[Mexicorn]

So way back before i knew much about audio extraction and wanted to rip my music over to my computer, I just found an easy program (Easy CD audio extractor in this case) to rip my music to my comp. Now though, after getting some more CDs, I wanna try something which is supposed to be "better" (and also maybe help on some bad rips I have of some scratched CDs). So I set up EAC with the guide found at http://bestmp3guide.com/ only difference being I got the newer version of EAC and the LAME 3.96 encoder instead of 3.90 (I know it really doesn't matter, but whatever). Anyway, i know that the "command line options" in LAME are --alt-preset standard, --alt-preset extreme, --alt-preset insane, etc. Now at first I thought these were just fancy names for birate (128 - standard, 192 = extreme, and so forth) but now i'm confused since i have both options available in EAC. I've been ripping my music at 192k which i'm perfectly happy with, but what does this alt-preset stuff do? I didn't even see a difference in estimated file size when I tried different settings. Anyone care to help me out?

 

[Ph34rful]

--alt presets are "standards" put forth by the makers of LAME.
They are generally considered the best you can get by using mp3.
Both sound quality and compression wise. They use VBR which is much superior to CBR.

Hope this helps.

 

[Mexicorn]

so what are the plusses/minuses of choosing "extreme" over "standard"

 

[Imyourzero]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mexicorn So I set up EAC with the guide found at http://bestmp3guide.com/ only difference being I got the newer version of EAC and the LAME 3.96 encoder instead of 3.90 (I know it really doesn't matter, but whatever).

Actually, it does/can matter. The 3.90 has been thoroughly tested, is very stable and produces very high quality files. Versions later than 3.90 may not necessarily be better, and might not be as thoroughly tested. The 3.90 is tried and true and seems to be the most commonly recommended.

And you should definitely notice a difference in the file sizes when all it said and done (the insane preset produces much larger files than standard, for example). But if you're happy with 192k MP3's, might as well use it and save the space.

Though if you ever get a better source or better headphones, the flaws in those 192k MP3's will be exposed and you might NOT be happy with them.

 

[Imyourzero]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ph34rful They use VBR which is much superior to CBR.

In terms of file size, yes. In terms of sound quality, it depends. The insane preset is regarded as the highest quality setting, but the disadvantage is that the file sizes will be bigger.

 

[Imyourzero]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mexicorn so what are the plusses/minuses of choosing "extreme" over "standard"

Click here to read more...

 

[Ph34rful]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mexicorn so what are the plusses/minuses of choosing "extreme" over "standard"

Extreme has the potential to sound a "hair" better on certain hard to encode samples. Other then that. There is no real plus. Not to mention the increase in size. Also the hard to encode "samples" I am referring to are prolly 1 in 250 CDs that you actually in encode. So it's not enough to worry.

I used to strictly use APE because I thought it was better. However I have now switched over entirely to APS. As I have realized there is no real benefit to using APE.

APS is the best compromise of sound quality and size. API makes no sense to me. And neither does APE anymore. If you want the absolute best stick with a lossless codec (FLAC) otherwise I recommend MP3 with APS.

API = alt preset insane
APE = alt preset extreme
APS = alt preset standard

Edit: I use FLAC for my rips. But I also transcode into APS in order to share.

 

[PYROTAK]

i guess it depends what equipment you are using i guess.

personally i use --alt-preset extreme

 

[Asmo]

--alt preset extreme all the way

I mostly use ape or flac these days, not just because of better sound quality, but it is a perfect backup of my CDs, in case I lost my original CDs, I could replace them with my digital rips, I would not want to do that with only mp3s.

 

[Ph34rful]

You guys might find this interesting... Here is a quote from one of the authors of the alt preset encoder. (Dibrom the founder of HydrogenAudio)

Quote:

As I've said before, and this is really no joke people, --alt-preset extreme really doesn't offer any true benefits in sound quality across the board. It sounds a tiny, little, ever so subtle bit better on some of the samples the --alt-presets still have problems with, but those samples don't sound perfect anyway, and the improvement extreme offers is almost negligible. The only reason I offered this preset is because I knew that no matter how good --alt-preset standard sounded, people would think they needed more (without doing listening tests). So instead of having them use something which is likely to decrease quality, I made a preset which doesn't really offer much of an increase in quality (because it's not really possible to do this without internal changes to lame), but also doesn't decrease quality.

On HydrogenAudio his hearing was described as being able to: "Hear a fart squeak out of an accountant's ass two miles away".

 

[KenW]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ph34rful You guys might find this interesting... Here is a quote from one of the authors of the alt preset encoder. (Dibrom the founder of HydrogenAudio) On HydrogenAudio his hearing was described as being able to: "Hear a fart squeak out of an accountant's ass two miles away".

APE fan here. Yeah, I know I can't hear the difference but I KNOW there IS a difference. A tiny, almost imperceptible difference but I hadda have it!

 

[Ph34rful]

Quote:

Originally Posted by KenW APE fan here. Yeah, I know I can't hear the difference but I KNOW there IS a difference. A tiny, almost imperceptible difference but I hadda have it!

If you are gonna be so anal (no offense, I am the same way) why not use lossless?

 

[KenW]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ph34rful If you are gonna be so anal (no offense, I am the same way) why not use lossless?

No offense taken....the truth is the truth!

I use FLAC on my laptop and desktop where space isn't an issue and I have Foobar, but my Jukebox is the original and only 6GB. It doesn't support any of the lossless formats and WAV takes up way too much room so for that unit, I'm use vbr mp3 files.

Now when the Chroma finally arrives, I'm FLAC all the way! My "anal self" wouldn't have it any other way....man I wish I could think of another way to put that!

 

[Ph34rful]

Quote:

Originally Posted by KenW No offense taken....the truth is the truth! I use FLAC on my laptop and desktop where space isn't an issue and I have Foobar, but my Jukebox is the original and only 6GB. It doesn't support any of the lossless formats and WAV takes up way too much room so for that unit, I'm use vbr mp3 files. Now when the Chroma finally arrives, I'm FLAC all the way! My "anal self" wouldn't have it any other way....man I wish I could think of another way to put that!

lol

I just know you can't tell a difference when you're out and about especially with the jukebox...

BTW. I don't know where you are in GA but we are trying to get a meet together. Check out this thread. http://www4.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=81528

 

[Imyourzero]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ph34rful If you are gonna be so anal (no offense, I am the same way) why not use lossless?

The primary reason I continue to use the MP3 format is compatibility. Nothing else even comes close, not even the better-sounding and fairly popular WMA. If the Alpine CD/MP3 player in my car would play the lossless formats, then yeah I'd probably switch over. But for now, I'll take MP3 if it means the highest compatibility with a slight tradeoff in quality. That way I can listen to the same songs in my car and on my PC without having to worry about storing and managing different formats. It works for me. YMMV.