Difference between --alt-preset standard in dMC and command line LAME?

[Unregistered]

AFAIK, dMC uses LAME's DLL instead of the EXE file.

Is there any difference between the --alt-preset standard in dMC (under advanced options) and LAME's command line --alt-preset standard?

[Spoon]

Re: Difference between --alt-preset standard in dMC and command line LAME?

Should be identical.

[Unregistered]

Re: Difference between --alt-preset standard in dMC and command line LAME?

Well, I tried replacing lame_enc.dll in dMC's folder with version 3.90.3's lame_enc.dll downloaded from the ZIP file available from http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/index.p...ST&f=15&t=478&

I then tried encoding a WAV file with the command line APS (using lame.exe from the ZIP file above), and dMC's APS.

Result: the two files were different in both filesize and average bit rate (as seen using dMC Edit Tag feature).

What could be a possible explanation for this?

I am curious because, according to hydrogenaudio.org, the command line alt-presets have been tweaked to produce the best quality MP3 encoding, but I have not read anything about the DLL, and am thus wondering what the differences could be.

[Unregistered]

Re: Difference between --alt-preset standard in dMC and command line LAME?

Result: the two files were different in both filesize and average bit rate (as seen using dMC Edit Tag feature)..

I found the same. As a result, I have reverted back to Razorlame to make my MP3s as I have greater control over the settings and I know I have LAME 3.90.3 in place with Razorlame.

I would PREFER to use DBPweramp as my one stop shop. But its producing significantly smaller file sizes with --alt preset standard and I'm worried if I am sacrificing quality when encoding MP3s.

Any explanation?? Is this a version 10 fix?

[Spoon]

Re: Difference between --alt-preset standard in dMC and command line LAME?

I cannot delve too far into this, Hydrogen Audio is stuck on 3.90, the world has moved on since then.