Skip to main content

Topic: Lame 3.96.1 compiles (Read 2713 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • Donunus
  • [*][*][*]
Lame 3.96.1 compiles
are there any differences with lame 3.96.1 from rarewares and mitiok. Does anyone know why the exe sizes are different? I can't seem to find anything on the topic.

  • Digga
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Lame 3.96.1 compiles
Reply #1
Quote
are there any differences with lame 3.96.1 from rarewares and mitiok. Does anyone know why the exe sizes are different? I can't seem to find anything on the topic.
probably different compilers / flags.
Nothing but a Heartache - Since I found my Baby ;)

  • fj4
  • [*]
Lame 3.96.1 compiles
Reply #2
I too am interested as to the differences.  Donunus, please try encoding the same .wav (from commandline) and post about any difference.  I downloaded the Mitiok compile 3.96.1 a while back and the commandline says it's 3.96 (I notice this after encoding 100's of CDs...) 

  • Donunus
  • [*][*][*]
Lame 3.96.1 compiles
Reply #3
Quote
I too am interested as to the differences.  Donunus, please try encoding the same .wav (from commandline) and post about any difference.  I downloaded the Mitiok compile 3.96.1 a while back and the commandline says it's 3.96 (I notice this after encoding 100's of CDs...) 
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=312282"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


That happened to me before but i downloaded another copy and its 3.96.1 is now in the command line. This is still from mitiok. havent tried the rarewares one. just downloaded it now for backup.

I want a few comments first before I experiment but so far the only problem of the 3.96.1 I'm currently ripping with at preset extreme is that sometimes there are time errors with the mp3s(1 out of a thousand or so). I rip the same songs again and it fixes the problem. sounds better IMO than the recommended 3.90.3 Lame. I trusted my impulses  after listening to just a few songs that it didn't sound as dry and seemed to have better PrAt than the older lame.

  • Tropican
  • [*][*]
Lame 3.96.1 compiles
Reply #4
This has been brought up many times.  I'm not sure if this thread is still valid:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....topic=20759&hl=

Here are my own tests and some info:


Must be different flags, same compiler in readme from package:

Quote
Compiled with icl 4.5 & nasm.exe & dll were compressed with UPX executable packer http://upx.sourceforge.net/

mitiok


The results from the two compiles are bit-identical:

Code: [Select]
INFO (foo_bitcompare) : Comparing:
INFO (foo_bitcompare) : location: "file://C:\Documents and Settings\_____\Desktop\lame3.96.1\Layla.mp3" (0)
INFO (foo_bitcompare) : location: "file://C:\Documents and Settings\_____\Desktop\lame-3.96.1\Layla.mp3" (0)
INFO (foo_bitcompare) : No differences in decoded data found.
INFO (foo_bitcompare) : Finished successfully.


Here's my speed test, the values fluctuate each time I run them probably because of other things eating up CPU time, but there is no clear winner.  I would venture to say whatever different flags used have no effect on anything, at all.

Code: [Select]
Rarewares: 7.9299x
Mitiok: 8.0164x

Rarewares: 7.9505x
Mitiok: 7.9442x

Rarewares: 7.8996x
Mitiok: 7.9916x


EDIT: This is on a P4, AMD tests may be different.
  • Last Edit: 10 July, 2005, 02:47:16 PM by Tropican

Lame 3.96.1 compiles
Reply #5
So negligible differences in speed, basically...

I assume anyone would agree?
"The way we see our world is better than yours."