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: Should I have used -h switch with my encoding? (Read 3849 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Should I have used -h switch with my encoding?

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 I don't know if this was an older, outdated switch.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 Is -h an outdated trigger, and is Lame 3.97b2 the best version of LAME, the one that I should be using?
 

Should I have used -h switch with my encoding?

Reply #1 –
-h is outdated and Lame 3.97b2 is the currently recommended version, so you did everything right.
Proverb for Paranoids: "If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers."
-T. Pynchon (Gravity's Rainbow)

Should I have used -h switch with my encoding?

Reply #2 –
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?

Should I have used -h switch with my encoding?

Reply #3 –
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.
flac 1.2.1 -8 (archive) | aoTuVb5.7 -q 4 (pc, s1mp3)

Should I have used -h switch with my encoding?

Reply #4 –
You may want to try -q0 instead of -h.

Should I have used -h switch with my encoding?

Reply #5 –
Expect the encoding to go a lot slower when you try -q0.

Should I have used -h switch with my encoding?

Reply #6 –
what exactly does q0 do for quality @ 320kbps?

i noticed it makes a bit of difference in sound @ 128kbps, yes CBR.

Should I have used -h switch with my encoding?

Reply #7 –
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
WavPack 4.31 / LAME 3.98 alpha 3 -V9 -vbr-new

Should I have used -h switch with my encoding?

Reply #8 –
--preset insane = 320 kbps CBR
--vbr-new has nothing to do with it.

Should I have used -h switch with my encoding?

Reply #9 –
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