HydrogenAudio

Lossy Audio Compression => MP3 => MP3 - General => Topic started by: Bodhi on 2010-04-19 09:43:46

Title: Encoded with Lame 3.98, 3.98.2 or 3.9.4?
Post by: Bodhi on 2010-04-19 09:43:46
Hello everyone,

I just wanted to know if there is any way to tell if my MP3 have been encoded with Lame 3.98.2, 3.98.3 or with 3.98.4.
Foobar and encspot just spot Lame 3.98r and do not tell me more.

Thank you.

Title: Encoded with Lame 3.98, 3.98.2 or 3.9.4?
Post by: twostar on 2010-04-19 09:58:24
Mr Questionman might (http://www.burrrn.net/?page_id=5) be able to do this.
Title: Encoded with Lame 3.98, 3.98.2 or 3.9.4?
Post by: GeSomeone on 2010-04-19 11:05:33
Also foobar2000 can show it (in the properties)

edit: I'm sorry, the mentioned LAME versions show the version, so this doesn't help.
Title: Encoded with Lame 3.98, 3.98.2 or 3.9.4?
Post by: Bodhi on 2010-04-19 11:16:41
Thank you twostar, I'll try that.

Also foobar2000 can show it (in the properties)

Are you sure with that? Foobar shows me 3.98r! Could be an add-on I don't have?
Title: Encoded with Lame 3.98, 3.98.2 or 3.9.4?
Post by: robert on 2010-04-19 11:48:07
Hello everyone,

I just wanted to know if there is any way to tell if my MP3 have been encoded with Lame 3.98.2, 3.98.3 or with 3.98.4.
Foobar and encspot just spot Lame 3.98r and do not tell me more.

Thank you.



1: LAME writes its version info into the ID3v2 tag, if you used LAME to tag your files
2: LAME writes its version info into the ancillary data of each mp3 frame, if there is unused space available.
Make a hexdump from the last few bytes, it's likely that you find some version info there in the last frame.
Title: Encoded with Lame 3.98, 3.98.2 or 3.9.4?
Post by: Bodhi on 2010-04-19 13:07:10
Thank you.
1. I use EAC + Lame.exe (-V3 %1 %2 or something like this)
2. Using this (http://www.richpasco.org/utilities/hexdump.html)? Is there any "mass hexdumper"?
Title: Encoded with Lame 3.98, 3.98.2 or 3.9.4?
Post by: Bodhi on 2010-04-19 19:02:46
Mr Questionman might (http://www.burrrn.net/?page_id=5) be able to do this.

No, I've 3.98r but thanks
Title: Encoded with Lame 3.98, 3.98.2 or 3.9.4?
Post by: 2814-6890 on 2010-04-19 23:47:21
Open up the file in a text editor like notepad and then search among the gibberish for the word "lame" followed by the version number, for example LAME3.98.4
Title: Encoded with Lame 3.98, 3.98.2 or 3.9.4?
Post by: Bodhi on 2010-04-20 21:13:10
Open up the file in a text editor like notepad and then search among the gibberish for the word "lame" followed by the version number, for example LAME3.98.4

That's fun!
Thank you for the suggestion but I would like something easier to deal with.
Title: Encoded with Lame 3.98, 3.98.2 or 3.9.4?
Post by: JunkieXL on 2010-04-20 21:31:00
That's about as easy as it gets.  Open notepad or any other text edit. Hit Ctrl+O and locate the mp3 file and open it.  Hit Ctrl+F and type in lame.  Done...
Title: Encoded with Lame 3.98, 3.98.2 or 3.9.4?
Post by: Bodhi on 2010-04-20 21:40:43
That's about as easy as it gets.  Open notepad or any other text edit. Hit Ctrl+O and locate the mp3 file and open it.  Hit Ctrl+F and type in lame.  Done...

Ho, I know that but when you have 900 albums that's another story!

I'm looking for something like what you can get in foobar (for example) when you type $info(tool) but that would give 3.98.4 and not 3.98r.
Title: Encoded with Lame 3.98, 3.98.2 or 3.9.4?
Post by: Steve Forte Rio on 2010-04-20 21:43:01
Thanks, but it's really strange way to determine the LAME version... And I wonder why someone like Peter Pavlovsky can not add displaying of full LAME version info in foobar2000 file properties...
Title: Encoded with Lame 3.98, 3.98.2 or 3.9.4?
Post by: robert on 2010-04-20 22:55:18
Code: [Select]
> grep -a -o "LAME[0-9.]*" ../test-0606/*.mp3
../test-0606/yello-V8-A.mp3:LAME3.98
../test-0606/yello-V8-A.mp3:LAME3.9
../test-0606/yello-V8-B.mp3:LAME3.99
../test-0606/yello-V8-B.mp3:LAME3.99
../test-0606/yello-V8-R.mp3:LAME3.97
../test-0606/yello-V8-R.mp3:LAME
../test-0606/yello-V9-A.mp3:LAME3.98
../test-0606/yello-V9-A.mp3:LAME3.98.2
../test-0606/yello-V9-B.mp3:LAME3.99
../test-0606/yello-V9-B.mp3:LAME
../test-0606/yello-V9-R.mp3:LAME3.97
../test-0606/yello-V9-R.mp3:LAME3.97

> grep "LAME3.98.2" ../test-0606/*.mp3
Übereinstimmungen in Binärdatei ../test-0606/yello-V0-A.mp3.
Übereinstimmungen in Binärdatei ../test-0606/yello-V1-A.mp3.
Übereinstimmungen in Binärdatei ../test-0606/yello-V2-A.mp3.
Übereinstimmungen in Binärdatei ../test-0606/yello-V3-A.mp3.
Übereinstimmungen in Binärdatei ../test-0606/yello-V4-A.mp3.
Übereinstimmungen in Binärdatei ../test-0606/yello-V5-A.mp3.
Übereinstimmungen in Binärdatei ../test-0606/yello-V6-A.mp3.
Übereinstimmungen in Binärdatei ../test-0606/yello-V7-A.mp3.
Übereinstimmungen in Binärdatei ../test-0606/yello-V9-A.mp3.
Title: Encoded with Lame 3.98, 3.98.2 or 3.9.4?
Post by: Aleron Ives on 2010-04-21 00:34:01
I'm curious as to why LAME doesn't write the full version number in its tag in the first place... was there a specific reason for this?

@ robert

Seeing as he wants a foobar2000-esque plugin, it seems unlikely he has access to *nix tools like grep, haha.
Title: Encoded with Lame 3.98, 3.98.2 or 3.9.4?
Post by: robert on 2010-04-21 01:05:59
I'm curious as to why LAME doesn't write the full version number in its tag in the first place... was there a specific reason for this?

Because back in those days, the LAME tag was specified to contain 9 characters version info in textual form:
http://gabriel.mp3-tech.org/mp3infotag.html (http://gabriel.mp3-tech.org/mp3infotag.html)

Quote
@ robert

Seeing as he wants a foobar2000-esque plugin, it seems unlikely he has access to *nix tools like grep, haha.

http://unxutils.sourceforge.net/ (http://unxutils.sourceforge.net/)
Title: Encoded with Lame 3.98, 3.98.2 or 3.9.4?
Post by: Aleron Ives on 2010-04-21 01:37:00
Nice, I only have native tar and gzip.  Thanks.

You could use "LAME3984" if worse comes to worse, I suppose... It's too bad that limitation is in place.
Title: Encoded with Lame 3.98, 3.98.2 or 3.9.4?
Post by: WonderSlug on 2010-04-21 05:18:51
In Windows, you could just....

1.) Start -> Search -> Files and Folders

2.) In the "Search for files and folders named" field put "*.mp3"

3.) In the "Containing text" field put one of the following

LAME3.98.2

LAME3.98.3

LAME3.98.4


4.) In the "Look in:" field put the parent folder/directory you want to search.  If all your MP3 files are in a folder called D:\MP3 (with all the various subdirectories underneath) then put "D:\MP3" in this field.


Then click 'Search Now' to begin.
Title: Encoded with Lame 3.98, 3.98.2 or 3.9.4?
Post by: Bodhi on 2010-04-21 13:25:48
In Windows, you could just....

1.) Start -> Search -> Files and Folders

2.) In the "Search for files and folders named" field put "*.mp3"

3.) In the "Containing text" field put one of the following

LAME3.98.2

LAME3.98.3

LAME3.98.4


4.) In the "Look in:" field put the parent folder/directory you want to search.  If all your MP3 files are in a folder called D:\MP3 (with all the various subdirectories underneath) then put "D:\MP3" in this field.


Then click 'Search Now' to begin.

Thanks but I can't find that on Windows 7!

Robert, how did you get that (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=80395&view=findpost&p=701776)?
Title: Encoded with Lame 3.98, 3.98.2 or 3.9.4?
Post by: PHOYO on 2010-04-21 17:07:01
Robert, how did you get that (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=80395&view=findpost&p=701776)?


http://sourceforge.net/projects/unxutils/ (http://sourceforge.net/projects/unxutils/)
Title: Encoded with Lame 3.98, 3.98.2 or 3.9.4?
Post by: Andavari on 2010-04-21 19:17:40
Mr Questionman might (http://www.burrrn.net/?page_id=5) be able to do this.

I just opened Mr Q. on some of my encodes and also just shows 3.98r.
Title: Encoded with Lame 3.98, 3.98.2 or 3.9.4?
Post by: timcupery on 2010-04-21 19:33:53
a month or two ago, when Lame 3.98.3 first debuted, I raised the indeterminacy issue on Lame 3.98r.
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=79059 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=79059)

Lame 3.98 (initial release) showed up in foobar2000, encspot, Mr Question Man, Audio Identifier, etc., as Lame 3.98
Lame 3.98.2 showed up as Lame 3.98r

However, Lame 3.98.3 and Lame 3.98.4 also show up as Lame 3.98r

When I encode using Lame 3.98.4 I add metadata to specify.
However, it would be nice to have this info accessible (e.g., showing up as the encoder in foobar2000) without having to tag.

I made the suggestion that a different letter could be added to replace the "r" in Lame 3.98r
Either "count" up from r, s, t, etc.
or just go Lame 3.98u (for "updated")

This could still be adopted if there is a Lame 3.98.5
Title: Encoded with Lame 3.98, 3.98.2 or 3.9.4?
Post by: dv1989 on 2010-04-21 19:44:23
I don't see why "LAME3.984" can't be used. At least until LAME 3.100 (what would constitute v4, I wonder?), then we can drop the dot to buy more time.
Title: Encoded with Lame 3.98, 3.98.2 or 3.9.4?
Post by: lvqcl on 2010-04-21 19:48:14
Quote
However, it would be nice to have this info accessible (e.g., showing up as the encoder in foobar2000) without having to tag.

Download any hex editor (XVI32 comes to mind).
Open Lame.exe in it. Find "LAME3.98r" string and replace "r" by "u" or "4".
???
Profit!
Title: Encoded with Lame 3.98, 3.98.2 or 3.9.4?
Post by: Andavari on 2010-04-21 22:33:15
Going from the previous post I did a literal single character mod in LAME so it will read LAME3.984 instead of LAME3.98r and it works.

Since the forum doesn't allow MediaFire links I won't be able to post it on here, however the mod is stupidly easy to do in a hex editor - I did it on my first try and didn't blow up anything.
Title: Encoded with Lame 3.98, 3.98.2 or 3.9.4?
Post by: Aleron Ives on 2010-04-22 03:13:18
I don't see why "LAME3.984" can't be used. At least until LAME 3.100 (what would constitute v4, I wonder?)

They had better figure out something to constitute version 4 soon, as they're almost out of version 3 sub-numbers.

I'd say starting development of a faster CBR/ABR routine on-par with VBR-new would constitute a significant enough jump to warrant version 4, but I can dream.