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.

Poll

Should the --r3mix preset be dropped?

Yes
[ 115 ] (80.4%)
No
[ 28 ] (19.6%)

Total Members Voted: 175

Topic: Should the --r3mix preset be dropped? (Read 6769 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Should the --r3mix preset be dropped?

I know this has been discussed before in other threads which topic wasn't directly related to this one.

From my experience as an ed2k community "sniffer" I know there are still a lot of people using the r3mix preset. Mostly because they simply don't know about the APS and its benefits (or any other recommended VBR setting). Now that Lame has a complete set of alt-presets, shouldn't the r3mix preset be dropped? It was useful but I don't see a reason to keep it.

Should the --r3mix preset be dropped?

Reply #1 –
I think that --r3mix still offers decent quality, and it is useful for portables where bitrate is important. IIRC, --r3mix files are still slightly smaller than --alt-preset standard -Y files on most tracks, and are not low-passed at 16khz like --aps -Y . I never personally found a problem with --r3mix, and although it is not transparent on many tracks, it still offers decent quality. As I see it, there is no immediate reason to get rid of --r3mix. Now when --alt-preset medium becomes tuned, this will probably change.........

Should the --r3mix preset be dropped?

Reply #2 –
Have you ever tried the --alt-preset medium?

edit: grammar

Should the --r3mix preset be dropped?

Reply #3 –
Sorry, only read your last line now... It's late here... 

Should the --r3mix preset be dropped?

Reply #4 –
Stop wasting your time. r3mix won't be dropped from Lame 3.x for compatibility reasons.

And it would probably be dropped anyway from 4.0, since lots of things will change in the encoder, that would probably render the preset useless.

Should the --r3mix preset be dropped?

Reply #5 –
I was (and by most of your standards probably am still) a newbie at hq mp3 encoding and the first place I went to learn was r3mix.net because of a referral from the LAME settings manual at the LAME site. r3mix.net made a lot of sense, explained things well, and using logic (faulty as it may have been), convinced me that the r3mix preset was transparent. I was searching only for quality and under my delusions reencoded massive numbers of albums. I later found out this was all for not, and had to re-rip using -aps. From what I gather many users here originally suffered the same fate. I think that althought the setting may not need to be deleted entirely, perhaps it could mention that the preset is deprecated and make a suggestion for a (hopefully tuned) --alt-preset medium or refer the duped ripper to a site such as this with information not tainted by time and opinion (to the same degree).

Thank god I have moved from mp3 altogether, to the happy world of AAC. (Don't tell me about mpc, I am on a mac and I have an iPod....I would if I could, but alas, it is impractical.)

edit: spelling

Should the --r3mix preset be dropped?

Reply #6 –
I thought r3mix was going to be mapped onto preset standard eventually?  That way compatability is maintained and everyone gets better rips.  Did I imagine a thread about that? 

Should the --r3mix preset be dropped?

Reply #7 –
Mapping r3mix to another preset is, IMO, even worse than dropping it altogether. It's plain wrong to fool people giving then not what they asked for. You should try to educate them instead.

Should the --r3mix preset be dropped?

Reply #8 –
Quote
Mapping r3mix to another preset is, IMO, even worse than dropping it altogether. It's plain wrong to fool people giving then not what they asked for. You should try to educate them instead.

Hows it foolling them?  r3mix is defined as a quality oriented VBR setting.  So is standard.  One is an improved version of the other.  Its sort of like "fooling" people into using a different codec by updating LAME.  Make r3mix an alt-preset then so that people who know enough to make an informed choice can still do so.

90% of r3mix users are doing just because some old ripper software recommends it anyway.

Should the --r3mix preset be dropped?

Reply #9 –
Quote
One is an improved version of the other.

Wrong. They aren't even developed by the same people. They are different presets altogether. There's no versioning, specially because one wasn't based on the other.

Quote
Its sort of like "fooling" people into using a different codec by updating LAME.


Wrong. You would only be fooling if you kept old version numbers. If you tell a person you'll give him r3mix and give an alt-preset file instead, that's fooling. And that's wrong.

Quote
Make r3mix an alt-preset then so that people who know enough to make an informed choice can still do so.


--alt-presets are Dibrom's work. -r3mix is Roel's work. How do you expect to mix them together?

Quote
90% of r3mix users are doing just because some old ripper software recommends it anyway.


Educate them then, don't fool them.

Should the --r3mix preset be dropped?

Reply #10 –
Quote
Educate them then, don't fool them.

How about a warning  "This is an old pre-set that won't be supported in future versions .. blah .. ,  use {pre-set that will come closest in future versions} instead."
--
Ge Someone
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.

Should the --r3mix preset be dropped?

Reply #11 –
Quote
How about a warning  "This is an old pre-set that won't be supported in future versions .. blah .. ,   use {pre-set that will come closest in future versions} instead."

Much better.

But (just to clarify), still, the person should be allowed to ignore the warning and use whatever he/she wants.

Should the --r3mix preset be dropped?

Reply #12 –
Unless preset-medium targets the same bitrate and frequencies, r3mix should not be removed

Should the --r3mix preset be dropped?

Reply #13 –
i think ultimately --r3mix will be dropped. it hasn't been updted in ages, and it looks like roel dropped out of the scene completely. r3mix.net no longer works. the mirror site r3mix.cjb.net is now re-directing to some site of a guy who can't get enough of his chariot. roel hasn't been seen or heard from publically in almost 2 years. so, i think r3mix will be dropped eventually as progress is made on lame
Be healthy, be kind, grow rich and prosper

Should the --r3mix preset be dropped?

Reply #15 –
Quote
Hows it foolling them?  r3mix is defined as a quality oriented VBR setting.  So is standard.  One is an improved version of the other.  Its sort of like "fooling" people into using a different codec by updating LAME.  Make r3mix an alt-preset then so that people who know enough to make an informed choice can still do so.

90% of r3mix users are doing just because some old ripper software recommends it anyway.

I get your point...

and start liking it. maybe one should map it to a more bitrate identical preset like medium.

but - I have to admit - this way you fool a lot of people into thinking that these are the true historic presets.

Should the --r3mix preset be dropped?

Reply #16 –
I also do not agree with mapping the r3mix preset to other preset. In my opinion it should just be dropped or Lame should at least output a warning message explaining why and which preset(s) to try.

I think that maintaining this preset for legacy reasons, without a simple warning, results in having a lot of users not taking advantage of the "latest" (some of the --alt-presets are not that new) developments made in Lame. Of course, you can say that its use is optional. But the majority of the people who use --r3mix do it because they just don't know better... Let's not forget that when you type "mp3 quality" in google the first result is the r3mix.net site. That url may not be functional but if you then search for r3mix you'll have the working site in second... 

As rjamorim said, it's almost certain that -r3mix will be completely dropped in Lame 4.0, which is still in a very very early alpha. I also think that this simple warning is still in time to make it in v3.94... (maybe I shouldn't claim this because I'm not a developer)... It would send a clear message to all that still think that it's a high quality preset.

cya

Should the --r3mix preset be dropped?

Reply #17 –
I think the main reason so many people still use --r3mix is because they explain everything plainly, to help introduce people to the concepts. If someone still using xing wanders here, it'll be some time before they realize why they should be using variable bitrate and etc. Someone here should take those pages from r3mix (I still have some of them saved), update them to include the --alt-presets, and host them somewhere on the net.

Or, if this has already been done, somebody let me know.
Happiness - The agreeable sensation of contemplating the misery of others.

Should the --r3mix preset be dropped?

Reply #18 –
I still have alot of albums that were converted with the --r3mix preset. Is it so much a diffrence that I have to convert all thouse albums using the --alt-preset standard? I think not. I am curently using the --alt-preset standard.

Should the --r3mix preset be dropped?

Reply #19 –
Quote
Wrong. They aren't even developed by the same people. They are different presets altogether. There's no versioning, specially because one wasn't based on the other.


Look up.  That blur is my point as it sails over your head.

Also, theres no need to lecture me about r3mix and AP.  I've gathered a little about them here

Quote
Wrong. You would only be fooling if you kept old version numbers. If you tell a person you'll give him r3mix and give an alt-preset file instead, that's fooling. And that's wrong.


I think it was implicit in my sugguestion that the docs would be updated.  Thats why I said make r3mix an alt-preset; that way people can still use it.  Instead we'd just change the switches so that r3mix toggles a more up to date standard.  Meanwhile educated users could make their own choice.

The idea isn't so much to fool as it is to address outdated software and information.  LAME is very difficult to use simply because we make it so.  IMO this needs to change or its forever going to be passed up in favor of Music Match by 90% of people.

Quote
--alt-presets are Dibrom's work. -r3mix is Roel's work. How do you expect to mix them together?


 

Quote
Educate them then, don't fool them.


You seem to think people care about codecs.  They do not.  Presets were developed because of this.

Edit:  Any reason my quote tags don't work?

Should the --r3mix preset be dropped?

Reply #20 –
Quote
Also, theres no need to lecture me about r3mix and AP.  I've gathered a little about them here

It surely looks like you didn't.

Quote
You seem to think people care about codecs.  They do not.  Presets were developed because of this.


If they were taught once to care about -r3mix, they can surely be taught again to care about --alt-presets.

Quote
Edit:  Any reason my quote tags don't work?


Invision is probably choking on quote tags. Again.

Should the --r3mix preset be dropped?

Reply #21 –
okay, if i had to replace the --r3mix with using the presets you guys are mentioning. what'd be the best? i started using lame after i heard about the -r3mix preset.

i'm using mp4/aac. but i've some friends who won't leave mp3. they really liked -r3mix when i recommended it to them. is there any site where i can get the lame preset documentation/explanations?
everybody's a jerk. you, me, this jerk!

Should the --r3mix preset be dropped?

Reply #22 –
FAQ and Recommended Lame settings

Quote
Edit:  Any reason my quote tags don't work?

You forgot a "/", then inverted a "quote" with a "/quote"