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: Lame dll or Lame.exe ? (Read 5885 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Lame dll or Lame.exe ?

I've been lurking around here for a while and from what I've read it would seem that the vast majority of people use Lame.exe to encode their files.

I understand this is because of the option of using switches like --alt-preset whatever.

Using EAC with Lame.dll is so much faster than using Lame.exe, it would seem the obvious choice, or is the quality so much better with the switches that can be used with Lame.exe ?

I've done my own comparisons, encoding the same tracks using Lame.exe --alt-preset standard, and using Lame.dll 224kbits stereo, both produce a similar size file, and they sound so much the same that I wonder if it is worth the extra time to encode using Lame.exe ?

I know people here are more interested in the technical aspects of encoding, and have their own specific needs, but if people just want good quality files, fast and easy, isn't the .dll the best option ?
 

Lame dll or Lame.exe ?

Reply #1 –
Quote
Originally posted by Stu
Using EAC with Lame.dll is so much faster than using Lame.exe, it would seem the obvious choice, or is the quality so much better with the switches that can be used with Lame.exe ?

I've done my own comparisons, encoding the same tracks using Lame.exe --alt-preset standard, and using Lame.dll 224kbits stereo, both produce a similar size file, and they sound so much the same that I wonder if it is worth the extra time to encode using Lame.exe ?


Depends on which version of the Lame .dll you're using and the options included by the author of EAC.

I'm pretty sure the latest stable Lame. dll [ver2.92 beta] supports all the --alt-preset configurations. Best to check you have the latest version of EAC and Lame.

You could try --alt-preset fast standard, with classical music I can't discern any degradation by using the fast switch.

ß

Lame dll or Lame.exe ?

Reply #2 –
I'm using EAC 09b4, and Lame_enc.dll v3.92 v1.28.

EAC doesn't allow the option of specifying the --alt-preset configurations, under Compression Options there is only a preset list specifying different CBR options, and under the Lame.dll tab you can specify Output, Quality, and VBR options, but has no command line option.

What program can you use to allow the use of the --alt-preset configurations, with Lame.dll ?

Lame dll or Lame.exe ?

Reply #3 –
It's OK, I found Lame.dll v3.93 at RareWares for Cdex, shame you can't do it with EAC.

Lame dll or Lame.exe ?

Reply #4 –
Well - I was going to suggest CDex but didn't because it uses the 3.93 alpha version of the Lame.dll. Which is why I use CDex with the external Lame.exe 3.92 beta. 

I can't say that I've ever noticed a significant difference in encoding speed between the .exe and .dll implmentations of Lame in the same version.

ß

Lame dll or Lame.exe ?

Reply #5 –
Use lame.exe with RazorLame. I did some tests and RazorLame was equal in terms of encoding speed with winLame [which uses lame.dll].

Cheers!
... may the peace of God be with you ...

Lame dll or Lame.exe ?

Reply #6 –
I have Razorlame which I use for batch encoding and for decoding mp3>>Wav, although I've now started using Monkey's Audio as a front end as well to add ID3 tags.

Using EAC with Lame_enc.dll 3.92 I can rip and encode a CD on the fly in less than 4 mins, using the VBR option on the Lame.dll tab with min VBR set to 128 and max set to 320 with Joint Stereo, High Quality setting and VBR quality 2 produces mp3's seemingly equal to using Lame.exe with --alt-preset standard.

Seems the best way to do it for me, for speed and quality.

Lame dll or Lame.exe ?

Reply #7 –
Does anyone know if EAC has plans to allow you to pass command lines (-- alt-preset) to the .dll?
"You can fight without ever winning, but never win without a fight."  Neil Peart  'Resist'

Lame dll or Lame.exe ?

Reply #8 –
Quote
Originally posted by dreamliner77
Does anyone know if EAC has plans to allow you to pass command lines (-- alt-preset) to the .dll?


Why not use the exe with EAC.  It isn't really hard to set up or anything.  And I belive it can still do the ID3 tags automatically without all the command line parameters.

Lame dll or Lame.exe ?

Reply #9 –
Just remember not to use ID3v2 tags in EAC if you're going to be making VBR files.

Lame dll or Lame.exe ?

Reply #10 –
why shouldn't you use id3v2 tags with vbr files?
"You can fight without ever winning, but never win without a fight."  Neil Peart  'Resist'