Skip to main content

Topic: lame 3.98.4, 3.99 alpha (Read 164486 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • robert
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
lame 3.98.4, 3.99 alpha
Reply #75
How much of a speed difference is there between 3.98.4 and 3.99.a10 ?
  • Last Edit: 08 June, 2010, 05:58:37 AM by robert

  • john33
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
lame 3.98.4, 3.99 alpha
Reply #76
On Q6600 systems @ 3.2GHz, 3.98.4 64bit runs at approx 37x and 32bit at approx 41x. With 3.99a10 the numbers are similar only reversed.
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
My compiles and utilities are at http://www.rarewares.org/

  • IgorC
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
lame 3.98.4, 3.99 alpha
Reply #77
john33,

I have a performance issue with 3.99a10 build from rarewares. It runs at half of speed comparing to 3.98.4 rarewares's build.
PC: AMD Turion II P540 http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/K10/AMD-Turi...540SGR23GM.html
Windows 7 32 bits.


Both build run equally fast at Intel PC.


tsnr's build 3.99a10 directly doesn't run.
  • Last Edit: 11 October, 2010, 01:28:14 AM by IgorC

  • john33
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
lame 3.98.4, 3.99 alpha
Reply #78
john33,

I have a performance issue with 3.99a10 build from rarewares. It runs at half of speed comparing to 3.98.4 rarewares's build.
PC: AMD Turion II P540 http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/K10/AMD-Turi...540SGR23GM.html
Windows 7 32 bits.


Both build run equally fast at Intel PC.


tsnr's build 3.99a10 directly doesn't run.

I'll take a look at this when I return home - I'm away at the moment, but it will probably not be until next week.
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
My compiles and utilities are at http://www.rarewares.org/

  • IgorC
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
lame 3.98.4, 3.99 alpha
Reply #79
If somebody experiences the slow encode with 3.99a on AMD here is lvqcl's compilation.
http://filekeeper.org/download/shared/lame_a10.rar

  • lvqcl
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
lame 3.98.4, 3.99 alpha
Reply #80
tsnr's build 3.99a10 directly doesn't run.


BTW: try to patch it with iccpatch utility (e.g. from here:  http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....74345&st=75 )

  • IgorC
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
lame 3.98.4, 3.99 alpha
Reply #81
Have tried with different versions of iccpatch (GUIed one too). Didn't work.

  • IgorC
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
lame 3.98.4, 3.99 alpha
Reply #82
Some results for Windows 7 x64
CPU Turion II P540

LAME 3.99a10 (foobar converter, 2 cores)

Rarewares builds:
x64 - 47x
x32 - 24x

lvqcl's build http://filekeeper.org/download/shared/lame_a10.rar
x32 - 44-45x

tsnr build http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....st&p=708769
x64 - 42-43x
x32 - doesn't run.

  • moozooh
  • [*][*][*][*]
lame 3.98.4, 3.99 alpha
Reply #83
Has anybody conducted any tests comparing the recent 3.99 alphas with 3.98.4? I'm lacking a proper equipment to test at the moment.
Infrasonic Quartet + Sennheiser HD650 + Microlab Solo 2 mk3. 

lame 3.98.4, 3.99 alpha
Reply #84
Has anybody conducted any tests comparing the recent 3.99 alphas with 3.98.4? I'm lacking a proper equipment to test at the moment.


I've run several test with Lame 3.98.4 and 3.99a10... as of right now both seem to produce the same file. I built both build with the same settings.

Here's a pic from both on the same file.



  • Last Edit: 13 January, 2011, 06:04:07 PM by Fishman0919

lame 3.98.4, 3.99 alpha
Reply #85
3.99a contains the new VBR mode which enables with --vbr-new key. In other modes the result will be the same as for lame 3.98.4

lame 3.98.4, 3.99 alpha
Reply #86
3.99a contains the new VBR mode which enables with --vbr-new key. In other modes the result will be the same as for lame 3.98.4


Sorry, yes, my bad... I don't use vbr-new because it make larger file using -V4 with 3.98.4 and 3.99a10.
Here are some shot of 3.97, 3.98.4 and 3.99a10 on the same file.





  • Last Edit: 14 January, 2011, 01:35:08 PM by Fishman0919

lame 3.98.4, 3.99 alpha
Reply #87
Hm, I see that bitrate distribution is different for two compiles:

Alpha 10 from here:
http://lame.bakerweb.biz/

and
Quote
lvqcl's build http://filekeeper.org/download/shared/lame_a10.rar


--silent -V 2 --vbr-new --noreplaygain

bakerweb.biz - 216kbps avg
lvqcl's - 208 kbps avg

  • Last Edit: 14 January, 2011, 02:01:14 PM by Steve Forte Rio

lame 3.98.4, 3.99 alpha
Reply #88
Hm, I see that bitrate distribution is different for two compiles:

Alpha 10 from here:
http://lame.bakerweb.biz/

and
Quote
lvqcl's build http://filekeeper.org/download/shared/lame_a10.rar


--silent -V 2 --vbr-new --noreplaygain

bakerweb.biz - 216kbps avg
lvqcl's - 208 kbps avg





Yes, different compiles produce different file.

My MVS VC9 Build


My MinGW Build


Bakerweb Build


Rareware Build
  • Last Edit: 14 January, 2011, 03:12:13 PM by Fishman0919

lame 3.98.4, 3.99 alpha
Reply #89
4 Different builds. Same file using "lame.exe --noreplaygain -V 4 test.wav test.mp3"

Rareware Build


My MVS VC9 Build


Bakerweb Build


My MinGW Build
  • Last Edit: 14 January, 2011, 04:20:39 PM by Fishman0919

lame 3.98.4, 3.99 alpha
Reply #90
Same file using -V2.

Rareware, My MSV VC9, Bakerweb, My MinGW build


lame 3.98.4, 3.99 alpha
Reply #91
Quote
Yes, different compiles produce different file.


But why??
  • Last Edit: 14 January, 2011, 04:46:57 PM by Steve Forte Rio

lame 3.98.4, 3.99 alpha
Reply #92
Quote
Yes, different compiles produce different file.


But why??


Different Libraries used in compilers, diff settings used when compiling, diff compilers... which boils down to in the end, different rounding of numbers.

Though not sure why vbr-old doesn't differ so much(same bitrate size, a few different bitrates here and there) as where vbr-new differs alot in bitrate size between compiles with 3.99a10
  • Last Edit: 14 January, 2011, 05:45:41 PM by Fishman0919

lame 3.98.4, 3.99 alpha
Reply #93
So, now I must ask: which is the best? Of course, in terms of quality
  • Last Edit: 15 January, 2011, 07:26:53 AM by Steve Forte Rio

lame 3.98.4, 3.99 alpha
Reply #94
So, now I must ask: which is the best? Of course, in terms of quality


That I can't answer... All of them I guess... I don't think there really is a BAD compiler for Final ver's of Lame.

Maybe robert or john33 could answer that better.
  • Last Edit: 16 January, 2011, 12:33:54 PM by Fishman0919

  • john33
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
lame 3.98.4, 3.99 alpha
Reply #95
So, now I must ask: which is the best? Of course, in terms of quality

That question has been asked many times before and to the best of my knowledge no one has yet been able reliably to differentiate between the outputs from the encoders compiled with different compilers. So it's safe to say that you can use whichever takes your fancy.
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
My compiles and utilities are at http://www.rarewares.org/

lame 3.98.4, 3.99 alpha
Reply #96
Having an issue compiling Lame 3.98.4 or 3.99a10 with MSVS 2010... Lame 3.91-3.97 compiles fine.

Can compile Lame 3.98.4 and 3.99a10 fine with MSVS 2008.

Seems to be a linker option that is no longer valid but don't know where to start... any help would be appreciated.

Quote
Setting environment for using Microsoft Visual Studio 2010 x86 tools.

C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio 10.0\VC>cd lame3984

C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio 10.0\VC\lame3984>nmake -f Makefile.MSVC


Microsoft ® Program Maintenance Utility Version 10.00.30319.01
Copyright © Microsoft Corporation.  All rights reserved.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
building LAME featuring RH
+ ASM
+ MMX
using MS COMPILER
+ optimizing for Pentium II/III
+ using Single precision
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pass GTK=YES to build the frame analyzer. (requires installed GTK)
.
.
.
main.c
LINK : fatal error LNK1117: syntax error in option 'opt:NOWIN98'
NMAKE : fatal error U1077: '"C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio 10.0\VC\BI
N\link.EXE"' : return code '0x45d'
Stop.

C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio 10.0\VC\lame3984>
  • Last Edit: 26 January, 2011, 02:34:12 AM by Fishman0919

  • robert
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
lame 3.98.4, 3.99 alpha
Reply #97
Edit Makefile.MSVC and remove /opt:NOWIN98 around line 236.

lame 3.98.4, 3.99 alpha
Reply #98
Edit Makefile.MSVC and remove /opt:NOWIN98 around line 236.


Thank You

lame 3.98.4, 3.99 alpha
Reply #99
So, now I must ask: which is the best? Of course, in terms of quality

That question has been asked many times before and to the best of my knowledge no one has yet been able reliably to differentiate between the outputs from the encoders compiled with different compilers. So it's safe to say that you can use whichever takes your fancy.


I asked the same question about different bitstream of 320 CBR encoded with two compiles. The difference between them was a small digital 1-bit noise. These could be the results of some processing optimizations.
But here we have different bitrates, and I think this is very strange and must affect quality.

Again:

john33 build - 191 kbps
tsnr (bakerweb.biz) - 185 kbps
lvqcl - 185 kbps
  • Last Edit: 26 January, 2011, 11:21:48 AM by Steve Forte Rio