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: Newest lame buggy(I think) anyone have a link? (Read 3498 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Newest lame buggy(I think) anyone have a link?

I need a link to an older lame, such as 3.92. 3.93.1 I am not sure, but I do frequency analysis graphs after one song to see if the lame is buggy, and lame 3.93.1 just sux. Sometimes no matter how high you set it it will cut off early, and the like. I use razorlame. I had no probs with the old lame.

Anyway, like an idiot, I deleted the older lame and can't find it  So does anyone have a link to the latest well working version of Lame, the file that razorlame needs? Thanks

Newest lame buggy(I think) anyone have a link?

Reply #1 –
Go to the mp3 forum of this site and click the reccomended lame compiles. You should check the reccomended settings thread as well.

FYI: A lower cutoff does not always mean that you can hear a difference. (e.g. R3MIX and --alt-preset standard lowpass settings)
r3mix zealot.

Newest lame buggy(I think) anyone have a link?

Reply #2 –
On a complex song it cut off around 15800 KHz. That's sign of a bug.

Newest lame buggy(I think) anyone have a link?

Reply #3 –
Did you try using the same line on the command encoder? Did you see the same results? Sometimes when using a front end, the line will not be properly passed.
r3mix zealot.

Newest lame buggy(I think) anyone have a link?

Reply #4 –
But can you ABX it?
Before you don't prove the bug by providing an ABX listening test and also give the used cmd.line I don't believe anything.
dev0
"To understand me, you'll have to swallow a world." Or maybe your words.

Newest lame buggy(I think) anyone have a link?

Reply #5 –
Quote
On a complex song it cut off around 15800 KHz. That's sign of a bug.

Maybe, maybe not.

Suggest you do an ABX to see if there is a sound quality issue or if LAME is just doing its job.  For complex signals the bandwidth may be allocated to more audible frequencies.  Before you claim there is a bug you should provide the LAME version, switch settings, ABX results and links to the sound files so LAME developers can reproduce / correct it if needed.  Or to prove its not a bug.

See the MP3 forum on this site for info on how to get the best out of LAME.
Was that a 1 or a 0?

Newest lame buggy(I think) anyone have a link?

Reply #6 –
Yes... but that stuff only happens on this specific version of LAME when I use razorlame. I tried the command line too. Many people have told me that the newest lame is buggy also, I just wanted to see for myself. I found an older lame, thanks people :-)

Newest lame buggy(I think) anyone have a link?

Reply #7 –
Quote
I need a link to an older lame, such as 3.92.

You can download mitiok's compile of 3.92 from here, or Dibrom's compile of 3.90.2 from here.

    - M.
EDIT: Nevermind... I just saw your previous post, saying you had already found an older version. Should have read the entire thread.

Newest lame buggy(I think) anyone have a link?

Reply #8 –
How do you know that a potential "problem" does not occur with previsou versions if you do not have previous versions to test?

Newest lame buggy(I think) anyone have a link?

Reply #9 –
This person is smoking crack. I've been using 3.93.1 and it works just fine. Sorry to sound a bit edgy, but have a look at his other posts.
flac > schiit modi > schiit magni > hd650

Newest lame buggy(I think) anyone have a link?

Reply #10 –
Quote
This person is smoking crack. I've been using 3.93.1 and it works just fine. Sorry to sound abit edgy, but have a look at his other posts.

Agree.  We can only lead the horse (n00b) to water...
Was that a 1 or a 0?
 

Newest lame buggy(I think) anyone have a link?

Reply #11 –
Quote
This person is smoking crack. I've been using 3.93.1 and it works just fine. Sorry to sound abit edgy, but have a look at his other posts.

Yes... I have acted like a COMPLETE retard for the 2 days I've been here, and I apologize for that... I'm still learning all this stuff and made MAJOR mistakes, I deserve comments like that at the minimum(since I usually make comments like that when it comes to other stuff with idiots).

I went with 3.90.2 just to be safe, since I've heard 3.93 and above are buggy.