Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.

Poll

Which lame version you'd use?

Lame 3.90.3 (old but tested - years ago - trnsparent to most)
[ 44 ] (17.7%)
Lame 3.96.1 (new stable - still found some q problems)
[ 88 ] (35.5%)
Lame 3.97a (alpha - but still proves to be best on some tests done recently)
[ 116 ] (46.8%)

Total Members Voted: 344

Topic: Lame 3.97 (Read 33159 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Lame 3.97

as everybody knows, lame 3.90.3 was tested thorouhly. but this was years ago.
and those tests proved that it was better than 3.89.

then developement took place and lame changed
now a days very few are doing tests. so standard of thorough test should also be changed

we know that 3.90.3 is transparent to most.
but if these new alphas are also transparent to most, then how can we say that which one is superior? along with problem samples, real music must also be taken into account.

lets have it like this:
we can say standard is transparent, no need to go upto extreme or insane though they are superior. (i've seen posts like this)
then why we cant say 397a is transparent as well as fast, no need to go back to 3.90 though it is tested more.

we can leave V0 or - 320 because we have V2 (2 is lower compared to 0, but we cannot distinguish as it is very high itself) as standard
then why cant we leave 3.90 because we have 397a vbr new?

afterall its lossy compression! every setting is a tradeoff size/qual. as long as we get transparent/optimum/reasonable o/p we usually spare higher settings, thouh they are giving more quality technically, or by test. then why cant we accept a new fact which is also transparent. no matter if it might be a little less in quality (just because its not that tested!) but still it is giving great advantages like speed and reduced size!

it's just a thought. no offence intended. just a thought developed in mind after reading so many articles about all these versions.

lets see howmany of us are approving 397 alpha and wish that it becomes stable as soon as possible.

Lame 3.97

Reply #1 –
I'm splitting my usage between 3.97a11 (using --vbr-new) and 3.96.1 (using the default old vbr).  I encode at -V2, -V3 and -V4. I'm looking forward to final 3.97 being released, though I'm not in any huge need of hurry. Thanks to all the Lame devs for their work on the project.
God kills a kitten every time you encode with CBR 320

Lame 3.97

Reply #2 –
3.97 alpha : solves most "background ringing" issue at low/mid bitrate with ABR/CBR.

P.S. There are also two similar polls:

- Upgrade the official HA LAME version?, Now (3.96) or wait until 4.0?
- Which MP3 codec do you prefer?, LAME 3.90.3, 3.96.1, or something else?
Wavpack Hybrid: one encoder for all scenarios
WavPack -c4.5hx6 (44100Hz & 48000Hz) ≈ 390 kbps + correction file
WavPack -c4hx6 (96000Hz) ≈ 768 kbps + correction file
WavPack -h (SACD & DSD) ≈ 2400 kbps at 2.8224 MHz

Lame 3.97

Reply #3 –
I have ripped and compressed all of my CD collection.  I will not re-rip and recompress unless I am snowed in for a month.  ;o)  I will wait for 3.97 to be blessed as good enough for general use.  Until then I am using 3.96.1. 
Nov schmoz kapop.

Lame 3.97

Reply #4 –
Technically 3.96.1 but I've started testing 3.97 alpha 11.  I'm thinking once 3.97 gets to beta (which probably won't be very long from now) I'll go ahead and move up
Nero AAC 1.5.1.0: -q0.45

Lame 3.97

Reply #5 –
Split decision for me, i use 3.90.3 for APS, but for lower bitrates, 3.97a11 is excelent.
we was young an' full of beans

Lame 3.97

Reply #6 –
right ^^

i only use lame at APS (when i use it at all)

in those cases i use 3.90.3.  if i ever needed a low {C,A}BR i'd use lame from cvs


later

Lame 3.97

Reply #7 –
3.97 for all mp3 encoding.

Lame 3.97

Reply #8 –
3.97a11 --vbr-new from -V3 through -V5 (generally it's -V4 which is nearly a perfect quality/size setting with 3.97 alphas). Excellent tuning, I'd say.
Infrasonic Quartet + Sennheiser HD650 + Microlab Solo 2 mk3. 

Lame 3.97

Reply #9 –
Mainly: 3.97a11 '-V4 --vbr-new' for portable use.
I'll use 3.97a11 '-V2 --vbr-new' for torrent sharing (of non commercial material like radio programs, promo CDs etc).

Lame 3.97

Reply #10 –
I have been a 3.90.3 zealot for a long time and never liked what I saw from the testing threads of 3.96.1. It just wasnt good enough to be a successor to the king. But I won't get into any arguments with anyone about that now   

From what I've seen of Guru's and others testing I think this is the version of lame we have been waiting for.

I'm encoding my music with 3.97 --preset standard --vbr-new.

Lame 3.97

Reply #11 –
I've switched to 3.97a11 --alt-preset standard --vbr-new, recently.

Lame 3.97

Reply #12 –
great reply friends!
keep going!
nice to see popularity of 3.97
i think this is going to be last of lame 3.xx family
and hope it will be accepted as the best globally.

Lame 3.97

Reply #13 –
Quote
I've switched to 3.97a11 --alt-preset standard --vbr-new, recently.


faster, smaller, about 180 kbps.

But I've noticed the speed is significantly slower in alpha 11 than previous alpha 8.
Do u guys experience this too?

Lame 3.97

Reply #14 –
I'm going to stick with my Lame 3.96.1 untill they come out with a beta for this release.  Not a big fan of re-encoding my CDs and I don't have enough space for keeping the uncompressed wav files handy.
J

Lame 3.97

Reply #15 –
Quote
I'm going to stick with my Lame 3.96.1 untill they come out with a beta for this release.  Not a big fan of re-encoding my CDs and I don't have enough space for keeping the uncompressed wav files handy.
J
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=318068"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

... that's what lossless audio compression is for

flac, wavpack, etc.


later

Lame 3.97

Reply #16 –
I have grudgingly switched from 3.90.3 APS to 3.97 V2 vbr new. While I would rather use a stable release, the reports regarding sound quality coming in from golden eared listeners has convinced me to switch. Smaller file sizes and faster encoding vs 3.90.3 is a nice bonus as well.

Lame 3.97

Reply #17 –
Quote
... that's what lossless audio compression is for

flac, wavpack, etc.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=318103"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Those formats are nice, but they don't really meet my needs.  For one they're a bit too large for my portable device and they are eating up almost as much HD space as the original wav file.

I'd rather just keep it in wav format than another format that is only saving me a small amount of space.  At least with the wav file I can encode it any time I desire into a different format.
J

Lame 3.97

Reply #18 –
Quote
Quote
... that's what lossless audio compression is for

flac, wavpack, etc.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=318103"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Those formats are nice, but they don't really meet my needs.  For one they're a bit too large for my portable device and they are eating up almost as much HD space as the original wav file.

I'd rather just keep it in wav format than another format that is only saving me a small amount of space.  At least with the wav file I can encode it any time I desire into a different format.
J
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=318118"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


dude... 60% compression isn't exactly "a small amount" ??? (i.e. 40% reduction)

lets say you have 10 gigs of uncompressed wavs.  in almost any lossless format that is now about 6 gigs.  also, most lossless formats are easy to transcode to anything else.


later

Lame 3.97

Reply #19 –
so! once again it seems that 3.97 is the most popular one amongst the community. and most of the others are using the latest stable lame. only 14% using 3.90.3.
thanx to guruboolez for excellent testing done on latest alphas. and to gabriel for implementing lame. and last but not least thanks to Darin Morrison for starting this whole quality concept, after which lame became the best mp3 encoder on the planet.

Lame 3.97

Reply #20 –
Quote
so! once again it seems that 3.97 is the most popular one amongst the community. and most of the others are using the latest stable lame.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=318942"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


as is the case with me. 3.97 alpha 11 for all my encodings. i used -V0 first. file sizes are smaller than with lame 3.96 APS. But the new alpha seems to be tuned particularly for -V2 --vbr-new, so i switched to that. since i have a lot of new classical music to discover yet, i think the smaller file sizes now come in handy. 
So much so that i have reencoded all my old musepack APS to this format. And it works especially well for classical music as guruboolez himself has noted.

Lame 3.97

Reply #21 –
Quote
i used -V0 first. But the new alpha seems to be tuned particularly for -V2 --vbr-new


gabriel or guru! can you confirm this thing? is it true that v2 is more tuned than v0?

and another question. in older times (3.90), APS used to enable some special codes that couldnt be enabled by switches.
but new lame itself is special. all alternate preset code is merged in mainstream and even without using preset we can use that.
so from now can we consider that only V2 is not the "bible standard"? and consider that V0 will be more effective than V2 in terms of quality?
(considering we are using  vbr-new only)
or this V2 still stands most tuned and king of all?

Lame 3.97

Reply #22 –
I'm not working on LAME, and therefore I can't answer.
Wavpack Hybrid: one encoder for all scenarios
WavPack -c4.5hx6 (44100Hz & 48000Hz) ≈ 390 kbps + correction file
WavPack -c4hx6 (96000Hz) ≈ 768 kbps + correction file
WavPack -h (SACD & DSD) ≈ 2400 kbps at 2.8224 MHz

Lame 3.97

Reply #23 –
Quote
is it true that v2 is more tuned than v0?

It is true that there had been less listening test results regarding V0 than regarding V2, but V0 should still sound superior to V2.

Lame 3.97

Reply #24 –
I'm using 3.96.1 untill 3.97 gets out of the alpha stage.  I have most of my collection stored in lossless on my HD so reencoding won't be too difficult.