Skip to main content

Topic: Any reason to upgrade LAME 3.93.1 – 3.99.5 for ripping @ 320 kbps CBR? (Read 5378 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • chupalo17
  • [*]
Any reason to upgrade LAME 3.93.1 – 3.99.5 for ripping @ 320 kbps CBR?
Hello,

I have been using an older version of dbPowerAmp for quite a few years now. I have just recently started looking into upgrading the Lame version (3.93.1) used in  my version.

Is there any reason for me to upgrade from 3.93.1 to 3.99.5 when all of my rips are 320k CBR? Has there been any improvements in this encoding to warrant a change?

Thanks for any replies in advance

  • pdq
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Any reason to upgrade LAME 3.93.1 – 3.99.5 for ripping @ 320 kbps CBR?
Reply #1
At 320 kbps any differences are likely to be very, very minor. Nonetheless there is no reason not to use the latest version.

Edit: If you are doing any ripping, however, you should look into the latest version of dBpoweramp. A lot has changed.
  • Last Edit: 30 April, 2012, 04:57:05 PM by pdq

  • markanini
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Any reason to upgrade LAME 3.93.1 – 3.99.5 for ripping @ 320 kbps CBR?
Reply #2
Probably not, I'm thinking only some combination of peculiar encoder parameters and highly revealing speakers would make a re-encode justified. On the other hand HDD prices have gone down since v3.93.1 so maybe you might considee re-ripping to lossless for the sake of safekeeping.
  • Last Edit: 30 April, 2012, 05:01:45 PM by markanini

  • chupalo17
  • [*]
Any reason to upgrade LAME 3.93.1 – 3.99.5 for ripping @ 320 kbps CBR?
Reply #3
Probably not, I'm thinking only some combination of peculiar encoder parameters and highly revealing speakers would make a re-encode justified. On the other hand HDD prices have gone down since v3.93.1 so maybe you might considee re-ripping to lossless for the sake of safekeeping.


Thanks for the replies.  It's not that I haven't ripped since v3.93.1 came out.  I have just been using it for years via dbPowerAmp 10.1.  To re-rip the 200+GB I have now to lossless would take a lot of time.  The difference from 320k to lossless, I personally just cannot hear, so I find it hard to dedicate the time, but I know what you mean.

As for the the latest version of dbPowerAmp, I like my files clean and simple.  Just track #, title, album, artist, genre, and year is the info I hold onto.  I guess what I am trying to determine is if paying the $40 to dbPowerAmp is worth it.  I can't find any free programs that have the simplicity that dbPowerAmp has.  I have tried EAC (kept crashing on my Win x64 Pro install), and none of the others seem to have a simple ripping solution that pulls album info.  I would have thought a simple free GUI just for this purpose would be available by now.

Thanks for the replies.

  • db1989
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
Any reason to upgrade LAME 3.93.1 – 3.99.5 for ripping @ 320 kbps CBR?
Reply #4
Probably not, I'm thinking only some combination of peculiar encoder parameters and highly revealing speakers would make a re-encode justified. On the other hand HDD prices have gone down since v3.93.1 so maybe you might considee re-ripping to lossless for the sake of safekeeping.
Thanks for the replies.  It's not that I haven't ripped since v3.93.1 came out.  I have just been using it for years via dbPowerAmp 10.1.  To re-rip the 200+GB I have now to lossless would take a lot of time.  The difference from 320k to lossless, I personally just cannot hear, so I find it hard to dedicate the time, but I know what you mean.
Judging by your reply, I assume you’re referring not to re-encoding/-ripping, as markanini inferred, but rather to upgrading to the latest version for future rips. And I assume you know that transcoding is a big no!

In which case…
I have just recently started looking into upgrading the Lame version (3.93.1) used in  my version.

Is there any reason for me to upgrade from 3.93.1 to 3.99.5 when all of my rips are 320k CBR? Has there been any improvements in this encoding to warrant a change?
I think you might have it backwards. Is there any reason not to do so? Have there been any regressions that should stop you? Many users think not and use the latest stable version, in line with their trusting that the developers released it and all previous upgrades for a reason.

  • chupalo17
  • [*]
Any reason to upgrade LAME 3.93.1 – 3.99.5 for ripping @ 320 kbps CBR?
Reply #5
Yes, I was certainly referring to future rips.  Transcoding is not an option.

At this point in time, my dilemma is cost.  While Lame is open source, the GUI's (like dbPowerAmp) that I would use to organize and rip my music are not free.  So I am basically trying to determine if an expenditure of $40 is worth it to me.  And I guess I am learning that any improvements in the Lame version for my purposes are negligible.  Although I would love to be proven wrong so I feel good to not have missed something.

Thanks again for the reply.  I appreciate people taking their time.
  • Last Edit: 01 May, 2012, 12:34:31 AM by db1989

Any reason to upgrade LAME 3.93.1 – 3.99.5 for ripping @ 320 kbps CBR?
Reply #6
Another option is foobar2000, which in addition to being an excellent music player can be used to rip and (with lame) encode to mp3.

foobar's tagging and file operations capabilities are also excellent for organizing/managing your music collection too.
  • Last Edit: 30 April, 2012, 09:19:58 PM by Remedial Sound

  • chupalo17
  • [*]
Any reason to upgrade LAME 3.93.1 – 3.99.5 for ripping @ 320 kbps CBR?
Reply #7
Another option is foobar2000, which in addition to being an excellent music player can be used to rip and (with lame) encode to mp3.

foobar's tagging and file operations capabilities are also excellent for organizing/managing your music collection too.



Just starting playing with Foobar2000 a bit.  I think this equally does the trick that dbPowerAmp does.  And I can update to the latest Lame version on my own.  Is there anything about Foobar2000 that would affect the output of the mp3 files that I am unaware of.  I would like to think since all of these ripping programs wind up using the same codecs then the output should be the same but I don't want to be naive about it.

Anybody have thoughts on the output from Foobar2000 vs other programs?

Thanks again

  • db1989
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
Any reason to upgrade LAME 3.93.1 – 3.99.5 for ripping @ 320 kbps CBR?
Reply #8
At this point in time, my dilemma is cost.  While Lame is open source, the GUI's (like dbPowerAmp) that I would use to organize and rip my music are not free.  So I am basically trying to determine if an expenditure of $40 is worth it to me.
You do not need to spend money to upgrade the version of LAME you use with dBpowerAMP. e.g.

Is there anything about Foobar2000 that would affect the output of the mp3 files that I am unaware of.  I would like to think since all of these ripping programs wind up using the same codecs then the output should be the same but I don't want to be naive about it.

Anybody have thoughts on the output from Foobar2000 vs other programs?
There’s no reason that there would be a difference.

  • chupalo17
  • [*]
Any reason to upgrade LAME 3.93.1 – 3.99.5 for ripping @ 320 kbps CBR?
Reply #9
At this point in time, my dilemma is cost.  While Lame is open source, the GUI's (like dbPowerAmp) that I would use to organize and rip my music are not free.  So I am basically trying to determine if an expenditure of $40 is worth it to me.
You do not need to spend money to upgrade the version of LAME you use with dBpowerAMP. e.g.


I actually inquired in the dbPowerAmp forums about upgrading my version of Lame but was told the following when asking if I could upgrade from 3.93.1 to 3.99.5:
"It is not possible as Lame changed the byte order of headless STDIO over the years if I remember correctly"

Since I know close to nothing about the underlying encoder, "byte order" and "headless STDIO" go right over my head, and I assume the poster knows what they are talking about.  Are they correct?

  • lvqcl
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
Any reason to upgrade LAME 3.93.1 – 3.99.5 for ripping @ 320 kbps CBR?
Reply #10
If this is correct then it seems that you can upgrade to 3.97, but not newer. (I found two d/l links: http://lame.jthz.com/ and http://download.chip.eu/en/LAME-3.97_79774.html )

  • db1989
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
Any reason to upgrade LAME 3.93.1 – 3.99.5 for ripping @ 320 kbps CBR?
Reply #11
No idea of its veracity, but I’ll just leave this here.
Quote
http://www.rarewares.org/mp3-lame-bundle.php

download the updated 3.99 archive with an id3tag fix (x86 or x64 according to your system, x64 if you have 64 bit). Open the archive and extract lame.exe, then replace it with the one you find in "C:\Program Files (x86)\Illustrate\dBpoweramp\encoder\mp3 (lame) which is the old 3.98.4. Leave alone the lame_enc.dll, you just have to remove the old lame.exe and put the new one.