Skip to main content

Topic: LAME 3.99 is out (Read 214370 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • psycho
  • [*][*][*]
LAME 3.99 is out
Reply #50
My results (samples taken from http://ff123.net/samples.html):

My CPU: AMD Athlon 64 X2 4000+ (Brisbane)
Endodes done with command line: -V 0

Rarewares 3.99 build:

LisztBMinor sample:
15.219x - 246.6 kbps

ATrain sample:
14.614x - 256.3 kbps

BachS1007 sample:
15.988x - 229.8 kbps

DaFunk sample:
14.185x - 287.6 kbps

ExitMusic sample:
15.921x - 250.4 kbps


My 3.99 build (MinGW 5.1.6 with MSYS-1.0.11 with yasm-1.1.0-win32.exe for nasm.exe):

LisztBMinor sample:
16.363x - 242.7 kbps

ATrain sample:
15.729x - 254.0 kbps

BachS1007 sample:
16.583x - 227.2 kbps

DaFunk sample:
15.520x - 285.6 kbps

ExitMusic sample:
15.909x - 250.1


It's curious to see how my build is faster and produces smaller mp3 files...
lame -V 0

  • psycho
  • [*][*][*]
LAME 3.99 is out
Reply #51
I forgot to mention:

OS: WinXP SP3 32-bit


Can't edit my previous post, so I will post my next test results here:

Here are the results with 3.98.4:

Rarewares 3.98.4 build:

LisztBMinor sample:
18.444x - 217.9 kbps

ExitMusic sample:
18.947x - 225.1 kbps


http://lame.bakerweb.biz/ 3.98.4 build:

LisztBMinor sample:
14.077x - 217.9 kbps

ExitMusic sample:
14.648x - 224.1 kbps


My 3.98.4 build (MinGW 5.1.6 with MSYS-1.0.11 with yasm-1.1.0-win32.exe for nasm.exe):

LisztBMinor sample:
15.770x - 217.9 kbps

ExitMusic sample:
16.742x - 224.6 kbps


Question for john33: I have Microsoft Visual C++ 6.0 - how can I compile lame with it?
  • Last Edit: 26 October, 2011, 02:57:28 PM by psycho
lame -V 0

  • Alex B
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
LAME 3.99 is out
Reply #52
Rarewares 3.98.4 build:

LisztBMinor sample:
18.444x - 217.9 kbps

ExitMusic sample:
18.947x - 225.1 kbps

Which Rarewares build? The old "main" compile:
Quote
From: http://web.archive.org/web/20110722042821/...lame-bundle.php

LAME 3.98.4
2010-03-23

Bundle compiled with Intel Compiler 11.1.
Download (563kB)

... or the currently available "VC6/Intel Compiler 9.1" compile:
Quote
From: http://www.rarewares.org/mp3-lame-bundle.php

LAME 3.98.4
2009-06-06

Bundle compiled with VC6/Intel Compiler 9.1 - intended for older Windows OSs.
Download (494kB)


I used the "Intel Compiler 11.1" version in my 3.98.4 test.
  • Last Edit: 26 October, 2011, 04:00:43 PM by Alex B

  • robert
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
LAME 3.99 is out
Reply #53
Question for john33: I have Microsoft Visual C++ 6.0 - how can I compile lame with it?


With LAME sources comes a Makefile.MSVC, I used that to build LAME from the command line using VC6, back in the days.

Code: [Select]
lame v399: -V0 --noreplaygain LoveSexy.wav

m:ss    x    kbps    

2:06    21.3    260.8    gcc4.1.2    x86/makefile.unix CFG=RH_SSE

2:42    16.617    257.5    VC9 Express    x86/Release
2:02    22.099    259.8    VC9 Express    x86/ReleaseSSE

2:23    18.790    256.3    VC11 D-Prev    x86/Release
1:52    23.925    256.3    VC11 D-Prev    x86/ReleaseSSE

2:02    22.152    256.3    VC11 D-Prev    x64/Release
1:45    25.689    256.3    VC11 D-Prev    x64/ReleaseSSE

machine: Athlon 64x2 4000+ Brisbane @2.4GHz 8GB Win7 64bit / Suse 10.2 x86

  • psycho
  • [*][*][*]
LAME 3.99 is out
Reply #54
Alex B, I used the "VC6/Intel Compiler 9.1" compile of Rarewares' 3.98.4.

john33, thanks, I'll try Makefile.MSVC.
lame -V 0

  • Alex B
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
LAME 3.99 is out
Reply #55
Alex B, I used the "VC6/Intel Compiler 9.1" compile of Rarewares' 3.98.4.

When I tested the 3.98.4 compiles in early October "VC6/Intel Compiler 9.1" was sligthly slower than "Intel Compiler 11.1" -- but perhaps not insignificantly because on average the speed difference was constantly reproducible (I ran the tests several times):
3.98.4 (the main bundle from Rarewares)
Total encoding time: 0:40.922, 134.34x realtime

3.98.4 (the VC6 compile from Rarewares)
Total encoding time: 0:41.625, 132.07x realtime

I really would not like to sacrifice any of the encoding speed just because of the new version is out. In the past a slightly improved encoding speed has often been a good reason to upgrade to the new version. 3.98.4 has been a fine LAME version and I may continue to use it (at least for now).
  • Last Edit: 26 October, 2011, 04:55:46 PM by Alex B

  • Alex B
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
LAME 3.99 is out
Reply #56
Results of "lame -S -V2 --noreplaygain test.wav nul" on Intel Core2: encoding time in seconds

Rarewares compiles:
x32: 148 s

My compiles (MSVS 2010, fast math + SSE enabled):
x32 NASM: 125 s
x32 SSE2: 135 s

Also, Rarewares Lame 3.98.4:
x32: 130 s

Your 32-bit 3.99 compiles are interesting. The NASM compile is actually faster than the Rarewares 3.98.4 version. What does "NASM" mean in this case?
  • Last Edit: 26 October, 2011, 05:11:21 PM by Alex B

  • psycho
  • [*][*][*]
LAME 3.99 is out
Reply #57
john33, I managed to compile lame.exe with VC6, however it doesn't encode.

If I just run lame.exe with no command line options, it displays the version info normally, however if I want to encode with it, I get an error:
lame -V 0

  • robert
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
LAME 3.99 is out
Reply #58
Your 32-bit 3.99 compiles are interesting. The NASM compile is actually faster than the Rarewares 3.98.4 version. What does "NASM" mean in this case?


NASM compile uses "Netwide Assembler" code for some routines. Btw., using the very same VC9 and compiling 3.99 and 3.98.4 (ReleaseNASM configuration), there is not much of an speed difference:

Code: [Select]
LAME 3.98.4 32bits (http://www.mp3dev.org/)
CPU features: MMX (ASM used), 3DNow! (ASM used), SSE (ASM used), SSE2
Using polyphase lowpass filter, transition band: 18671 Hz - 19205 Hz
Encoding w:\cd\Prince\1988-Lovesexy\01 Songs are in a continous sequence.wav
      to x.mp3
Encoding as 44.1 kHz j-stereo MPEG-1 Layer III VBR(q=2)
    Frame          |  CPU time/estim | REAL time/estim | play/CPU |    ETA
103492/103492(100%)|    2:22/    2:22|    2:22/    2:22|   18.913x|    0:00
32 [     0]
40 [     1] %
48 [     0]
56 [     1] %
64 [     0]
80 [     4] *
96 [   115] *
112 [  1580] %**
128 [  7331] %************
160 [ 40039] %%%***************************************************************
192 [ 33304] %%%%%%%%%%%********************************************
224 [ 11836] %%%%%***************
256 [  5489] %%********
320 [  3792] %%*****
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   kbps        LR    MS  %     long switch short %
  185.5       12.5  87.5        88.0   6.4   5.6
Writing LAME Tag...done

LAME 3.99 32bits (http://lame.sf.net)
CPU features: MMX (ASM used), 3DNow! (ASM used), SSE (ASM used), SSE2
Using polyphase lowpass filter, transition band: 18671 Hz - 19205 Hz
Encoding w:\cd\Prince\1988-Lovesexy\01 Songs are in a continous sequence.wav
      to x.mp3
Encoding as 44.1 kHz j-stereo MPEG-1 Layer III VBR(q=2)
    Frame          |  CPU time/estim | REAL time/estim | play/CPU |    ETA
103492/103492(100%)|    2:20/    2:20|    2:20/    2:20|   19.266x|    0:00
32 [     1] %
40 [     0]
48 [     0]
56 [     0]
64 [     0]
80 [     0]
96 [     2] %
112 [    81] %
128 [  5400] %********
160 [ 43295] %%%%%%************************************************************
192 [ 37019] %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%****************************************
224 [  8887] %%%%%*********
256 [  6608] %%%********
320 [  2199] %%**
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   kbps        LR    MS  %     long switch short %
  184.8       19.1  80.9        88.0   6.4   5.6
Writing LAME Tag...done


Code: [Select]
LAME 3.98.4 32bits (http://www.mp3dev.org/)
CPU features: MMX (ASM used), 3DNow! (ASM used), SSE (ASM used), SSE2
Using polyphase lowpass filter, transition band: 16538 Hz - 17071 Hz
Encoding w:\cd\Prince\1988-Lovesexy\01 Songs are in a continous sequence.wav
      to x.mp3
Encoding as 44.1 kHz j-stereo MPEG-1 Layer III (11x) 128 kbps qval=3
    Frame          |  CPU time/estim | REAL time/estim | play/CPU |    ETA
103492/103492(100%)|    3:17/    3:17|    3:17/    3:17|   13.677x|    0:00
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   kbps        LR    MS  %     long switch short %
  128.0        7.8  92.2        92.9   4.1   2.9
Writing LAME Tag...done

LAME 3.99 32bits (http://lame.sf.net)
CPU features: MMX (ASM used), 3DNow! (ASM used), SSE (ASM used), SSE2
Using polyphase lowpass filter, transition band: 16538 Hz - 17071 Hz
Encoding w:\cd\Prince\1988-Lovesexy\01 Songs are in a continous sequence.wav
      to x.mp3
Encoding as 44.1 kHz j-stereo MPEG-1 Layer III (11x) 128 kbps qval=3
    Frame          |  CPU time/estim | REAL time/estim | play/CPU |    ETA
103492/103492(100%)|    2:58/    2:58|    2:58/    2:58|   15.177x|    0:00
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   kbps        LR    MS  %     long switch short %
  128.0        8.5  91.5        92.6   4.1   3.3
Writing LAME Tag...done

  • krafty
  • [*][*][*][*]
LAME 3.99 is out
Reply #59
No one is going to explain the lowpass thing?

Robert can you give any insight on that...
  • Last Edit: 29 October, 2011, 01:12:04 PM by krafty

  • ShotCaller
  • [*]
LAME 3.99 is out
Reply #60
Considering -V 0 now uses no lowpass filter, would it make sense to disable the lowpass filter for my CBR 320 encodes via the command "--lowpass -1"? Also, does anyone know if the "--buffer-constraint" command is still useful?

  • /mnt
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
LAME 3.99 is out
Reply #61
As a result I see a certain progress with 3.99. The spot at sec. 3.0 of eig shouldn't be overestimated. For judging pre-echo behavior we hopefully get other listening test results from members who are more concerned about pre-echo problems than I am.


I have done a quick test with LAME 3.99 against 3.97 at 320kbps, since new tunings have been introduced on the CBR modes.

Everything Is Green - sounds worse on LAME 3.99, an easy to spot artifact appears at the start on the 3.99 encode, plus the pre-echo artifacts throughout the sample is more noticable to me.

Musique Non Stop - sounds worse on LAME 3.99, really bad disortion at the 0:04 mark.

That's What I Get - sounds better on LAME 3.99, less smearing on the synth.

Homecomputer
and Show Me You Spine - sounds both equally bad on both encodes.
"I never thought I'd see this much candy in one mission!"

  • chichazor
  • [*][*]
LAME 3.99 is out
Reply #62
┬┐There is a regression in sound quality with -V2? A made a quick test with the album Soundchaser of Rage, and with the 3.99 the bitrates are 20-30 kbps lower than the 3.98.4 and I can abx without problems :S
Living forevermore, leaving today, back to my place, I've got: Nothing to say!

  • DARcode
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Members (Donating)
LAME 3.99 is out
Reply #63
Is there a reson why the old "main" 2010-03-23 Intel Compiler 11.1 LAME 3.98.4 compile has been removed from RareWares please?
WavPack 4.80.0 -b384hx6cmv / qaac 2.59 -V 100

  • john33
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
LAME 3.99 is out
Reply #64
Is there a reson why the old "main" 2010-03-23 Intel Compiler 11.1 LAME 3.98.4 compile has been removed from RareWares please?

Yes!  I have always removed the previous released version when a new release becomes available.

If you require the older release, you can d/l it here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jfe1205/LAME/lame3.98.4.zip
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
My compiles and utilities are at http://www.rarewares.org/

  • DARcode
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Members (Donating)
LAME 3.99 is out
Reply #65
Thank you John, I was actually looking the the LAME 3.98.4 64bit 2010-06-08 build please, sorry for the confusion I quoted Alex B to be quicker.
EDIT 2: Got it modding your link, thanks.

Is version 3.99 (I know it's beta 1 renamed) the HA recommended one already?

Anyway, why leave the 3.98.4 VC6/Intel Compiler 9.1 compile instead of the Intel Compiler 11.1 one available on RW? More universally compatible?

EDIT 1: grammar.
  • Last Edit: 31 October, 2011, 08:19:35 AM by DARcode
WavPack 4.80.0 -b384hx6cmv / qaac 2.59 -V 100

  • john33
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
LAME 3.99 is out
Reply #66
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jfe1205/LAME/lame3.98.4-64.zip

There you go!

I'm not sure whether the concensus is that 3.99 is better, or not, as yet!
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
My compiles and utilities are at http://www.rarewares.org/

  • halb27
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
LAME 3.99 is out
Reply #67
I have done a quick test with LAME 3.99 against 3.97 at 320kbps, since new tunings have been introduced on the CBR modes....

Since several Lame versions there are some question marks about improvements with CBR. Do you mind testing -V0?
  • Last Edit: 31 October, 2011, 03:06:35 PM by halb27
lame3995o -Q1

  • john33
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
LAME 3.99 is out
Reply #68
New compiles at Rarewares reflecting id3 tagging changes, plus 64 bit libsndfile 1.0.25 compile added.
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
My compiles and utilities are at http://www.rarewares.org/

  • GeSomeone
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
LAME 3.99 is out
Reply #69
Thanks John,
this seems to be 3.99.1 beta (or even before that)
One of the files has a release date of next week 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.

  • john33
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
LAME 3.99 is out
Reply #70
Thanks John,
this seems to be 3.99.1 beta (or even before that)

Why do you say that?
One of the files has a release date of next week 

Doh! Fixed with yet another id3 update!
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
My compiles and utilities are at http://www.rarewares.org/

  • sld
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
LAME 3.99 is out
Reply #71
Has anybody tried to compile with the Open64 compiler?

http://www.open64.net/home.html

  • GeSomeone
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
LAME 3.99 is out
Reply #72
Thanks John,
this seems to be 3.99.1 beta (or even before that)

Why do you say that?

I looked at the updated history.html, not meaning to cause confusion.
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.

  • john33
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
LAME 3.99 is out
Reply #73
Ah, OK, I thought it was perhaps something I had got wrong!!
  • Last Edit: 02 November, 2011, 03:14:29 PM by db1989
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
My compiles and utilities are at http://www.rarewares.org/

  • john33
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
LAME 3.99 is out
Reply #74
So as to be sure that my compiles work on both Intel and AMD CPUs, I've changed my development system to a Phenom II X4 840 with 8GB of Corsair DDR3.

Checking the latest compiles, I also produced VC10 compiles for comparison. The Intel compiles, after running through icc_patch are between 5% and 10% faster on the above system than the VC10 versions.
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
My compiles and utilities are at http://www.rarewares.org/