Why not Alt-Preset Fast Standard?
I'm going to be some CD ripping under the gun, so I was wondering what I'm really losing if I use if I use the Alt-Preset Fast Standard setting instead of the much-vaunted Alt-Preset Standard setting?
I've ripped a few discs in both modes and can't really tell the difference in sound quality and they both play at the same bit rate. I've burned tracks that I know have skips in them too, and both seemed to get rid of them.
Also, is Alt-Preset Standard the absolute highest quality you can get?
Thanks for all the help over the last few posts.
[597 byte] By [
wilco] at [2007-11-9 13:04:28]
# 1 Re: Why not Alt-Preset Fast Standard?
If you can't tell the difference between fast & not fast, use fast. Probably not much if any difference.
The highest Lame quality is --insane. Between --standard and --insane is --extreme.
# 2 Re: Why not Alt-Preset Fast Standard?
richard is dead on. I prefer the --alt-preset standard over the fast setting--there is a slight difference in the files (I tried it both ways, and went back to the standard setting). There is a decreased chance of error without the fast setting. The extra ripping time is not critical to me, so I use it without the "fast" setting.
the --insane setting is 320 CBR, which is the highest you can go in mp3...Your file size will be almost twice the size of the file you get with --alt preset standard. I cannot tell the difference between 320 CBR and --alt preset standard, however others do notice a difference--try it yourself and see what you come up with.:D
dmt1 at 2007-11-15 17:22:44 >
# 3 Re: Why not Alt-Preset Fast Standard?
So just to clarify, the difference between APS and APFS is not the quality of the ripped files themselves necessarily, just the increased chance for errors that results from the faster rip?
wilco at 2007-11-15 17:23:43 >
# 4 Re: Why not Alt-Preset Fast Standard?
I think the encoded version of the mp3 under APFS is slightly below that of APS. If you want the best quality and don't mind the time, go w/APS.
Adam
# 5 Re: Why not Alt-Preset Fast Standard?
Yeah, Adam's right--the files are different, there is a very slight drop off in quality, wether this is actually perceptible or not is debatable, as well as an increase risk of errors during encoding. It's a personal preference thing; I prefer the safety of APS, the extra time is no issue for me--I get fantastic results with APS, and have fooled around with a bazillion different setups, and the APS is for me the best setting...
dmt1 at 2007-11-15 17:25:48 >
# 6 Re: Why not Alt-Preset Fast Standard?
Is this a perceived, or actual risk? Has anyone actually experienced an error when using 'fast'?
Tomorrow, my USB cable arrives, and I'll actually move onto using the ipod. The last three days has been an endless cycle of ripping, working, sleeping, ripping, etc.
# 7 Re: Why not Alt-Preset Fast Standard?
No, it's actual--by speeding up the process, there is an increase in errors. Most are probably not perceptable, but I quite accidentally ended up comparing the two, and there is a difference to my relatively untrained ears in quality on some tracks. So, it's APS for me...
dmt1 at 2007-11-15 17:27:51 >
