oops, I always thought I had been using 3.90.2, but upon actually opening my eyes and checking, it seems I am using 3.92. I have swapped to 3.90.2, although I cannot tell one little difference whatsoever.
Is there any difference, audibly?
3.92 is newer, 3.90.2 is older... I don't know about difference.
There should be no audible difference, but maybe a small one in bitrate, since 3.92 uses different compilerflags.
dev0
Apparently the developpers have screwed something up; 3.92 and later I believe use the wrong noiseshaping with APS.
I personally would recommend 3.90.2 for the VBR presets, and 3.93.1 for the ABR & CBR presets.
Apparently the developpers have screwed something up; 3.92 and later I believe use the wrong noiseshaping with APS.
???
What does the '???' mean?
Wrong noise shaping or not?
I know that the newer compiles of Lame have 'disadvantaged' APS...
Apparently the developpers have screwed something up; 3.92 and later I believe use the wrong noiseshaping with APS.
I personally would recommend 3.90.2 for the VBR presets, and 3.93.1 for the ABR & CBR presets.
You state 3.92 and later is screwed up (without backing that up, btw), and then recommend 3.93.1. Isn't 3.93.1 later than 3.92?
Clarify your claims please.
EDIT: My mistake. I now see you recommend 3.93.1 for ABR and CBR. However, I disagree with your claim that 3.92 APS is screwed up.
Noise shaping is the same between 3.90.2, 3.91, 3.92, 3.93.1.
'tis only 3.93 that comes unreccomended.
We've been through this so many times...
The differences between 3.90.2 and 3.92 are:
- changed compiler options, that might cause a slight modification in bitrate;
- support for CBR/ABR alt-presets for bitrates <80kbps
3.90.2 is still the HA approved, most tested and fastest version, so if you don't need any of the 'features' of 3.92 or 3.93.1 use it!
dev0