Skip to main content

Topic: LAME 3.99 is out (Read 214494 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • john33
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
LAME 3.99 is out
Reply #150
Ok, I guess my other reply didn't make it clear.
[...]
This looks like a problem within MediaInfo. The field consists of 9 characters, no Zero termination required.
Not arguing, simply trying to understand: why the issue manifests itself with 3.99.1 and not 3.98.4 please?

[...]
I'll produce a new set of compiles with this fix, but it will likely not be until tomorrow now. Technically, it was a problem although I would imagine most are unconcerned by this, IMHO.
Which compiler settings then please? Is it not best you devs/coders first agree on the most compatible and hopefully best performing ones?

This was two tiny and inconsequential coding errors in version.c that affected the insertion of the lame version into the LAME tag, nothing to do with compiler settings.
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
My compiles and utilities are at http://www.rarewares.org/

  • nao
  • [*][*]
LAME 3.99 is out
Reply #151
Not arguing, simply trying to understand: why the issue manifests itself with 3.99.1 and not 3.98.4 please?

3.98.4 says "LAME3.98r", and 3.99.1 says "L3.99r". Mediainfo only accepts version strings beginning with "LAME" or "GOGO".
Quote from mediainfo's File_Mpega.cpp, line 1204
Code: [Select]
            if (Lame || Lib==_T("LAME") || Lib==_T("GOGO"))
                Header_Encoders_Lame();

  • john33
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
LAME 3.99 is out
Reply #152
New compiles now available.
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
My compiles and utilities are at http://www.rarewares.org/

  • DARcode
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Members (Donating)
LAME 3.99 is out
Reply #153
This was two tiny and inconsequential coding errors in version.c that affected the insertion of the lame version into the LAME tag, nothing to do with compiler settings.
What I meant is: since you were about to produce new compiles, why not sort our the compiler switches doubts first.
WavPack 4.80.0 -b384hx6cmv / qaac 2.59 -V 100

  • Anakunda
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
LAME 3.99 is out
Reply #154
Tried to view last build's (11/11) metadata  with MediaInfo 0.7.50, encode settings are not shown at all, version information not shown at all on both 32bit and 64bit build. Foobar however reports L3.99r1 correctly.

  • DARcode
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Members (Donating)
LAME 3.99 is out
Reply #155
[...]Mediainfo only accepts version strings beginning with "LAME" or "GOGO".
Quote from mediainfo's File_Mpega.cpp, line 1204
Code: [Select]
            if (Lame || Lib==_T("LAME") || Lib==_T("GOGO"))
                Header_Encoders_Lame();

WavPack 4.80.0 -b384hx6cmv / qaac 2.59 -V 100

  • john33
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
LAME 3.99 is out
Reply #156
This was two tiny and inconsequential coding errors in version.c that affected the insertion of the lame version into the LAME tag, nothing to do with compiler settings.
What I meant is: since you were about to produce new compiles, why not sort our the compiler switches doubts first.

In truth, the basic optimisation settings have changed very little over the last several years, it's more a case of trying the odd tweak to see if it makes any difference.
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
My compiles and utilities are at http://www.rarewares.org/

  • Anakunda
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
LAME 3.99 is out
Reply #157
Does it mean the new LAME version doesnot begin with LAME but L only? I wished Mediainfo could show LAME version again, and why is not shown encode time settings anymore? Does it something to do with required LAME version string too?

  • DARcode
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Members (Donating)
LAME 3.99 is out
Reply #158
In truth, the basic optimisation settings have changed very little over the last several years, it's more a case of trying the odd tweak to see if it makes any difference.
I don't wanna hijack or spam this thread, so I'll make one last try at explaining myself: I'm referring to the different compiles' performance you've been discussing with Alex B, lvqcl and psycho.
WavPack 4.80.0 -b384hx6cmv / qaac 2.59 -V 100

  • GeSomeone
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
LAME 3.99 is out
Reply #159
Still not a word on the lowpass case for -V0  ?

Nothing genius, but if you like to mimic the old behaviour one of the possibilities is to use -V 0.5. This is the highest setting that uses a lowpass, although it is a rather high one.
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.

  • nao
  • [*][*]
LAME 3.99 is out
Reply #160
Does it something to do with required LAME version string too?

Mediainfo assumes that LAME tag is not written unless the version string begins with "LAME" or "GOGO".

  • Anakunda
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
LAME 3.99 is out
Reply #161
Does it something to do with required LAME version string too?

Mediainfo assumes that LAME tag is not written unless the version string begins with "LAME" or "GOGO".


If the problem is on MediaInfos side then consider this issue solved.
MediaInfo 0.7.51 was released today but doesnot reflect the latest Lame version tagging changes 
Anyway I'd like to Lame continues identify itself as LAME henceforward.

  • john33
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
LAME 3.99 is out
Reply #162
In truth, the basic optimisation settings have changed very little over the last several years, it's more a case of trying the odd tweak to see if it makes any difference.
I don't wanna hijack or spam this thread, so I'll make one last try at explaining myself: I'm referring to the different compiles' performance you've been discussing with Alex B, lvqcl and psycho.

From my own testing on AMD and Intel based systems, I believe that the compiles now on Rarewares represent the fastest compiles that I can produce with the tools I have available. Don't forget that no one involved in any of this actually makes any money out of it, in fact probably the reverse. We do what we do from interest and, I guess, because it provides a diversion from other things in life.

Don't take that to mean that we don't welcome constructive criticism, but we do this in our spare time and, more importantly, when it suits us.
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
My compiles and utilities are at http://www.rarewares.org/

  • lvqcl
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
LAME 3.99 is out
Reply #163
I'm referring to the different compiles' performance you've been discussing with Alex B, lvqcl and psycho.


If you want to compare, you can download MSVS2010 compiles here: http://www.multiupload.com/ROM5UG0RW5

  • psycho
  • [*][*][*]
LAME 3.99 is out
Reply #164
I have made my compile available for anyone interrested to test it:

LAME - psycho build

Be kind and report your results.


My results with MSVS2010 compiles, lvqcl provided (machinae_supremacy-fighters_from_ninne flac used as source from their website):

My LAME build:
16.200x  277.7 kbps

ReleaseNASM:
18.095x  277.4 kbps

ReleaseSSE2 x32:
16.437x  277.4 kbps

Rarewares build:
17.214x  278.0 kbps


Don't have 64- OS installed to test the ReleaseSSE2 x64.


So - for me, the ReleaseNASM is the fastest way to go.
  • Last Edit: 11 November, 2011, 02:22:30 PM by psycho
lame -V 0

  • psycho
  • [*][*][*]
LAME 3.99 is out
Reply #165
My previous build is 3.99, so here's the new one:

LAME 3.99.1 - psycho build
lame -V 0

  • robert
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
LAME 3.99 is out
Reply #166
Running some test with my above ~45 min track:

Rarewares compiles:
3.98.4 : 1:46
3.99.0 : 2:08

My own VC9 compiles :
3.98.4 : 2:24 (Release NASM)
3.99.0 : 2:24 (Release NASM)
3.99.0 : 2:01 (Release SSE2)

My own VC11 compile:
3.99.0 : 2:10 (Release)
3.99.0 : 1:46 (Release SSE2)
3.99.0 : 1:38 (Release SSE2, 64-bit)

It looks like John's IC11.1 compile isn't using optimized code paths, or at least no SSE2 optimizations.



My previous build is 3.99, so here's the new one:

LAME 3.99.1 - psycho build

Same test as above, with psycho's build:
3.99.1 : 2:08 (Release NASM, VC10 32-bit)

So, it's faster than my own VC9 NASM build,  but not as fast as my Release SSE2 VC9 32-bit one.

Update on John's 11-11 compiles:
3.99.1 : 2:01 (Intel Compiler 11.1 32-bit)
3.99.1 : 1:43 (Intel Compiler 11.1 64-bit)
  • Last Edit: 11 November, 2011, 05:23:56 PM by robert

  • hidn
  • [*][*]
LAME 3.99 is out
Reply #167
it is possible to see how used cpu extensions
http://www.cpuid.com/softwares/perfmonitor.html


(on ss working gogo 3.13)
  • Last Edit: 12 November, 2011, 04:41:26 AM by hidn

  • robert
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
LAME 3.99 is out
Reply #168
Here are some perfmon snapshots using psycho's (A), john's 32-bit (B) and 64-bit ©, my VC9-NASM-32-bit (D), VC9-SSE2-32-bit (E) and VC11-SSE2-64-bit (F) compiles.

A [ Specified attachment is not available ] B [ Specified attachment is not available ] C [ Specified attachment is not available ] D [ Specified attachment is not available ] E [ Specified attachment is not available ] F [ Specified attachment is not available ]
  • Last Edit: 12 November, 2011, 06:39:26 AM by robert

  • ijskonijn
  • [*]
LAME 3.99 is out
Reply #169
Is it correct that in the latest build of Lame from 2011-11-11 ( http://www.rarewares.org/mp3-lame-bundle.php ) the error still exist where Lame writes the lame header ( http://forum.dbpoweramp.com/showthread.php...ll=1#post116335 )?

Because i saw an error in dBpoweramp ( http://forum.dbpoweramp.com/showthread.php...ll=1#post116339 ) and they say that this was the problem?

  • lock67ca
  • [*]
LAME 3.99 is out
Reply #170
EncSpot is showing the Xing tag but isn't showing the Lame tag (which it usually does), as if it is unable to read it or it hasn't been written. iTunes still shows the encoder as Unknown. Odd???

  • robert
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
LAME 3.99 is out
Reply #171
@ijskonijn

The rarewares builds look fine. When dMC still shows "3.98.4", then it seems you haven't replaced the correct file(s). IIRC, you'll have to use the CLI encoder from dMC, if you want to use LAME.exe.

  • Zenitram
  • [*]
LAME 3.99 is out
Reply #172
Not arguing, simply trying to understand: why the issue manifests itself with 3.99.1 and not 3.98.4 please?

3.98.4 says "LAME3.98r", and 3.99.1 says "L3.99r". Mediainfo only accepts version strings beginning with "LAME" or "GOGO".


MediaInfo has been updated (Windows development snapshot, for Linux you need to update from SVN) in a "quick and dirty" way (actually, the whole Lame tag code is quick and dirty  ).
For the future, I'll implement a better code and I'll detect LAME tag from the CRC-16 instead of "magic value" = "LAME", but if you don't plan to obey the "specifications" described on this page (saying that $9C is 'L', $9D is 'A', $9E is 'M', $9F is 'E'), do you have a page describing the updated specifications (especially the rule for the version number for previous, present and future versions, I would like to be able to separe library name and library version in the future)?

Is there any specific reason to break the "LAME3.99a" (a, b, c, d...) versioning method?

Jérôme, developer of MediaInfo.

  • viktor
  • [*][*][*][*]
LAME 3.99 is out
Reply #173
Is there any specific reason to break the "LAME3.99a" (a, b, c, d...) versioning method?


i've been wondering about this as well, and i couldn't find any particular reason other than "just cause"

  • apodtele
  • [*]
LAME 3.99 is out
Reply #174
Dropping LAME is a bad idea from branding standpoint. L is not a brand name, LAME is. This is way more important than any minor version.