Skip to main content

Topic: LAME 3.99 is out (Read 213768 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • Emiliano55
  • [*][*]
LAME 3.99 is out
Reply #375
Thanks! If speed is the only difference then I will use the x64. I asked that because i noticed many people are still using the 32bit version... I guess I will have to assume they all have 32bit systems ?

  • rohangc
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
LAME 3.99 is out
Reply #376
I see the exact same behavior on my machine running Windows 7 64-bit and with an AMD Phenom II X6 processor (that does support SSE2 instructions). I see the crash on both LAME 3.99.4 and 3.99.5.

Please post the parameters that cause the crash. That would be swell.

3.99.5 fixed this problem for me. (on Athlon XP 3200+ / 32-bit Win 7)


Hi Alex. I confirm that 3.99.5 has fixed the problem on my machine too (I upgraded Foobar2000 to 1.1.12a for good measure).
Last night I transcoded all my FLAC files using LAME 3.99.5 and all went well without any hitches.

Thanks!

  • IgorC
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
LAME 3.99 is out
Reply #377
Some speed test for  LAME 3.99.5 V 5 on Atom N2600.

foobar converter (5 threads)

rarewares'es build - 21.5x
gcc 4.6/MinGW build - 30.3x http://tmkk.pv.land.to/lame/index_e.html


AFAIK Atom CPU is a paticular case. Some binaries might actually run slower on it.
Wonder if there are any optimized binaries for Atom. Still pretty impressed with 30x speed for this little monster with TDP just 3.5 Watts. 
  • Last Edit: 29 September, 2012, 04:46:48 PM by IgorC

  • eahm
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
LAME 3.99 is out
Reply #378
30x is impressive for the Atom!

i7-2700k
RareWares: 252.63x
gcc 4.6/MinGW compiled binary for Windows: 271.76x
  • Last Edit: 29 September, 2012, 05:19:25 PM by eahm

LAME 3.99 is out
Reply #379
Important diff. between lame3.98.4.exe and lame3.99.5.exe: "unrecognized option --ns-treble" - The automation in arts reduces quality and the possibility to create new things

LAME 3.99 is out
Reply #380
30x is impressive for the Atom!

i7-2700k
RareWares: 252.63x
gcc 4.6/MinGW compiled binary for Windows: 271.76x


I just tested that build (64 bit version). Damn, that's fast! (Core i5 2500k). To your knowledge, is it the fastest encoding lame 3.99.5 build?

Also, the page states: "64-bit version is not verified to work". I've only tested a few albums which worked fine and the mp3 files seem identical to the ones encoded with the  rarewares x64 build. Have you experienced any issues with it?