Skip to main content

Topic: 3.90.3 versus 3.96.1 (Read 81158 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • Lyx
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Reply #50
Quote
Quote
Polls - suprisingly - only show whats popular. It doesn't tell you anything about the reasons why people did choose something nor does it tell you which one overally is better. Polls are just a popularity-meter... not more, not less.

I basically agree - but what I'm saying is, rightly or wrongly, if the majority of the members of this forum are using 3.96.1 how we can credibly tell new members that 3.90.3 is the codec we'd recommend?

This forum is its members, and should reflect their choices (whether they are right or wrong).

If I were asked personally what version someone should use I would say 3.96.1, because that's what I use, and I feel that I have made an informed decision in choosing my encoder.

Edit: I am very aware that there have been 1849 views on this thread, and only 38 replies.  A formal poll, in contradiction to the minor response so far,  may reflect a huge majority for 3.90.3 - in which case I would gladly see it remain as the recommended codec (well, I could understand it anyway).  I am also aware that 3.97 may not be too far off, and perhaps that version will be the one to finally take the throne.  I just think we've raised some interesting questions here.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=280167"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I was against the decision of keeping 3.90.3 as the recommended version when 3.96.1 was tested. My arguments were the same as yours plus some others. Many thought the same way and the pressure on 3.90.3 was quite high at that time. Regardless of that, it was decided to keep 3.90.3 for reasons which have nothing to do with popularity. Therefore, i doubt popularity will change anything. In a nutshell, one could say that the point why 3.96.1 did not take over was that it was very good, possibly as good as 3.90.3 in most cases - but didn't offer a convincing enough quality-IMPROVEMENT over 3.90.3. Or in short, for a version to ursupate 3.90.3 its not enough if its equal to 3.90.3 qualitywise and better in other departments - it has to be significantly BETTER than 3.90.3 qualitywise, not just even. Notice that this is not my personal opinion - i'm just gauging why 3.90.3 was not replaced and what would need to happen for it to be replaced. For the above reasons, i doubt that 3.96.1 will ever replace 3.90.3. The upcoming 3.97 on the other hand could _maybe_ offer the slight necessary edge over 3.90.3 to finally make the switch official and consolidate the recommended version again with reality.

- Lyx
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.

  • Synthetic Soul
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Reply #51
@Lyx

Thanks for the comprehensive reply.  I was unaware of this previous pressure and subsequent decision, and am midly surprised to hear that you were an advocate of 3.96.1 - only as I (wrongly) got the impression that you were opposed to a rethink.

I understand the thinking that a replacement must be significantly better.  I'm not sure I agree, but it is logical.

I also agree that 3.97 may turn out to be the man for the job.  Let's hope so.


<off topic>Your English is superb, and that is the reason that I thought I should point out that there is no such word as "ursupate" - the word you were after is "usurp".  The quality of English on this site astounds me, and is often richer and more eloquant than most monolingual Englishmen.</off topic>
I'm on a horse.

  • john33
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Reply #52
Well, just to upset everybody(!!  ), I tend to use 3.90.3 as I'm only interested in --preset standard and above. I shall probably only switch from this once 4.0 becomes established.
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
My compiles and utilities are at http://www.rarewares.org/

  • OldSkoOL
  • [*]
3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Reply #53
Quote
I tend to use 3.90.3 as I'm only interested in --preset standard and above. I shall probably only switch from this once 4.0 becomes established.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=280365"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Thats my thoughts too. I recently decided to encode my huge cd collection and choose 3.90.3 being the most stable using preset standard. I will look forward to LAME 4 too. Testing on the alphas looks promising

  • schuberth
  • [*]
3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Reply #54
One more vote for 3.90.3. Yes I'm interested in seeing lame progress and evolve but for my encodes I use the version that has been tested and proven. You see, most of the things I encode only once (too little time and energy to play with 1000s of settings and codecs) so I use 3.90.3, which has known strengths and weaknesses. With 3.96.1 you might get better or worse results but you can't tell in advance (when compared to 3.90.3). I prefer predictable behavior. Speed or the coolness factor do not matter.

  • larswes
  • [*][*]
3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Reply #55
I use Lame 3.96.1 @ -V 4
For me, that's perfect compromise of quality/bitrate.
On my old pc I need a fast encoder.

  • Mac
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Reply #56
Quote
Quote
I postulate that Roberto invokes a thesaurus for such exuberant articulations.

Nah, its Mac's word of the month.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=280046"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

One could claim 3.90.3 is lacking in virility, I doubt we will see any offspring from the old version with newer and more lavish encoders being worked on!
< w o g o n e . c o m / l o l >

  • timcupery
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Reply #57
Quote
005, 07:19 PM] I personally think that it's best to use 3.90.3 only for --alt-preset standard encodings. [a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=279907"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I agree here - if people are going to stick with 3.90.3, they should only do it when they're using --preset standard - to my knowledge, that's what was heavily tested in 3.90.3. (And maybe --preset extreme). I usually use --preset medium (aka -V4 on 3.96.1) and this setting has undergone a fair bit of development up to 3.96.1 and is better than 3.90.3 (actually, the version of --preset medium in 3.90.3 modified was ported back from 3.93, I believe).

Generally, I use 3.96.1 even for --preset standard (aka -V2) encodes, because it's so much faster even without using --vbr-new (which I don't totally trust).

I should note that I have found a number of samples where 3.90.3 --preset standard is [/I]lower bitrate than 3.96.1.
God kills a kitten every time you encode with CBR 320

  • Yaztromo
  • [*][*][*]
3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Reply #58
When I do use MP3. I use 3.90.3. Because I only ever use "--alt-preset standard" setting. From the reading I've done on the forums, 3.90.3 often beats 3.96.1 when using APS.

I can't see why HA could recommend 3.96.1, it's like taking a step backwards. 3.97 and 4.0 will hopefully be better.
  • Last Edit: 10 March, 2005, 05:16:05 PM by Yaztromo

3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Reply #59
Quote
Well, just to upset everybody(!!  ), I tend to use 3.90.3 as I'm only interested in --preset standard and above. I shall probably only switch from this once 4.0 becomes established.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=280365"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Quote
Thats my thoughts too. I recently decided to encode my huge cd collection and choose 3.90.3 being the most stable using preset standard. I will look forward to LAME 4 too. Testing on the alphas looks promising
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=280397"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


That's also my thoughts. I use --preset standard and --preset extreme. I think 3.90.3 is better to me.
Non-profit Netlabel : Bump Foot
http://www.bumpfoot.net/

  • guruboolez
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Members (Donating)
3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Reply #60
Quote
That's also my thoughts. I use --preset standard and --preset extreme. I think 3.90.3 is better to me.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=281469"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

What do you mean by "I think"? It's recommanded to experience quality difference first, and then thinking about it.

I wonder how many people on this board, using lame 3.90.3 --preset standard, have really tested it.

  • Ollie
  • [*]
3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Reply #61
Quote
But let's be honest: nowadays, I can easily list the number of people testing Lame versions using fingers of a single hand.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=280300"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Just curious, when you say testing new lame versions, what is involved in that?

My only problem is, all my cds were stolen (yes every single one was in my cd case).

3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Reply #62
Quote
What do you mean by "I think"? It's recommanded to experience quality difference first, and then thinking about it.

I wonder how many people on this board, using lame 3.90.3 --preset standard, have really tested it.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=281470"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Yes, sure I have tested over 100 songs and various parameters. I've not said just my feeling but my hearing. Right? 

I wonder how many people on this board, saying like you, have thought that everyone writing like me hasn't tested anything.
  • Last Edit: 14 March, 2005, 04:24:09 AM by miscellanea
Non-profit Netlabel : Bump Foot
http://www.bumpfoot.net/

  • Jojo
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Reply #63
Quote
When I do use MP3. I use 3.90.3. Because I only ever use "--alt-preset standard" setting. From the reading I've done on the forums, 3.90.3 often beats 3.96.1 when using APS.

I can't see why HA could recommend 3.96.1, it's like taking a step backwards. 3.97 and 4.0 will hopefully be better.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=281102"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I only use --preset standard as well, however I use LAME 3.96.1
--alt-presets are there for a reason! These other switches DO NOT work better than it, trust me on this.
LAME + Joint Stereo doesn't destroy 'Stereo'

  • AtaqueEG
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Members (Donating)
3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Reply #64
Quote
From the reading I've done on the forums, 3.90.3 often beats 3.96.1 when using APS.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=281102"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Yes, and 3.96.1 often beats 3.90.3 when using APS

It seems like you have to read a little bit more, because the testing thread says just that: 3.90.3 sometimes beats AND sometimes is beaten by 3.96.1. On APS.
I don't even want to talk about other bitrate/settings.

But YOU, on your CDs, double-blind test, can you hear anything remotely resembling a difference?

To me, 3.90.3 is just hanging to the "recommended" thread by popularity alone.
I'm the one in the picture, sitting on a giant cabbage in Mexico, circa 1978.
Reseñas de Rock en Español: www.estadogeneral.com

  • guruboolez
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Members (Donating)
3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Reply #65
Quote
Yes, sure I have tested over 100 songs and various parameters. I've not said just my feeling but my hearing. Right?

I wonder how many people on this board, saying like you, have thought that everyone writing like me hasn't tested anything.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=281496"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

In other words, you've tested 100 samples,  many parameters? found problems with latest build, and didn't send any report to any lame developer? Am I right?

  • k.eight.a
  • [*][*][*][*]
3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Reply #66
Quote
3.96.1. 3.90.3 is effete.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=279658"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm sorry, but I still don't understand what do you mean by that...
Do you mean the discussion about 3.96.1. vs. 3.90.3 ???
Quote
I switched from 3.90.3 to 3.96.1 for a bit, and noticed an easily discernable degradation when encoding some Strauss and some live Springsteen tracks (and I did ABX checks to confirm my suspicions).  I've since switched back, I'm happy enough with the 3.90.3 encoding times.  I used APS for both encoders.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=279696"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Can you post us your ABX results?
I'm still considering switching over to 3.96.1 , later 3.97 stable...
Sorry for my poor English, I'm trying to get better... ;)
"The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled, was convincing the world he didn't exist."

  • guruboolez
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Members (Donating)
3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Reply #67
Quote
Quote
3.96.1. 3.90.3 is effete.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=279658"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm sorry, but I still don't understand what do you mean by that...
Do you mean the discussion about 3.96.1. vs. 3.90.3 ???


No, the encoder itself. 3.90.3 is a dead branch. Nobody's working on it.

  • evereux
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Reply #68
Quote
Quote
Quote
3.96.1. 3.90.3 is effete.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=279658"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm sorry, but I still don't understand what do you mean by that...
Do you mean the discussion about 3.96.1. vs. 3.90.3 ???


No, the encoder itself. 3.90.3 is a dead branch. Nobody's working on it.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=289281"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I interpreted it as meaning inefficient.
daefeatures.co.uk

  • k.eight.a
  • [*][*][*][*]
3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Reply #69
Unfortunately, when I was posting my first post to this thread I've read only the first page so there are my reactions... 

I'm still using Lame 3.90.3 and considering to step further so I'm following similar discussions for a quite while...
Quote
I think this thread should be a poll, and should have some bearing on the HA recommended version. As it appears thus far that the majority are using 3.96.1, isn't it a little wrong to be recommending 3.90.3?!

Very good point!
Quote
Whether it is less tested or not, if the majority of the community are using it then surely that is the implied recommendation of that community?

A very good point again!
Quote
Unfortunately my support is of little benefit, compared to the those great souls who actually conduct the ABX tests which let me make my informed decisions, but it's a camaraderie thing.

Unfortunately me too! 
Quote
I know a lot of work was put into 3.90.3, and it is undisputedly amazing what Dibrom and others have done with lame.

I think that one of the reasons why are people sticking with 3.90.3 is that Dibrom, the founder of HydrogenAudio.org, was heavily contributing to the development while on the later not...
Quote
...if the majority of the members of this forum are using 3.96.1 how we can credibly tell new members that 3.90.3 is the codec we'd recommend?

This forum is its members, and should reflect their choices (whether they are right or wrong).

We are Hydrogen Audio.

Yeah!     
Quote
Rather, I would love to see 3.90.3 overthrown by blind-testing 3.96.1 (or whatever the latest stable version) and found it better than 3.90.3, which is the hardest and the most time-consuming (but true to the original HA principles) option.

Yes, exactly!
Quote
I wonder how many people on this board, using lame 3.90.3 --preset standard, have really tested it.

To be honest, I think the problem is that not so many HA members have sufficient equipment and hearing to contribute on those tests, anyway that's the reason why I'm not a part... 
Quote
Quote

Do you mean the discussion about 3.96.1. vs. 3.90.3 ???

No, the encoder itself. 3.90.3 is a dead branch. Nobody's working on it.

Thanks for explanation guruboolez!
Sorry for my poor English, I'm trying to get better... ;)
"The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled, was convincing the world he didn't exist."

3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Reply #70
ef·fete
Pronunciation: e-'fEt, i-
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin effetus, from ex- + fetus fruitful -- more at FEMININE
1 : no longer fertile
2 a : having lost character, vitality, or strength....

3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Reply #71
Quote
Quote
I switched from 3.90.3 to 3.96.1 for a bit, and noticed an easily discernable degradation when encoding some Strauss and some live Springsteen tracks (and I did ABX checks to confirm my suspicions).  I've since switched back, I'm happy enough with the 3.90.3 encoding times.  I used APS for both encoders.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=279696"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Can you post us your ABX results?
I'm still considering switching over to 3.96.1 , later 3.97 stable...
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=289280"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Typically I discard ABX results after proving the point to myself (I used to keep them but realised I was never referring to them afterward), and this particular comparison is no exception.  However, as the ABX results were for my ears, equipment, and environment, they would be unsuitable for another listener.

I am working with the 3.97 alpha releases, and am pleased with what I'm hearing.

  • VCSkier
  • [*][*][*][*]
3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Reply #72
Quote
Typically I discard ABX results after proving the point to myself (I used to keep them but realised I was never referring to them afterward), and this particular comparison is no exception.  However, as the ABX results were for my ears, equipment, and environment, they would be unsuitable for another listener.

I am working with the 3.97 alpha releases, and am pleased with what I'm hearing.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=289297"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

would you consider giving the abx another shot and posting the new results.  im curious. 
a windows-free, linux user since 1/31/06.

  • dev0
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Reply #73
3.97 will become the new recommended version once it's released.

As opposed to guruboolez, I wouldn't recommend using the 3.97 alphas for anything but testing. Stay with 3.90.3 or 3.96.1 until 3.97 is released.

Thread closed.
  • Last Edit: 09 April, 2005, 09:44:55 AM by dev0
"To understand me, you'll have to swallow a world." Or maybe your words.