Skip to main content

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: List of recommended LAME compiles (Read 423341 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

List of recommended LAME compiles

Reply #100
hmmm, I saw a post about putting a link to the newest lame encoder in the download section. well, why not create a links - section, including links for download all proggy's we are talkin'bout on this site???

(maybe - there was/is/will be such a page, so in that case - just forget this post  )
[span style=\'font-family:Arial\'][span style=\'color:red\']Life Sucks Deeply[/span][/span]

List of recommended LAME compiles

Reply #101
Quote
I have a version of lame 3.92 from the following site:
http://www.hot.ee/smpman/mp3,
and I downloaded lame 3.90.2 from the link posted and I noticed something different.

LAME 3.90.2
File:  Cymbals.wav (general cymbal test)
Switches: --alt-preset standard
Avg. Bitrate: 219.3Kbps    LR: 871 (75.74%)     MS:  279 (24.26%)

LAME 3.92 (http://www.hot.ee/smpman/mp3)
File:  Cymbals.wav (general cymbal test)
switches:  --alt-preset standard
Avg. Bitrate: 224.4Kbps     LR: 896 (77.91%)     MS:  254 (22.09%)

Would you still recommend using the official LAME 3.90.2? I'm not sure why the bitrate of the two files are different, and why the LR and MS frames are different.
Could somebody explain the cause of this?
-Andrew-

Dibrom is aware of the LR and MS/bitrate dif from his unofficial 3.90.2 & 3.92 Dibrom has stated in past threads that he hasn’t verified the 3.92 release & is still only recommending his 3.90.2., this will very soon change with the release of 3.94.

List of recommended LAME compiles

Reply #102
Quote
Dibrom is aware of the LR and MS/bitrate dif from his unofficial 3.90.2 & 3.92 Dibrom has stated in past threads that he hasn’t verified the 3.92 release & is still only recommending his 3.90.2., this will very soon change with the release of 3.94


Does this mean that LAME 3.92 is not tweeked for use with the --alt-presets?
Wanna buy a monkey?

List of recommended LAME compiles

Reply #103
I own a Kenwood KDC-MP8017. I use mitsui and taiyo yuden media. I use EAC secure mode to rip.
Until recently, I had no immediately audible problems ( from 3.89 to present.)
I experienced problems with the mitiok compile of 3.92. I would get a burst of white noise on my Kenwood car player at the end of some tracks on a few CDs. The smpman compiles did not exhibit this flaw. The Dibrom 3.90.2 did not exhibit this flaw either. This was all with -aps. The flaw was not audible in winamp 2.80. The MP3 files passed the 'mp3check' program for integrity.
I do not have a sense if it is even prudent to use 3.92. I would like to know if it makes sense to wait for 3.93, or use 3.94a2. What is my best bet right now. Should I just be patient?

The state of the union would be most helpful.

And before I forget. Thank you VERY much for all those who have put so much hard work into making this such a great program.

David

List of recommended LAME compiles

Reply #104
I'm so confued by the development track of 3.93 & 3.94- is there a chronological progression between the two and will 3.94 have the features integrated into 3.93... ? OR is this the results of the apparent split in the personalities of the developers... ?  This codec has more politics than development it seems =)  I'm not complaining, I'm fully appreciative of the hard work which I and others enjoy the fruits of but this is a question that has come into my mind for the past few weeks...

-Jeff

List of recommended LAME compiles

Reply #105
The plan is that in 3.94 Final, Takehiro's new development will be combined to the official Lame branch.
Juha Laaksonheimo

List of recommended LAME compiles

Reply #106
Oh my, it's a chaos in my head....

Can anyone please give me a simple, straight answer...

i've been using Mitiok compiles of LAME 3.92 (from http://home.pi.be/~mk442837/) but i've read so many articles that I've became confused....
Is there any problems regarding quality (size doesn't matter) with this compile, when using --alt-preset fast extreme ?

Thank You!

List of recommended LAME compiles

Reply #107
Quote
Oh my, it's a chaos in my head....

Can anyone please give me a simple, straight answer...

i've been using Mitiok compiles of LAME 3.92 (from http://home.pi.be/~mk442837/) but i've read so many articles that I've became confused....
Is there any problems regarding quality (size doesn't matter) with this compile, when using --alt-preset fast extreme ?

Thank You!

Lame 3.92 and --alt-preset fast extreme work fine. There could be very minor differences between 3.92 and Dibrom's compile because of the compiler options. Nothing remarkable though.
Juha Laaksonheimo

List of recommended LAME compiles

Reply #108
Has a date to release 3.93 or 3.94 been set. I am eager to see ( hear ) 3.94 following the quality testing that confirms it is good enough to become Dibrom's new recommended compile.

Thanks
David

List of recommended LAME compiles

Reply #109
Any chance of seeing a Pentium 4 optimized compile by ICL7?

List of recommended LAME compiles

Reply #110
Happy New Year everyone, (1 January 2003 as I write/type this.)


What are people's opinion on these compiles?

1. LAME 3.93.1 released December 1 2002 downloaded from

http://mitiok.cjb.net/ or http://home.pi.be/~mk442837/.


2. The currently recommended EXE binary is:

www.hydrogenaudio.org/extra/LAME/lame3.90.2-ICL.zip


?

Is the first one "fixed" already? I'm not sure which one to use. I'm new here and I want to get it right the first time. By limiting myself to either Mitioks or Dibroms I believe I've narrowed it down to the best 2 choices and I hope I am right. I've also done a little research about ABX or DBT and I might get around to doing that later. Otherwise, I prefer to go where everyone is going; your ears are probably better than mine. There is also this tendency for me to prefer the 3.93.1 December release since it seems to be a bug fix that fixed whatever quality bug there was.

I'm just interested in stuffing my collection of Telarc classical music and some Bass 305 music into some "preset standard" bunch of CD-ROMs that can be played by my low-end Pioneer DV-355 and the portable player that I plug into my car.


David

List of recommended LAME compiles

Reply #111
Quote
There is also this tendency for me to prefer the 3.93.1 December release since it seems to be a bug fix that fixed whatever quality bug there was.


It fixes a quality bug that was introduced in LAME 3.93 - the recommended LAME 3.90.2 is not affected by it at all.

I'd say, use 3.90.2. It has received very intensive quality testing (as opposed to 3.93 / 3.93.1), and it's *really* fast. Don't let those version numbers fool you.

List of recommended LAME compiles

Reply #112
Okay, thanks.

Just another quick question: the only other encoder out there that can beat LAME 3.90.2 by Dibrom is another LAME?

This insinuates that LAME is the best encoder right now. It's now a fight between 3.90.2 made a year ago and the current developments in an attempt to make it even better.

I have the following equipment: recent LiteOn writer (40x or 48x I believe), EAC beta 4, and LAME 3.90.2. I guess I'm all set.

I'm just your typical good-eared listener who wants audiophile quality even if he can't tell the difference.  Maybe if I had better equipment I could, but that doesn't usually follow. The fact that I can put 100 albums in my car (with some cute cheapo portable player) is more than enough for me. Most of my friends can't play from a selection of more than 6 CDs in their cars without opening the trunk.

I tried listening to 3.93.1 and 3.90.2 (preset standard) of the same song and I can't tell the difference. (I didn't do it blind though.)

Slightly off-topic: but maybe these car audio guys (Kenwood or whoever) should make a 6 CD changer that can play MP3 files.

EDIT: Whoa, Sony has one already. Sony CDX-757MX 10-disc CD/MP3 Changer. Hee Hee!


David

List of recommended LAME compiles

Reply #113
Quote
I'd say, use 3.90.2. It has received very intensive quality testing (as opposed to 3.93 / 3.93.1), and it's *really* fast. Don't let those version numbers fool you.

there hasn't been much testing on 3.91 and 3.92 either.

so there are 2 candidates for recommendation:

3.90.2 coz it's the most tested one.

3.93.1 coz it's the latest of the "untested ones"

afaik no one has still proven that sound quality of 3.93.1 is inferior or better than 3.90.2.  but there is a known issue. the fast-presets are broken. so don't use it with 3.93.1.

List of recommended LAME compiles

Reply #114
Quote
there hasn't been much testing on 3.91 and 3.92 either.

so there are 2 candidates for recommendation:

3.90.2 coz it's the most tested one.

3.93.1 coz it's the latest of the "untested ones"

afaik no one has still proven that sound quality of 3.93.1 is inferior or better than 3.90.2.  but there is a known issue. the fast-presets are broken. so don't use it with 3.93.1.

No, 3.91 is the same as 3.90.2, it was the official release if Dibrom's code.

The fast presets were broken in 3.93 but fixed 3.93.1.

List of recommended LAME compiles

Reply #115
Quote
No, 3.91 is the same as 3.90.2, it was the official release if Dibrom's code.

The fast presets were broken in 3.93 but fixed 3.93.1.

I think the difference between 3.91 and 3.90.2 is that there's different internal compiler option in use.

John33: you are wrong about the 3.93.1 and fast preset. The problem with fast is, that it's giving too high bitrates with both 3.93 and 3.93.1.

You can read about the other problems in 3.93 in these threads:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....=ST&f=16&t=4455
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....t=ST&f=2&t=4491
Juha Laaksonheimo

List of recommended LAME compiles

Reply #116
Quote
Quote
No, 3.91 is the same as 3.90.2, it was the official release if Dibrom's code.

The fast presets were broken in 3.93 but fixed 3.93.1.

I think the difference between 3.91 and 3.90.2 is that there's different internal compiler option in use.

John33: you are wrong about the 3.93.1 and fast preset. The problem with fast is, that it's giving too high bitrates with both 3.93 and 3.93.1.

You can read about the other problems in 3.93 in these threads:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....=ST&f=16&t=4455
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....t=ST&f=2&t=4491

Hey JohnV, good to see you around again!!  Thanks for the corrections!  I'm obviously suffering from memory failure!

List of recommended LAME compiles

Reply #117
Quote
there are 2 candidates for recommendation:
3.90.2 (Dibrom) coz it's the most tested one.
3.93.1 (Mitiok) coz it's the latest of the "untested ones"

Ugh. Politics I guess. I think I'll stick with 3.90.2 (Dibrom). It will be a matter of time before some 3.94.x or .95 "officially" comes out and I hope by then a lot more people will vouch for its quality.


David

List of recommended LAME compiles

Reply #118
It's not about politics, it's not about using Dibrom's compile to "make him feel good".  His compile is the most throroughly tested one, that's all. (Plus, as least on my machine, it's also the fastest.)

List of recommended LAME compiles

Reply #119
Quote
The plan is that in 3.94 Final, Takehiro's new development will be combined to the official Lame branch.

what is this Takehiro's "new developement" that many are talking about? Could you please drop a few lines about it?

List of recommended LAME compiles

Reply #120
chek the takehiro branch in cvs for any developments that haven't yet been added to the main.

Jeff

List of recommended LAME compiles

Reply #121
Quote
what is this Takehiro's "new developement" that many are talking about? Could you please drop a few lines about it?

You can use search to find much info about takehiro's developments.
The 3.94 alpha builds include the stuff that's being made by takehiro, and therefor often have much higher sound quality than previous stable builds.

List of recommended LAME compiles

Reply #122
In which folder am I meant to put lame_enc.dll? In C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM32 ?
Will this enable applications to see LAME ? Is there a specific way of registering the dll?
Wanna buy a monkey?

List of recommended LAME compiles

Reply #123
Quote
In which folder am I meant to put lame_enc.dll? In C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM32 ?
Will this enable applications to see LAME ? Is there a specific way of registering the dll?

You will normally put it in the same folder as the application that uses it, but I guess anything in the path will probably work.

List of recommended LAME compiles

Reply #124
Quote
Quote
what is this Takehiro's "new developement" that many are talking about? Could you please drop a few lines about it?

You can use search to find much info about takehiro's developments.
The 3.94 alpha builds include the stuff that's being made by takehiro, and therefor often have much higher sound quality than previous stable builds.

If only Dibrom's 3.90.2 presets could leverage Takehiro's new code...or at least safely coexist with it. It's like there's a whole lot of work being done and there is no guarantee that the level of sound quality established with the 3.90.2 is being exceeded or even maintained. 3.94 may very well be superior to 3.90.2 but it will always be a crapshoot because only 3.90.2 has been "fully tested".

The presets were a revealation, a huge step forward for LAME. I think that any future non-alpha release of LAME should make sure that the presets leverage any new code and bug fixes. They should not be a snapshot in time. What's the point of continued LAME development if the presets are to rot and die?