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.
Topic: 3.93 - What is new? (Read 25367 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

3.93 - What is new?

Is there a compelling reason to download and use 3.93? I read that the pre-sets are not optimized with this new release.

What is in 3.93 that makes it 'better' than 3.92? All this talk about stable branches, etc. For the life of me I cannot figure out what the heck was done in 3.93 that makes it worth downloading.

Any help is appreciated.

3.93 - What is new?

Reply #1 –
Quote
Is there a compelling reason to download and use 3.93?
No.
Quote
What is in 3.93 that makes it 'better' than 3.92?
Some rare bug fixed which can cause the encoding to stop iirc. It should also compile in some Sun-system.
Quote
All this talk about stable branches, etc. For the life of me I cannot figure out what the heck was done in 3.93 that makes it worth downloading.
Don't download 3.93 since it's buggy. If you really have to download, at least wait for 3.93.1. 3.90.2 is still recommend though.

Damn, I hope people would read the older threads, so that this same thing doesn't have to be repeated 1000s times. I'm making this thread sticky..
Juha Laaksonheimo

3.93 - What is new?

Reply #2 –
If you already have a working 3.90.2 or 3.92, there is no major need to update.

You might want to update if:
* you are interested in low bitrates abr/cbr presets or medium vbr preset
* you have updated your gcc compiler and so you are not anymore able to compile Lame.

BUT, if you want to update, I'd strongly suggest you to wait for 3.93.1

3.93 - What is new?

Reply #3 –
John, Gabriel - Thanks for the information.

John, I had read about all the issues, etc. That was my confusion - why even release the thing??? I thought I had missed something.

Anyway - question answered. 3.92 is just fine for my purposes (now, if we only had that 'portable' VBR pre-set!!!!!)

3.93 - What is new?

Reply #4 –
Would you rate 3.93.1 fit for download?

It is my understanding that in 3.93.1 the only thing still screwy is the fast presets... ?

3.93 - What is new?

Reply #5 –
well 3.93.1 looks good for me. But don't use the fast presets (I personally never did).

here in the forums they say that 3.93.1 might be worse in sound quality (esp. with --alt-presets) because it's less tested than 3.90 . but this applies to 3.91 and 3.92 too.

so it's probably best to use 3.90 (one of its versions) because it's the most tested or 3.93.1, coz it's the latest (and PERHAPS greatest).

3.93 - What is new?

Reply #6 –
i just encoded a file with 3.93.1 using --preset standard -Z and 3.90.3 using --alt-preset standard (it has the -Z built-in). the 3.90.3 version is quite a bit larger (6.47MB vs. 6.26MB). what are the differences exactly?

3.93 - What is new?

Reply #7 –
I have been using 3.93.1 since it was the one easily available to download.. I didn't know that an older version would be better. I use Audiograbber and have it set to 256 stereo high quality encoding.  I have encoded a lot of things this way and would hate to have to go back and redo it.  Is 3.90 going to be better quality? I want the best sound I can get.. I got rid of xing to go to this so I could get the most out of it.

3.93 - What is new?

Reply #8 –
as stated in the recommended settings, you're usually best off to use 3.90.3 (was 3.90.2 until very recently) with --alt-preset standard as your only command line option.

3.93 - What is new?

Reply #9 –
Quote
I have been using 3.93.1 since it was the one easily available to download.. I didn't know that an older version would be better. I use Audiograbber and have it set to 256 stereo high quality encoding.  I have encoded a lot of things this way and would hate to have to go back and redo it.  Is 3.90 going to be better quality? I want the best sound I can get.. I got rid of xing to go to this so I could get the most out of it.

the version isn't as much as a problem as your encoding settings. the presets would result in better quality and smaller file size.

3.93 - What is new?

Reply #10 –
I also have a question to the 3.93.1

Is this version ready to use or is it buggy? Somebody told me, that the bugs from the orginal 3.93 version are repaired in the 3.93.1 version. Is this korrekt?

Thx
Spunky

3.93 - What is new?

Reply #11 –
Quote
I also have a question to the 3.93.1

Is this version ready to use or is it buggy? Somebody told me, that the bugs from the orginal 3.93 version are repaired in the 3.93.1 version. Is this korrekt?

Thx
Spunky

3.93.1 is the bug fixed version of 3.93. It's safe to use, although since it's not as heavily tested/tuned as 3.90.3, most folks here prefer to stay with 3.90.3.

3.93 - What is new?

Reply #12 –
...and don't use it with the fast presets. I think, there are known issues with it. *amano-tries-to-remember-but-fails*

3.93 - What is new?

Reply #13 –
>You might want to update if:
* you are interested in low bitrates abr/cbr presets or medium vbr preset
------

Confirmed.  3.93.1 is noticeably better than 3.93 at low q vbrs (voice circa 40kps)

3.93 - What is new?

Reply #14 –
Sorry if I bother you with this guys, I'm pretty new and didn't find answers to my question in the forums...
So, can anybody tell me what's the difference btw the original lame 3.93.1 (which seems to be stable and which I use right now for my encodes), and the 3.90.3 version? why is it recomended above the original version?
In my encodes I used to encode as normal 160kb cbr with high quality enabeld. I read that the alt present settings where the only way to go, so I now encode that way: --alt-preset cbr 160.

An answer or a link concerning the differences btw the two versions would be most apriciated.
thx guys
Nothing but a Heartache - Since I found my Baby ;)

3.93 - What is new?

Reply #16 –
Yeh, this thread is so long now it takes a while to parse through the conclusions...

Basically, 3.90.3 is a modified 3.90 (the hydrogenaudio branch, if you will). 3.93 had some regressions in quality, and no improvements except a few bug fixes. 3.93.1 fixed a glaring bug, but the other problems remain. By using 3.90.3 you are at worst getting the same quality, and at best (and most likely) better quality.

3.90.x were all tested extensively through double-blind listening tests, and 3.93 was not. I know, I had trouble convincing myself to use an "older" version too, but 3.93.1 is really a bum release. Hopefully 3.94 will fix those problems, since they have been conducting listening tests again.


Why, might I ask, are you using CBR? If there is a good reason (you have a really old portable that won't work with vbr/abr) then fine, but otherwise, for godsakes use vbr!

You could get an average of 160kbps with --alt-preset standard -Y, but unlike your current method, this command line will give you files that are most probably indistinguishable from the source CD. Using CBR on hard to encode sections of music will make them sound noticably bad, and 160kbps frames are NOT enough for a lot of music.

3.93 - What is new?

Reply #17 –
First of all, thx for the quick replies! 
The blind-fold-getting-good-music-are-better-than-anything-else ;-) are obviously a reason to change to 3.90.3. Though I must admit (as you said Jebus) that it's kinda, well, somehow uncomfi at first to choose another, not offical version (but as it well tested and discussed, I guess I try to not think about that anymore...).

At the cbr q.: I used cbr as long as I could remember, I'm used to it. I started with a reeeaaal smal hd, so I had look at size above quality. besides (don't lough  ), I don't like the changing bitrate in the winamp mainwindow at the top...

Is the difference betw 160 cbr and vbr realy that much?
I guess everybody got to encode according to his needs, and as now got a 80gb hd, but a pretty bad soundsystem, prob. 160 cbr is enough for me...
Nothing but a Heartache - Since I found my Baby ;)

3.93 - What is new?

Reply #18 –
you might get a better sound system some day. consider this.

if size is an issue, use --alt-preset medium. that will average around 160 kbps.

and yes, vbr is much better than cbr. you will notice, that some difficult parts in the music will notably be better. lame will use bitrates up to 320kbps for them. 160 kbps is just the average.

the usage of vbr vs cbr will be much much more a quality issue, than the question 3.93.1 vs. 3.90.3

3.93 - What is new?

Reply #19 –
Hi again.
I just downloaded 3.90.3 and gave it a quick try via lamebatch (frontend). To my ear, it's at least not worse than the 3.93.1 release, I think the whole sound is somehow more... stable, and more clear.
Though in the three wavdats I ripped (one hardrock, on classical, and one hip-hop), I didn't hear any differences at 160cbr, 160abr and 192cbr, 192abr - so I'm gonna stick with my (prob. falsly) highly praised 160kb... 
Anyway, thx for giving me some info about the 3.90.3 release, keep up the nobee friendly posting 
Nothing but a Heartache - Since I found my Baby ;)

3.93 - What is new?

Reply #20 –
@ amano:
Your are prob. right about my lousy soundsytem, but I don't mind reencoding all my stuff again, so that's fine with me.
In between, isn't abr good enough (which you get with --alt-preset 160), comparing to vrb?

p.s.: to me, using uo to 320 kb in vbr seems like overkill, 256 or something should be the max...
Nothing but a Heartache - Since I found my Baby ;)

3.93 - What is new?

Reply #21 –
ABR is better than CBR definitely.

Regards to 320kbps limitation - why don't you trust the people who've put hundreds if not thousands of hours into testing?  Also consider that capping off an encode at 256 rather than 320 will only lead to a marginally lesser bitrate (think about averages here).

3.93 - What is new?

Reply #22 –
I guess your'e right, I just not used to anything other than cbr...

@ amano:
I just tried your --alt-preset medium setting, but the commandline doesn't work (lame halts!). Was I just too stupid, or do I have to consider somthing else?

@ RyanVM:
No offence meant, but what millions of poeple think is not so relevant like my own opinion (at least concerning mp3s...) 
I got to have the warm fuzzy feeling, that I did an mp3rip just the way I wanted it to be, even if it's not the best quality possible (sounds a bit weird, anyway...)
But as I said, I'm now in the stage of comparing and new considering, so please be patient with me 
Nothing but a Heartache - Since I found my Baby ;)

3.93 - What is new?

Reply #23 –
ugh. sorry to forget that to mention.

you have to download the modified version of 3.90.3

http://rarewares.hydrogenaudio.org/files/l...0.3modified.zip

just forgot that john33 included preset medium only in the modified version.
another modification is that your mp3s get automatically tagged "Created with lame 3.90.3".
and: it will accept a --preset command alternatively to the --alt-preset command

so you can type --alt-preset medium OR --preset medium, just like in 3.93.x.

the resulting mp3 is bitrate identical to 3.90.3 (stable build) and 3.90.2!!!

download and give the medium preset a try, it will be MUCH better than cbr 160.

EDIT: typo

3.93 - What is new?

Reply #24 –
all theese modified versions of modiefied programs of modified programs, of modiefied... 
well, done that. it's rrreeeaaaly slow (around 2,3x, formerly with 3.90.3 about 6-7x, before that with my old lame 3.93.1 12x)
The results are not too bad though, BUT the size is just to big for me (even with medium...)
If SOMBODY could answer this question for me, I'm gonna stick with abr160:
Is there a way to make winamp not display the bitrate change? I realy don't like that (otherwise winamps great).
thx for all the suggestions, even if they are atm wasted on me...


I'm going to bed now.
I thank you guys for beeing patient with that  noobe    and givimg me something to ponder on.
I'm just unlucky that I still got some space problems on my hd, so 160 cbr gotta do it, instead of vbr.


-------
In bytes we trust
Nothing but a Heartache - Since I found my Baby ;)