3.96 vs 3.92

[chronicking]

does anyone know which is the better lame encoder these days. im told thenew one is [3.96] but i can't really see it being better than the one im using now [3.92] any suggestions? by the way i dont use the presets. i kno i kno much time has gone into them but ive had bad luck with the joint stereo option that is alwayz checkd when using the presets. especially on live music.
i'd appreciate any advice on this subject. thanx

[zver]

I use 3.96.1 last few months since it is out couse it givem me much smaller size with new presets(v presets)then old3.90.3aps,like 20% or so for metal music,and its much faster.
I dont use 3.92 but it is a good version
I always use presets for everything,and never had any problems with live albums-they always come perfectly gapless if thats the problem..
Cant say more couse i always listen those on a work so i really cant concetrate there 100%,and at home i always rip audio to mpc q5 which gives much smaller size then lame,gapless too

[Zoltan]

This thread over at Hydrogenaudio forums might help you (though it compares 3.96 to an older version , 3.90.3 considered by quite a few people to still be the best version for -preset use).

[chronicking]

thanx for the the tips fellas. yeah ive heard as well that the 3.90.3 is best for the presets. i kept the 3.92 because i never use them. i used them a couple of times but due to paranoia and probs i have with the joint stereo option i just stuck with the 3.92. i really can't hear a diff between it's results and the cd it encoded from. i did tho notice some diffs with the joint stereo option whether it was set manually or thru the presets. i listen to everything thru my home receiver even the pc. it is surround sound. most everything sounds great thru it except lo bit rate files or certain cd's done in joint stereo. as we all know, the presets all utilize the j.stereo option. for example: Billy Idol_VH1 storytellers. it's a live cd[not a very good one but live to say the least]. when i encoded it with the presets[altstandard&altextreme] the rear channels produced a strange hiss/whine noise at low decibls. when i re-encoded the files not with the presets i got the same problem if the j.stereo option was chekd. maybe it's my 3.92 lame encoder maybe it's the j.stereo. maybe the preset experts never tested that cd. i dunno...... im complacent to continue using the 3.92 dll but would update it if i thought i could get the same quality and smaller sizes or better quality for the same siize. i guess personal testing and time will tell the tale. i appreciate you all responding tho . most forums that pertain to such things won't even answer the threads if you're mentioning straying from the presets.

by the way, i used to encode @ 192cbr then 224 and finally 256kbps cbr. now i set my 3.92 version of lame , thru cdex, at 192vbr - 320vbr quality:2-4[depending on cd] and using the mtrh VBR technique[ i sometimes use the old technique depending on time because it takes longer but i can't tell the diff between it and the new method]. with these settings i get a slightly bigger file than 192kbps cbr[depending on VBR quality setting] and much smaller than the 256kbps cbr. like i said i can't tell the diff between the encoded file and cd when listening. no one i give the music to can either. o yeah and by no means do i chek the j.stereo option. that's just me tho. most swear by it. i may try the 3.96.1 or the older dll[3.90] with the j.stereo checked and rip the billy idol cd again. if it doesn't produce the noise in the rear channels, that makes the 3.92 the problem. if i still hear it, i'm pointing the finger @ the j.stereo option. hahahaha maybe they aren't testing these things with surround sound. i dunno but thanx

[chronicking]

Originally Posted by Zoltan

This thread over at Hydrogenaudio forums might help you (though it compares 3.96 to an older version , 3.90.3 considered by quite a few people to still be the best version for -preset use).

did the 3.96 win according to that test? are they talking about 3.96 or 3.96.1?

[zver]

3.96.1 is better-got less problems,btw im really surprised that you had a really big problem with preset extreme??but.....anyway....

[Zoltan]

Originally Posted by chronicking

did the 3.96 win according to that test? are they talking about 3.96 or 3.96.1?

They are talking about 3.96.
3.96 seems to have a slight edge over 3.90.3 in quality the lower the bitrate is and also seems to be just about equal at higher bitrates. This can be (almost) summed up here

The presets (--alt-preset ***) for the 3.90.X branch of LAME were designed by many of the original members of this site and were exhaustively tested to make sure that they utilized the best possible settings for quality. Subsequent versions of LAME broke compatibility with these presets to allow for many other improvements (faster, bug issues, etc), thus making a temporary regression in quality. LAME 3.96.1 seemed as though it might be about the same quality as 3.90.3 in some of the tests done after it was released. However, in the minds of the administration of this forum it has not yet been tested extensively enough, thus 3.90.3 is still the recommended version. LAME 3.96.1 has been proven to be of superior quality for some bitrates where there are no VBR presets for 3.90.3, only ABR. Thus 3.90.3 --alt-preset standard is considered to be better than 3.96.1 -V 2 (--preset standard) but 3.96.1 -V 5 (approximatly 128kb/s) is better then 3.90.3 --alt-preset 128. It is also worth noting that 3.96.1 is at least twice as fast as 3.90.3 for encoding and that -V 2 produces slightly smaller files then --alt-preset standard.

Tha part in bold is my own edit.

[LTR12101B]

-m a (auto) may be a compromise if you find JS too agressive in hangin on to Mid/Side when LR would be better.

Auto select should select (if input is stereo)
8 kbps Mono
16- 96 kbps Intensity Stereo (if available, otherwise Joint Stereo)
112-128 kbps Joint Stereo -mj
160-192 kbps -mj with variable mid/side threshold
224-320 kbps Independent Stereo -ms

There is no other way to select "-mj with variable mid/side threshold"

[chronicking]

gee i got a better reply out of you guys then at the actual cdex forums. they are quite anal there about the presets. speaking of which. you all have aroused my curiosity. i used to encode .wav files with razorlame. im sure you all know of it. anyway, it used to have a little box that all those preset symbols, such as "-v m b a , etc etc" , would appear as u changed quality and bitrate settings. i'm pretty sure these are the preset commands [ i think ]. cdex won't display any of these symbols or settings. from what i understand there are a bunch of new presets for the new encoders but cdex alwayz just lists the onese that it came with even after changing the encoder. does cdex utilize these new settings in some way or what's the deal? and Is razorlame still worth messing with? i would like to learn more about all this but i'm limited with cdex. any suggestions? thanx for taking the time people

[LTR12101B]

What used to be the "ALT" presets, are now just presets.

Some old-school commandline hackers still resist them, but in the main, they are better than most command lines and may contain tunings that are not possible to activate from the command line.

For programs which do not offer an easy way to pass on the LAME presets, you generally end up configuring as "custom encoder", for those which pass parameters to a commandline program.

Been using EAC for so long, I've forgotten what CDEX looks like.