LAME MP3 Encoder 4.0
User Reviews & Comments - 43 reviews
4.3
SP
Spike
18 Jun 2010
1/5Poor
Very bad codec, but somehow popular among kids. Cuts frequencies like crazy. Output files are actually 16 or 20kHz! Much better quality with the same bitrate offers you AAC or OGG. Encoding is also very slow.
Reviewed on LAME MP3 Encoder 3.99 alpha 10
Reply to Spike
AK
Akira
30 Sep 2006
1/5Poor
hi,yesterday i rip my metallica cd to cbr 160kbps mp3 using itunes 7.0.1.8,the sound quality really good! no clicks or pops unlike many people said.maybe many people fooled by arguments over old version of itunes that really have bad mp3 encoder.the lastest one have good mp3 encoder.always update to the latest one.itunes use \"smart encoding adjustment\" to maximize mp3 quality
so peoples,use itunes instead of lame,it really good! if you don\'t believe me,try it yourself
link below is the link to mp3 of don\'t download this song by weird al.if you have dbpoweramp,the dbpoweramp will show that song encoded by itunes cbr 160kbps.try to listen it.you will know how good itunes mp3 encoder are
http://dontdownloadthissong .com/tracks/DDTS.mp3
Reviewed on LAME MP3 Encoder 3.98 alpha 6
so peoples,use itunes instead of lame,it really good! if you don\'t believe me,try it yourself
link below is the link to mp3 of don\'t download this song by weird al.if you have dbpoweramp,the dbpoweramp will show that song encoded by itunes cbr 160kbps.try to listen it.you will know how good itunes mp3 encoder are
http://dontdownloadthissong .com/tracks/DDTS.mp3
Reply to Akira
MA
Mario
5 Feb 2006
1/5Poor
Maybe a good codec, but with this installer useless. Throws some files all over my harddisk, some hidden. Had to search for them manually to install them into my applications.. which failed.
Reviewed on LAME MP3 Encoder 3.98 alpha 3
Reply to Mario
Share your thoughts on LAME MP3 Encoder 4.0
Thanks, it's in!
Your review will appear once it has been checked.
If you are getting bad quality output from a good quality input, or the encoding is slow, then its you that is doing something seriously wrong, not the encoder! LAME only takes a few seconds per song, and that is encoding with q=0 (the slowest but best precision).
The default precision is q=5, but thats by no means bad!LAME isnt the best encoder out there in terms of quality of output, however it IS the best MP3 encoder! If you encode a wav file using the options:V=3 q=0you will get a very good quality variable bitrate file that retains all the nice audio acoustics without the mp3 artifacts. Even at V=4 or V=5 you wont get these!
Variable bitrate is the way to go as you dont waste bitrate. If you need a definitive file size, use ABR 2-pass instead.
Note the capital and lower case letters, v is a different option to V, as q is different to QThe problem with a lot of even new encodes people do out there is they use grossly outdated software (for some software 6 months can make it grossly outdated!) or the wrong encode settings (or the wrong combination of settings).
Using a 6 year old LAME you wont get the same quality or speed as the very latest 3.99 builds.The best encoder out there at the moment is NeroAACenc, which is an AAC reference encoder. It is far superior to the Apple (iTunes) AAC encoder. Thing about AAC is, instead of getting the artifact sounds it will gradually cut out the frequencies that gives the audio its depth or warmth. The iTunes AAC encoder even at higher bitrates shows this tendency, and again a VBR mode should be used (like NeroAACenc q value, q=0.5 default, higher=better quality).
iTunes AAC has probably held back the uptake of AAC, just like Quicktimes h.264 implementation i believe has held back h.264 uptake (encoding quality is pathetic)!So, use LAME 3.99a14 or newer, use the correct output settings (V=3 or 4, q=0), and make sure the input quality is good! For the average song, these settings will be around 150BKPS or so, but the quality will be superior to some mp3 files ive heard even at 320kbps.Psychology also plays a part of it.
People will often swear one audio file (same works for video) is superior or inferior to another if they think its codecencoder A vs B, if they for some reason dislike encoder B they will swear its inferior, or that A is superior, but wht you could really be showing them is an identical audio file :)