hi all sorry if this has been brought up dont have much time on the internet, anyways my question is why is lame the best?? i have heard it is i am going to rip about 100 cds in the next day or two and just wanted to make sure lame is the best for quality. hope someone can explain this to me and also why does it rip so slow?? i tested one and it was about 3.5 kbs. i have a brand new computer so its not like my comp is old and slow thank you so much take care!! andy
Lame ist the best mp3 encoder for 128kbps and higher. It's --alt-preset settings have been tuned in close cooperation between the developers and many volunteers with trained hearing performing double blind listening thests with problem samples. The mp3 format has some built in limitations and lame --alt-preset standard (and higher) pushs it to these limits. One example for why ripping is slow: Lame encodes using long blocks and short blocks which helps to reduce pre-echo/smearing on transients (e.g. drum hits). It has to calculate where to use which block type (takes time) while other encoders (like Xing) only use long blocks. To get faster encoding speed (and slightly worse results) you can use --alt-preset fast standard. A good resource for more information: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?act=ST&f=5&t=7516#entry74068 BTW: If you don't need hardware compatibility you might want to use Musepack (MPC) for superiour quality. Ogg Vorbis might be an alternative too; the first portable player (Rio Karma) will be available soon._X_X_X_X_X_[small]AFTERDAWN FORUM RULES: http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/2487[/small]
ok ive tried severel ripping programs lame with eac musicmatch 7.5 plus nero 6.0 ultra with lame plugin and to be honhest i cant tell the bit of diffrence when i rip a song using all three with lame at alt preset standard and musicmatch at 80%vbr. i have a 1000 dollar sony stereo which came out this year. even musicmatch sounded just as good. so my question is why is lame so much better? or is it just peoples diffrent opinon. but i guess there will always be the this is better than that and so on. nero is proubly my choice to rip and to burn.
You might want to visit http://www.hydrogenaudio.org forums; the FAQ is a good starting point. It has been proven that lame + --alt-presets give best mp3 quality for bitrates > 128kbps using double blind listening tests aka ABX. To hear the differences you need training in hearing artifacts (much more important than equipment). In the FAQ mentioned above you find all you need for this too. But beware: Once you're trained you'll probably find downloaded mp3s annoying you liked before. There's no way back! (Blue vs. red pill ...)
and you are proubly right i guess i cant hear the diffrence but i also listen to heavy metal so that might be the reason. like i said i will use lame from now on and you have been a big help thank you so much
In fact heavy metal is hard to encode as it contains more noise-like information than other kind of music. AFIAIK Dibrom, the guy who runs hydrogenaudio and "invented" and coordinated the tuning of the --alt-presets, is into heavy metal and wasn't satisfied with the quality of -r3mix switch that was state of the art 2 years ago.
