HydrogenAudio

Lossy Audio Compression => MP3 => MP3 - General => Topic started by: Vak on 2006-01-20 07:01:23

Title: Should I have used -h switch with my encoding?
Post by: Vak on 2006-01-20 07:01:23
I have recently read about a few different switches for LAME. One I saw was -h, which apparently helps give the file higher quality. I am using Lame 3.97b2 I believe (Is there anywhere to check for sure which quality of LAME I have?) I don't know if this was an older, outdated switch.

I have been encoding in 320kbps CBR joint stereo, and I was wondering if this would help the quality at all? Is -h an outdated trigger, and is Lame 3.97b2 the best version of LAME, the one that I should be using?
Title: Should I have used -h switch with my encoding?
Post by: sTisTi on 2006-01-20 15:25:49
-h is outdated and Lame 3.97b2 is the currently recommended version, so you did everything right.
Title: Should I have used -h switch with my encoding?
Post by: Vak on 2006-01-20 18:34:08
Okay.  So typing "--preset insane" in the command line, just like that, and only that, without the quotation marks...will give me 320kbps CBR joint-stereo MP3, which is the highest quality MP3, right?
Title: Should I have used -h switch with my encoding?
Post by: gasmann on 2006-01-20 18:53:39
Yes, the highest quality setting in Lame 3.97b2 is --preset insane.
(You can also use -b 320 that's a bit shorter and is exactly the same as --preset insane).

I think there is really no need to use -h or any other switches anymore. Just go with --preset insane or -b 320.
Title: Should I have used -h switch with my encoding?
Post by: rutra80 on 2006-01-21 21:38:38
You may want to try -q0 instead of -h.
Title: Should I have used -h switch with my encoding?
Post by: NeoRenegade on 2006-01-22 02:39:19
Expect the encoding to go a lot slower when you try -q0.
Title: Should I have used -h switch with my encoding?
Post by: audioflex on 2006-01-26 03:56:16
what exactly does q0 do for quality @ 320kbps?

i noticed it makes a bit of difference in sound @ 128kbps, yes CBR.
Title: Should I have used -h switch with my encoding?
Post by: kindofblue on 2006-01-26 04:28:40
Instead of --preset insane, you might want to try -V0 --vbr-new to take advantage of the new VBR algorithm in LAME 3.97. I don't know if --vbr-new is embedded in --preset insane. Bitrates would be roughly the same. --preset standard is -V2 --vbr-new.

Also, AFAIK the LAME presets represent the best tuning possible with the encoder at the relevant bitrates, so for regular listening it might be best to stick with them and avoid adding other switches.

Cheers,

Kindofblue
Title: Should I have used -h switch with my encoding?
Post by: Firon on 2006-01-26 04:49:51
--preset insane = 320 kbps CBR
--vbr-new has nothing to do with it.
Title: Should I have used -h switch with my encoding?
Post by: saratoga on 2006-01-26 05:41:19
Quote
Instead of --preset insane, you might want to try -V0 --vbr-new to take advantage of the new VBR algorithm in LAME 3.97. I don't know if --vbr-new is embedded in --preset insane. Bitrates would be roughly the same. --preset standard is -V2 --vbr-new.

Also, AFAIK the LAME presets represent the best tuning possible with the encoder at the relevant bitrates, so for regular listening it might be best to stick with them and avoid adding other switches.

Cheers,

Kindofblue
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=359815"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


vbr-new = new VBR method.  You need to actually be using VBR because you can use it.  For 320 CBR, it won't matter.

That said, I would recommend that you just use -V2.  320k is sort of a waste with MP3.  Might as well go all the way to losless is V2 isn't good enough for what you require