never intended to compromise sound quality.

Implying that developpers decided to favor speed against sound quality, when there is no proof of it, is something that can be considered offensive, or even rude in some cultures different than your one. Please try to avoid it.

Newbie question : LAME 3.xx.xx ?

Reply #69 –
Quote
(And you still insist on attacking!) 

Canar, guruboolez is not attacking, he is defending.

If you insist on perpetuating this argument, simply in order to save face regarding your own TOS violations and faulty syllogism, you run the risk of single-handedly doing more damage to the future of LAME than any of your so-called speed/quality trade-offs could ever have done.

Pissing off one of the best sets of ears and most rigorous testers we have, and insulting one of LAME's primary developers with charges of pedantry and questionable development ethic, do not seem like "logical" activities for one who is ostensibly concerned with improving LAME and its future.

Please let it go, and contribute some testing if you can.

Regards,
Madrigal

EDIT: grammar

Newbie question : LAME 3.xx.xx ?

Reply #70 –
Quote
A few of us have been suggesting that you archive to lossless (FLAC is lossless) right from the start.  I guess we should have confirmed that you could transcode to lossy (MP3) at the same time, or any time you wish.

One thing I will say: If you are considering using FLAC to archive, may I suggest Monkey's Audio or WavPack as an alternative? Although the few percent saving you will get doesn't sound like much, when you are talking 600 CDs it will add up to a number of GBs (~10-15 in my estimation).  You could use poncharage's other utility, WACK, to convert to lossy at the same time (or possibly MAREO).
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=302747"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


so now i'll need monkey audio or wav pak AND wack. what is mareo? All i heard about is Super Mario :-). i think my questions must have created a new classification: Ultra-Newbie! I can see some of you banging your heads against a wall or on a desk. All I can say is sorry for all this. Lord knows my intentions are good.

Newbie question : LAME 3.xx.xx ?

Reply #71 –
Quote
so now i'll need monkey audio or wav pak AND wack. what is mareo?

If you used FLAC you would need FLAC, LAME, EAC and FlacAttack to create your lossless (FLAC) archive and lossy (MP3) files.

You use EAC to rip from CD. EAC calls FlacAttack. FlacAttack calls FLAC and LAME.

EAC > FlackAttack > FLAC + LAME

Some alternatives are:

EAC > WACK > Monkey's Audio + LAME
EAC > WACK > WavPack + LAME
EAC > MAREO > Monkey's Audio + LAME
EAC > MAREO > WavPack + LAME

... but in reality there are many ways and tools you could use.

FlackAttack, WACK and MAREO are all applications that can be called from EAC to create multiple sets of files.  If you want to rip a CD to both lossless and lossy at the same time you will need an intermediary application like this - or write your own script.

Quote
i think my questions must have created a new classification: Ultra-Newbie! I can see some of you banging your heads against a wall or on a desk. All I can say is sorry for all this. Lord knows my intentions are good.

No problem.  Everyone has to start somewhere.

However, I would suggest that you try the search function, and/or Google, occassionally.

Edit:
Quote
As for the advice regarding other applications similar to flacattack, all I can say is, if you plan on using .flac try flacattack. Synthetic Soul (sorry for the spelling) has done a lot of wonderful testing on the other applications and certainly is in a better position to know than I am, but I just wanted you to know flacattack has a wonderful gui and works like a champ.

I don't think that my opinion/recommendation is any more valuable than yours - especially as I don't use any of the apps mentioned!  I have tested all of them, and provided both kwanbis (MAREO) and ponchorage (FlackAttack and WACK) the benefit of my boundless wisdom... whether they have asked for it or not.  I am becoming concerned that I may be regarded on this forum as an interfering and opinionated nincompoop...

FlackAttack, quite rightly, has a lot of fans.  I would never discourage any FLAC user from using it.

My main point was that, for archiving a large number of files, there may be more efficient codecs - and if you choose one of those alternatives you also need an alternative to FlackAttack.  ponchorage has generously provided this in WACK - utilising the knowledge he gained by developing and maintaining FlackAttack to create a more universal tool, that will work (in essence) with any codec, in both image and track format simultaneously.

MAREO may be used as an alternative, if using track files only (or image files only - not recommended for MP3).
I'm on a horse.

Newbie question : LAME 3.xx.xx ?

Reply #72 –
Quote
One point: If everything after 3.90.3 is so much better than 3.90.3, why hasn't the Recommended Compile changed yet? Both Gabriel and guruboolez are asserting that there were no (edit: major) regressions in "quality".


Thats circular though.  Its recommended because its better quality, better quality because its better tested and better tested because its recommended.  With this reasoning 3.90.3 would be the "best" for all time, regardless of how much other codecs develope.

Newbie question : LAME 3.xx.xx ?

Reply #73 –
@Madrigal: Please read my latest few points again. If you did, you'd realize that I'm not asserting that my position is correct any longer. The faulty premise I made has been corrected by guruboolez. Thank you for adding your two cents where they were clearly needed.

@Gabriel, guruboolez: I apologize for any offense or hardship I caused through faulty reasoning. This all stemmed from me attempting to help a new user and explain to him in simple terms what was going on. I thank you both for your patience (as thin as it might have been at times  ) towards me as I figured out just where exactly I was going wrong.

I attempt to help the community by understanding what's going on and explaining that to new users. My understanding was flawed; I acknowledge that and apologize again.

@guruboolez: Logic is the only objective structure we have (even if according to Godel, it's incomplete and impossible to complete). Anything relating to one's ears is inherently subjective. The point of ABX testing is to attempt to provide as much of an objective framework as possible to gauge a subjective phenomenon.

@Mike Giacomelli: As my initial argument exemplified, I believed that it was perceptual transparency that was the basis for the selection of the Recommended Compile, not testedness. Yes, testedness would make it a circular argument. Perceptual transparency would not, however.

Newbie question : LAME 3.xx.xx ?

Reply #74 –
Monkey's Audio is somewhat slow on decoding, not very pleasant when seeking or decoding on <2GHz CPU. I use WavPack 4.2 -hx3, which is rather good at decoding and still has good compression ratio campared to FLAC.
Infrasonic Quartet + Sennheiser HD650 + Microlab Solo 2 mk3.