lame --r3mix

[Laryllan]

What exactly does this command line switch do?

AFAIK --r3mix is only a shortcut for a number of switches and they were described at the page www.r3mix.net.
The site is gone for a while now and I can´t find any mirror or sth like that so does anyone remember these switches?

[Fox Mulder]

That switch is outdated. The quality is much better with lame 3.90.3 and the switch --alt-preset standard.
Here is the List of recommended LAME settings: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/show.php/showtopic/203

[Laryllan]

THX for the quick answer, I´ll go for --preset extreme. :)

[Slogra]

--r3mix is "replaced" --alt-preset medium

--alt-preset standard and especially extreme might be too big filesize.

[KpeX]

Also note that with the latest versions of lame the --alt is no longer needed, now it's simply --preset. I'd recommend everyone test the new 3.95.1.

[Mole]

--preset medium is good for 1 CD rips
--preset standard for 2 CD rips

--preset extreme is too much.
Remember that movie soundtrack is not the same as music. A lot of bitrate will simply be wasted during conversation.

[tiki4]

Hehe,

but the presets also produce lower quality for a movie soundtrack than for pure music. I used LAME quite a long time (before switching to other formats) and usually you get around 160 kBit/s with --preset standard compared to ~190 kBit/s for pure music.

tiki4

[KpeX]

Originally posted by tiki4
but the presets also produce lower quality for a movie soundtrack than for pure music. I used LAME quite a long time (before switching to other formats) and usually you get around 160 kBit/s with --preset standard compared to ~190 kBit/s for pure music. I beg to differ. Same quality, lower bitrates. The presets apply a quality level (similar to -q with vorbis) and movies require much less than music.

[tiki4]

Damn.

I should go to bed, I meant, they produce lower bitrate not lower quality...

Of course LAME assigns the bitrate the source deserves. Thanks for correction.

tiki4

[Mug Funky]

i'd recommend adding a "-Y" to squeeze an extra ~ 30kbps efficiency out of --preset standard. this switch excludes the 16khz+ band from noise-shaping. this is important because a limitation in mp3 causes noise shaping in this band to use excessive (wasted) bitrate.

adding this switch wont eliminate sound above 16k... it'll just make it coarser (i can't ABX the difference, and i'm a fussy little bugger).

[sigma_sigma]

Please, how can I install lame 3.95.1 to use it in virtualdub?

[Kurtnoise]

right click on .inf file and then choose install.

[sigma_sigma]

Merci beaucoup:)

[guada 2]

It is strange, I always thought that the VBR mode gave the best results in relation to the CBR.

In fact it is false:
Because Lame 3.93 MMX vbr q9 preset extreme is lower to Lame 3.96 CBR 320kbps.

Say me Kpex, the version 3.95 is it promising or not.

[iradic]

current stable is 3.96.1

see hydrogenaudio mp3 stickies for more info about versions and settings

[Teegedeck]

Exactly. Use 3.96.1 stable. And here are the new, really easy to use LAME switches and the bitrates they might result in: from hydrogenaudio.org (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=18091).

You can even write it shorter than "--alt-preset-medium" or "--preset-medium", now: just use "-V4"! All you need to decide upon, except for a "-V" setting determining the bitrate and quality, is whether you want to use the additional switch --vbr-new which probably will result in slightly higher quality. It is highly advisable to use these switches, and these switches only. Custom switches may be counterproductive because of redundancy or contradictions to the presets.

And BTW, if you tell LAME to use "r3mix" right now, it will simply use "-V3 --vbr-new" instead. So "r3mix" can be called something like an 'undead' switch, can't it. :D

[Brother John]

An Undead switch, that's terrifying! Don't use it without having your crosses and silver bullets at hand! Lame should definitely use file extension .probablycontainszombies to mark these dangerous files.

Originally posted by guada 2
It is strange, I always thought that the VBR mode gave the best results in relation to the CBR.And VBR does give better quality than CBR for the same file size.
However, for bitrates above 200 kbit this shouldn't matter too much because even »preset standard« (~190-200 kbit) is considered to be transparent on almost everything. Can you really ABX »preset extreme« from »preset insane« (which is CBR 320)?

[guada 2]

Brother John, it seemed obvious, but you are right to specify it.
"SAME FILE SIZE". :)

Would it be possible to have a preset brainded, after insane.

I speak of it to you because I use the tool Encdrop 1.08 for my conversions in mp3.
Aparently, in the slim Besweet the mode mp3 can reach the 640 Kbps. (but it prematurely fails)
Watch and make the test you will see.
Address of downloading: http://www.geocities.co.jp/SiliconValley/4772 /

[Brother John]

Usually »insane« already comes close to being braindead. After all, the point of a lossy codec is to achieve transparency at smallest possible file size, isn't it? For that »preset standard« is a very good choice, if we're speaking about music. Maybe »preset extreme«, if you have golden ears and top hifi equipment. For movies »preset medium« (which is very roughly similar to old --r3mix) should be fine, too. But imo »preset insane« has its only use in satisfying the paranoid. From an efficiency point of view it's certainly a significant waste of space.

I don't know why you'd want to use even more than 320 kbit. Lame.exe supports encoding such freeformat files with its --freeformat switch (don't know if that applies to BeSweet and lame_enc.dll, too) but afaik these are not covered by the mp3 standard and they certainly are poorly supported.

Bottom line is, if you indeed are that paranoid about quality and 320 CBR mp3 is not enough for you, don't use mp3.

[Kurtnoise]

Originally posted by guada 2
I speak of it to you because I use the tool Encdrop 1.08 for my conversions in mp3.
Aparently, in the slim Besweet the mode mp3 can reach the 640 Kbps. (but it prematurely fails)
640 kbps is for ac3 format...not for mp3 or mp2. This frontend is pretty useless. :rolleyes:

[Teegedeck]

guada 2, perhaps you should go lossless. :D AFAIK you can mux FLACs into mkv.

[guada 2]

Hello Brother John,

I am an audiophile and not a paranoid.
I don't like the codec mp3; nevertheless I use it for my friends with high bitrates to preserve a certain quality audio.
You understand, they don't want to hear to speak of great codec.(for example Flac , He-aac...)

I appreciate the quality and the exactness of a codec audio even middle.
For all to tell you, the HF is my business but it is not my profession.

If You understand This that You understand Myself.
Bye.

Note: Sorry for my English

[guada 2]

Hello Teegedeck, :)

You should read my post previous and you will understand better my reasoning. :p

Generally, the Wav format corresponds in "1441" Kbpses.

And the lossless codec? :confused:


NOTE: I want a clear answer and no of the speech cloth

Thank you

Sorry for my english

[Teegedeck]

FLAC gives about 56% compression. Say, if your original WAV has a 1441 kbp/s bitrate, FLAC should get it down to about 807 kbps without altering anything in the original audio signal.

Perhaps you understand now why I think that 640 kbps are not far enough from that in order justify using lossy compression.

Originally posted by guada 2
NOTE: I want a clear answer and no of the speech cloth

What? I hope that was clear enough.

[guada 2]

Yes, Teegedeck :)

A codec lossless is not supposed to have loss. But where are going the rest of the compression (1441kbps is not 807 kbps)? :confused:

At what moment one speaks of codec lossless and at what bitrate?

Do you have others approximation of the sort: ape, speex....

Thank you

[Brother John]

How can you be audiophile without being at least a little paranoid? ;) Don't get me wrong. Being paranoid about audio quality is perfectly ok.

At what moment one speaks of codec lossless and at what bitrate?A codec is lossless when it does not throw away any information permanently. Decoding a losslessly encoded file must restore it exactly to its original state. Bitrate is irrelevant. If there was a codec able to pack all the original information into 64 kbit, it would still be lossless. Not that I think we'll ever see that level of efficiency.

But where are going the rest of the compressionLossless encoders use mathematical methods to shrink filesize without losing information, just like Zip does for normal files. For some basics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Run-length_encoding
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huffman_encoding
http://flac.sourceforge.net/documentation.html#format

Btw: For a CD standard uncompressed file bitrate is 1411 kbit.

I don't like the codec mp3; nevertheless I use it for my friends with high bitrates to preserve a certain quality audio.So your friends are not audiophiles, are they? Give them »preset standard«. Now one will ever be able to hear a difference. Hell, I'm into digital audio for some years now and have a certain knowledge, but surely couldn't ABX 160 CBR most of the time.

[Teegedeck]

Originally posted by Brother John
Btw: For a CD standard uncompressed file bitrate is 1411 kbit.
Ah! :) Quick googling about whether PCM was CBR didn't enlighten me; I guess doing that was your job then. I still don't grasp some audio basics. Thank you, Brother John!

[guada 2]

I appreciate a lot brother john :)
Thank you for your explanations

Between parenthesis:
I always had a leaning for the english humor.
So I can say that I "like" John and its Brother.

But, who is the brother of John, Brother John? maybe Brother guada2 :p

Thanks and see you later.