PDA

View Full Version : What are your LAME settings?



Wombat
25th March 2008, 01:25
Hey all,
I'm trying to tune my MP3 creation at home. I usually use a high-level VBR setting, but I'm not sure how I want to tune LAME. What are you guys using? Thanks!

TransformX
25th March 2008, 03:25
I used ABR with between 160 and 192.

VJ
25th March 2008, 04:00
I have it set to:
-V 0 -b 192 -B320 --replaygainaccurate

-V 0 : highest quality (takes the longest, but I don't care about that encoding time)
-b192 -B320 : set bitrate between 192 and 320 (it will use lower bitrates for empty parts regardless)
--replaygainaccurate : has to do with the internal gain setting in the file, some of the mp3 players I use interpret this correctly

I know the bitraste setting is high (perhaps even too high), but diskspace is not really an issue nowadays. :)
(file size ends up at approx. 1-2 MB per minute)

Jörg

Maggi
25th March 2008, 11:50
Hey all,
I'm trying to tune my MP3 creation at home. I usually use a high-level VBR setting, but I'm not sure how I want to tune LAME. What are you guys using? Thanks!

Yo Womby ... :D

I surely hope you're using Exact Audio Copy (http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/) for ripping your CDs, but as for my LAME settings, I use these for highest quality VBRs:

-b 32 -B 320 -k -p --priority 0 -q 0 -V 0 --vbr-old --verbose %s %d

-b 32 -> forces the preset to go down to 32kbit/s when possible (eg. silent frames)
-B 320 -> maximum bitrate; probably obsolete, because that VBR preset is highest quality anyways
-k -> disable all filtering (-V 0 has a default low-pass filter at 19.5kHz)
-p -> add error protection CRC values
--priority 0 -> encodes with low priority and thus doesn't bog down your 'puter when crunching
-q 0 -> best (most computing intense) psycho acoustic model
-V 0 -> highest possible VBR preset
--vbr-old -> old encoding algorithm, saves a few bytes per file at virtually identical sound quality
--verbose -> some stats etc.
%s -> variable for source file name & path
%d -> variable for destination file name & path


Besides that, have a peek into the LAME resource (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=28124) and choose for your very own purpose ... ;)

For my mobile needs (MP3 player & car stereo), I get perfectly along with -V 5, but feeding my Denon AVR-1802 via S/PDIF, I refuse to use anything less than the string I posted above.

CheeeesiO !
Maggs

UtwigMU
25th March 2008, 15:22
I plan to rip to lossles (wav or flac), keep lossless (HDD space is cheap) and then reencode for portability (laptops, iPod shuffle).

Maggi
27th March 2008, 03:36
I plan to rip to lossles (wav or flac), keep lossless (HDD space is cheap) and then reencode for portability (laptops, iPod shuffle).

good plan !

you should have a look into WavPack as well:

http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=WavPack
http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=EAC_and_WavPack

Cheers !
Maggi

VJ
27th March 2008, 09:56
I plan to rip to lossles (wav or flac), keep lossless (HDD space is cheap) and then reencode for portability (laptops, iPod shuffle).


The downside to ripping to wav is that you cannot add meta-information easily (artist, track title, ...).


Jörg

Maggi
28th March 2008, 08:22
that's also a reason why I suggested WavPack

http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=EAC_and_WavPack

:p

VJ
3rd April 2008, 03:50
Interesting...

I have been thinking about re-ripping all my current cd's again, but this time using a losless codec.

The reasons for this are:
1. more future proof (conversions from a lossless format to new formats is easier than ripping again)
2. allows me to do unattenend conversions for different purposes (depending on where you intend to play the files, size is more important than quality - yes, we are still talking about music files): in car, on mobile
3. diskspace is cheap

Which lossless format would be recommended? I'm looking at Flac and WavPack (thans to Maggi).
Flac can be played back by Squeezebox, so no conversion need for that purpose... But other considerations?

Thanks!


Jörg

Maggi
3rd April 2008, 04:27
The Slim Devices Squeezebox and Transporter now play WavPack via the 7.0 version of their SqueezeCenter server software. This support includes legacy WavPack files, 16 and 24-bit resolutions, sampling rates up to 96 kHz, and full use of cuesheets and ReplayGain information. These units from Slim Devices make it easy to access your entire WavPack collection from anywhere in your house, and they sound great and are sexy to look at as well.

http://www.wavpack.com/#Hardware

:D

VJ
3rd April 2008, 04:46
You know, I was kinda hoping you would facilitate the choice... :ermm: :D

Both formats seem to offer what I need (lossless compression with meta information).
Would there be any difference in decoding speed? (e.g. when I want to convert the library to mp3)
As this might be the feature that clinches it... ;)



Jörg

Maggi
3rd April 2008, 05:23
FLAC and WavPack seem to be about even in comparison:

http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Lossless_comparison

:bunny:

Nowhere
18th April 2008, 02:39
btw, TAK seems to be the new/future lossless darling of hydrogenaudio :p (but otoh - so was/is Musepack/Vorbis)

Maggi
21st April 2008, 05:40
LOL

Perfection was/is always a moving target, you know ?

:p

VJ
21st April 2008, 05:52
Hehe...

Well, as long as one has one uncompressed format, it ought to be possible to do a batch convert to another format without having to go through the hassle of re-ripping the cd's...


Jörg