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: lame 3.98.4, 3.99 alpha (Read 201007 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

lame 3.98.4, 3.99 alpha

Reply #75
How much of a speed difference is there between 3.98.4 and 3.99.a10 ?

lame 3.98.4, 3.99 alpha

Reply #76
On Q6600 systems @ 3.2GHz, 3.98.4 64bit runs at approx 37x and 32bit at approx 41x. With 3.99a10 the numbers are similar only reversed.

lame 3.98.4, 3.99 alpha

Reply #77
john33,

I have a performance issue with 3.99a10 build from rarewares. It runs at half of speed comparing to 3.98.4 rarewares's build.
PC: AMD Turion II P540 http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/K10/AMD-Turi...540SGR23GM.html
Windows 7 32 bits.


Both build run equally fast at Intel PC.


tsnr's build 3.99a10 directly doesn't run.

lame 3.98.4, 3.99 alpha

Reply #78
john33,

I have a performance issue with 3.99a10 build from rarewares. It runs at half of speed comparing to 3.98.4 rarewares's build.
PC: AMD Turion II P540 http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/K10/AMD-Turi...540SGR23GM.html
Windows 7 32 bits.


Both build run equally fast at Intel PC.


tsnr's build 3.99a10 directly doesn't run.

I'll take a look at this when I return home - I'm away at the moment, but it will probably not be until next week.

 


lame 3.98.4, 3.99 alpha

Reply #81
Have tried with different versions of iccpatch (GUIed one too). Didn't work.


lame 3.98.4, 3.99 alpha

Reply #83
Has anybody conducted any tests comparing the recent 3.99 alphas with 3.98.4? I'm lacking a proper equipment to test at the moment.
Infrasonic Quartet + Sennheiser HD650 + Microlab Solo 2 mk3. 

lame 3.98.4, 3.99 alpha

Reply #84
Has anybody conducted any tests comparing the recent 3.99 alphas with 3.98.4? I'm lacking a proper equipment to test at the moment.


I've run several test with Lame 3.98.4 and 3.99a10... as of right now both seem to produce the same file. I built both build with the same settings.

Here's a pic from both on the same file.




lame 3.98.4, 3.99 alpha

Reply #85
3.99a contains the new VBR mode which enables with --vbr-new key. In other modes the result will be the same as for lame 3.98.4
🇺🇦 Glory to Ukraine!

lame 3.98.4, 3.99 alpha

Reply #86
3.99a contains the new VBR mode which enables with --vbr-new key. In other modes the result will be the same as for lame 3.98.4


Sorry, yes, my bad... I don't use vbr-new because it make larger file using -V4 with 3.98.4 and 3.99a10.
Here are some shot of 3.97, 3.98.4 and 3.99a10 on the same file.







lame 3.98.4, 3.99 alpha

Reply #88
Hm, I see that bitrate distribution is different for two compiles:

Alpha 10 from here:
http://lame.bakerweb.biz/

and
Quote
lvqcl's build http://filekeeper.org/download/shared/lame_a10.rar


--silent -V 2 --vbr-new --noreplaygain

bakerweb.biz - 216kbps avg
lvqcl's - 208 kbps avg





Yes, different compiles produce different file.

My MVS VC9 Build


My MinGW Build


Bakerweb Build


Rareware Build

lame 3.98.4, 3.99 alpha

Reply #89
4 Different builds. Same file using "lame.exe --noreplaygain -V 4 test.wav test.mp3"

Rareware Build


My MVS VC9 Build


Bakerweb Build


My MinGW Build

lame 3.98.4, 3.99 alpha

Reply #90
Same file using -V2.

Rareware, My MSV VC9, Bakerweb, My MinGW build


lame 3.98.4, 3.99 alpha

Reply #91
Quote
Yes, different compiles produce different file.


But why??
🇺🇦 Glory to Ukraine!

lame 3.98.4, 3.99 alpha

Reply #92
Quote
Yes, different compiles produce different file.


But why??


Different Libraries used in compilers, diff settings used when compiling, diff compilers... which boils down to in the end, different rounding of numbers.

Though not sure why vbr-old doesn't differ so much(same bitrate size, a few different bitrates here and there) as where vbr-new differs alot in bitrate size between compiles with 3.99a10

lame 3.98.4, 3.99 alpha

Reply #93
So, now I must ask: which is the best? Of course, in terms of quality
🇺🇦 Glory to Ukraine!

lame 3.98.4, 3.99 alpha

Reply #94
So, now I must ask: which is the best? Of course, in terms of quality


That I can't answer... All of them I guess... I don't think there really is a BAD compiler for Final ver's of Lame.

Maybe robert or john33 could answer that better.

lame 3.98.4, 3.99 alpha

Reply #95
So, now I must ask: which is the best? Of course, in terms of quality

That question has been asked many times before and to the best of my knowledge no one has yet been able reliably to differentiate between the outputs from the encoders compiled with different compilers. So it's safe to say that you can use whichever takes your fancy.

lame 3.98.4, 3.99 alpha

Reply #96
Having an issue compiling Lame 3.98.4 or 3.99a10 with MSVS 2010... Lame 3.91-3.97 compiles fine.

Can compile Lame 3.98.4 and 3.99a10 fine with MSVS 2008.

Seems to be a linker option that is no longer valid but don't know where to start... any help would be appreciated.

Quote
Setting environment for using Microsoft Visual Studio 2010 x86 tools.

C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio 10.0\VC>cd lame3984

C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio 10.0\VC\lame3984>nmake -f Makefile.MSVC


Microsoft ® Program Maintenance Utility Version 10.00.30319.01
Copyright © Microsoft Corporation.  All rights reserved.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
building LAME featuring RH
+ ASM
+ MMX
using MS COMPILER
+ optimizing for Pentium II/III
+ using Single precision
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pass GTK=YES to build the frame analyzer. (requires installed GTK)
.
.
.
main.c
LINK : fatal error LNK1117: syntax error in option 'opt:NOWIN98'
NMAKE : fatal error U1077: '"C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio 10.0\VC\BI
N\link.EXE"' : return code '0x45d'
Stop.

C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio 10.0\VC\lame3984>

lame 3.98.4, 3.99 alpha

Reply #97
Edit Makefile.MSVC and remove /opt:NOWIN98 around line 236.


lame 3.98.4, 3.99 alpha

Reply #99
So, now I must ask: which is the best? Of course, in terms of quality

That question has been asked many times before and to the best of my knowledge no one has yet been able reliably to differentiate between the outputs from the encoders compiled with different compilers. So it's safe to say that you can use whichever takes your fancy.


I asked the same question about different bitstream of 320 CBR encoded with two compiles. The difference between them was a small digital 1-bit noise. These could be the results of some processing optimizations.
But here we have different bitrates, and I think this is very strange and must affect quality.

Again:

john33 build - 191 kbps
tsnr (bakerweb.biz) - 185 kbps
lvqcl - 185 kbps
🇺🇦 Glory to Ukraine!