Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: LAME 3.97b2 (Read 48570 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

LAME 3.97b2

Gabriel Bouvigne just commited LAME 3.97 beta 2 to the CVS repository.

Quoting him: "There are only a few changes compared to b1, so I think that we should be able to release 3.97 soon."

http://lame.sourceforge.net/

Binaries are available at RareWares.

LAME 3.97b2

Reply #1 –
Quote
Binaries should be available at RareWares soon.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=345429"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Could someone wake up John33? 

LAME 3.97b2

Reply #3 –
I noticed slight modification on V5 ATHaa sensitivity.
from presets.c (line 370, 388)

Lame 3.97b1
  V5 athaa_sensitivity = -16

Lame 3.97b2
  V5 athaa_sensitivity = -12

LAME 3.97b2

Reply #4 –
The base compile is now at Rarewares MP3 page. The other compiles will follow. 

If I have understood communications on the lame-dev mailing list correctly, this beta may change a little later after Gabriel has backported some stuff from the CVS head (ie., the alpha).
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
My compiles and utilities are at http://www.rarewares.org/

LAME 3.97b2

Reply #5 –
AS switch has been reintroduced in the cli...good to know. 

LAME 3.97b2

Reply #6 –
Quote
The base compile is now at Rarewares MP3 page. The other compiles will follow. 

If I have understood communications on the lame-dev mailing list correctly, this beta may change a little later after Gabriel has backported some stuff from the CVS head (ie., the alpha).
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=345529"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


lameACM.acm of beta 2 is 181 KB while lameACM.acm of beta 1 is 269 KB.  Is the size difference normal?

LAME 3.97b2

Reply #7 –
Quote
lameACM.acm of beta 2 is 181 KB while lameACM.acm of beta 1 is 269 KB.  Is the size difference normal?


[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=345537"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The difference is due to the b2 ACM compile being an MSVC6 one rather than the ICL9.0 of b1. It seemed from the lame mailing lists that people were having difficulties with the ICL compile so I thought it was worth trying a standard VC6 version.
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
My compiles and utilities are at http://www.rarewares.org/

LAME 3.97b2

Reply #8 –
Hi,
Is there a apt-key signature key for your debian RareWare repositories. I'm using sid and I can just use --allow-unauthenticated with apt-get but I like to use aptitude and it just looks ugly  with all those U's splattered all over the place.
thanks

LAME 3.97b2

Reply #9 –
Quote
The base compile is now at Rarewares MP3 page. The other compiles will follow. 

If I have understood communications on the lame-dev mailing list correctly, this beta may change a little later after Gabriel has backported some stuff from the CVS head (ie., the alpha).
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=345529"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Looking forward to the version with the INI setup. 

LAME 3.97b2

Reply #10 –
Another step towards a stable new lame version  I'm looking forward to that, since all linux distributions will update lame too.

I know, I could compile it myself, but since I'm rather lazy...
A secure audio ripper for linux: code.google.com/p/rubyripper

LAME 3.97b2

Reply #11 –
I will post a 'final' beta, plus derivative compiles, once the beta 2 version is announced at Sourceforge. Only then can we be sure that we have the full beta 2 release.
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
My compiles and utilities are at http://www.rarewares.org/

LAME 3.97b2

Reply #12 –
Quote
Quoting him: "There are only a few changes compared to b1, so I think that we should be able to release 3.97 soon."[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=345429"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think it's always useful to detail the changes made for any software update.
I'm sure it's detailed in the lame cvs (somewhere), but since you went to the effort to tell us about the update, it would've been nice to have stated the changes made in the same post.  Or maybe Gabriel could/should do that?

LAME 3.97b2

Reply #13 –
Quote
I think it's always useful to detail the changes made for any software update.
I'm sure it's detailed in the lame cvs (somewhere), but since you went to the effort to tell us about the update, it would've been nice to have stated the changes made in the same post.  Or maybe Gabriel could/should do that?
I guess Roberto also doesn't know what the changes are (yet), otherwise he probably would have written them down.
I'll glady see a newsflash with just some notes or brief descriptions rather than no news at all as far as I am concerned 
Nothing but a Heartache - Since I found my Baby ;)

LAME 3.97b2

Reply #14 –
Quote
I'll glady see a newsflash with just some notes or brief descriptions rather than no news at all as far as I am concerned 
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=345911"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Agree, and I'm not saying we shouldn't have had any update.  Thanks to Roberto for posting.  Just a prompt really for someone to update it with the changes that's all 

LAME 3.97b2

Reply #15 –
From another thread:

Quote
@halb27:
You may find the information here of intrest to you:
http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/*che...y.html?rev=HEAD

Quote
LAME 3.97 beta 2   November 26 2005

    * Gabriel Bouvigne:
          o Fixed an initialization error when input is not using a standard sampling frequency
          o Fixed a possible assertion failure in very low bitrate encoding
          o Slight change regarding ATH adjustment with V5
          o Reinstated bit reservoir for 320kbps CBR
          o ReplayGain analysis should now be faster when encountering silent parts
    * Takehiro Tominaga:
          o Fixed a possible link problem of assembly code
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=345793"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

LAME 3.97b2

Reply #16 –
Quote
@halb27:  .... Reinstated bit reservoir for 320kbps CBR   ...
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=345914"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thank you, grreat news.
lame3995o -Q1.7
opus --bitrate 140

LAME 3.97b2

Reply #17 –
Since LAME 3.97 beta 2 is out, should we use it instead of LAME 3.97 beta 1 or not yet ?

Quote
LAME 3.97 beta 2   November 26 2005
Gabriel Bouvigne:
- Fixed an initialization error when input is not using a standard sampling frequency
- Fixed a possible assertion failure in very low bitrate encoding
- Slight change regarding ATH adjustment with V5
- Reinstated bit reservoir for 320kbps CBR
Takehiro Tominaga:
- Fixed a possible link problem of assembly code


Gr.
Greetings
Sonny Burnett.
 

LAME 3.97b2

Reply #18 –
Quote
Quote
@halb27:  .... Reinstated bit reservoir for 320kbps CBR   ...
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=345914"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thank you, grreat news.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=345927"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Congratulations Halb! and +Respect to Gabriel for hacking it out with you and taking it onboard 
no conscience > no custom

LAME 3.97b2

Reply #19 –
I suggest to change the recommnded settings topic & recommnded compiles topic, to recommend now 3.97b2 inseatd of 3.97b1.

LAME 3.97b2

Reply #20 –
Quote
I suggest to change the recommnded settings topic & recommnded compiles topic, to recommend now 3.97b2 inseatd of 3.97b1.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=345966"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Yes, we should do that.


[span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'](User: Please answer to my PMs next time.)[/span]

LAME 3.97b2

Reply #21 –
Quote
[span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'](User: Please answer to my PMs next time.)[/span]
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=345970"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


[span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%']Sorry, I answered, when there was time. Unfortunately, we aren't paid for HA-work  Changes from various persons were suggested, so I decided to watch the daily or even hourly proposed changes. Now it has settled down a bit, and I have time again for the moment to work on mp3, but the topic is closed and i cannot edit. If the topic is opened for edition of the lame 3.97b2, I will look for incorporation of layout/wording changes, also.[/span]

LAME 3.97b2

Reply #22 –
Quote
If the topic is opened for edition of the lame 3.97b2, I will look for incorporation of layout/wording changes, also.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=345981"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Okay, opened. Please take note of the changes you make so it can be edited in the Wiki as well.

LAME 3.97b2

Reply #23 –
          o ReplayGain analysis should now be faster when encountering silent parts

Maybe related, but awhile ago I created a silent sound file in soundforge and encoded it with: mppenc, LAME, and Nero AAC.
I noticed that LAME took approximately 7x longer to encode pure silence than the others. I thought it was a little strange.

LAME 3.97b2

Reply #24 –
Quote
          o ReplayGain analysis should now be faster when encountering silent parts

Maybe related, but awhile ago I created a silent sound file in soundforge and encoded it with: mppenc, LAME, and Nero AAC.
I noticed that LAME took approximately 7x longer to encode pure silence than the others. I thought it was a little strange.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=346012"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Hehe, maybe it's those denormals again?
 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2018