HydrogenAudio

Lossy Audio Compression => MP3 => MP3 - General => Topic started by: earphiler on 2005-03-06 04:05:19

Title: 3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Post by: earphiler on 2005-03-06 04:05:19
Take the two LAME versions: 3.90.3 and 3.96.1

Now I'm not going to ask which has been more tested -- the answer is simple. However, I would like to know why you personally choose 3.90.3 or 3.96.1

To me, it makes no difference but I grabbed 3.96.1, I'm too lazy to switch back, no problems here,  I'm not too paranoid, and newer just sounds cooler (not to say its better).

Others? I know this thread sounds rather peculiar 
Title: 3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Post by: smz on 2005-03-06 04:08:33
sounds like violating TOS#8, in this form...
Title: 3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Post by: earphiler on 2005-03-06 04:14:46
this isn't violation of #8 as stated --

8. All members that put forth a statement concerning subjective sound quality, must -- to the best of their ability -- provide objective support for their claims. Acceptable means of support are double blind listening tests (ABX or ABC/HR) demonstrating that the member can discern a difference perceptually, together with a test sample to allow others to reproduce their findings. Graphs, non-blind listening tests, waveform difference comparisons, and so on, are not acceptable means of providing support.

I'm not asking for which is best and I'm not saying screw ABX test, all I'm asking is why you choose 3.90.3 or why you choose 3.96.1

I just want personal responses , that's all. If this seen as a violation in any way by the moderators -- apologies.
Title: 3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Post by: smz on 2005-03-06 04:23:25
Quote
... and newer just sounds cooler (not to say its better).[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=279642"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


3.96.1, anyway, because quality is adequate for my needs and it is faster.
Title: 3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Post by: rjamorim on 2005-03-06 05:09:52
3.96.1. 3.90.3 is effete.
Title: 3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Post by: earphiler on 2005-03-06 05:14:34
Quote
3.96.1. 3.90.3 is effete.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=279658"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


is that a joke ? (not sure haha)
Title: 3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Post by: p0wder on 2005-03-06 07:24:17
Quote
3.96.1. 3.90.3 is effete.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=279658"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Roberto your vocabulary is so copious I have to use the dictionary sometimes! 

My choice is 3.96.1.
Title: 3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Post by: boojum on 2005-03-06 07:50:07
Quote
3.96.1. 3.90.3 is effete.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=279658"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Roberto!  Your English is better than mine, and I am native-born.  My Portuguese is just awful, too, other than feijoada.     


Way cool, buddy.
Title: 3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Post by: linus on 2005-03-06 07:50:48
3.96.1
Title: 3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Post by: Teqnilogik on 2005-03-06 07:52:20
3.96.1 here because its faster and there is no quality degradation to my ears using preset standard.
Title: 3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Post by: VCSkier on 2005-03-06 10:01:38
wow!  im suprised.  ive been using 3.90.3, and probably still will, cause encoding speed isn't a factor to me, but i am going to at least reevaluate and take a second look at 3.96.1 (or 3.96b2) and see if i have been making the wrong decision...  by the way, whats the difference between 3.96.1 and 3.96b2?  of the two, which is generally *prefered*?
Title: 3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Post by: Turing on 2005-03-06 10:42:35
Quote
wow!  im suprised.  ive been using 3.90.3, and probably still will, cause encoding speed isn't a factor to me, but i am going to at least reevaluate and take a second look at 3.96.1 (or 3.96b2) and see if i have been making the wrong decision...  by the way, whats the difference between 3.96.1 and 3.96b2?  of the two, which is generally *prefered*?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=279688")


3.96b2 is geek speek for version 3.96 beta 2 (second beta release).  This should be close to 3.96.1 but I have not checked the change logs at sourceforge for the details.

3.96.1 is the latest official developer release (after the beta tests were considered completed).  This version has been stable since July 2004.  3.96.1 is the current recommended stable version according to the folks who work on the program (see [a href="http://lame.sourceforge.net/index.html]LAME at sourceforge[/url]).

There is also a 3.97alpha7 version in the works that should come out as 3.97 this year.  Alpha versions are even more unstable than beta version and will cause your computer to explode and burn down your neighborhood (just kidding).
Title: 3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Post by: LadFromDownUnder on 2005-03-06 10:46:40
I switched from 3.90.3 to 3.96.1 for a bit, and noticed an easily discernable degradation when encoding some Strauss and some live Springsteen tracks (and I did ABX checks to confirm my suspicions).  I've since switched back; I'm happy enough with the 3.90.3 encoding times.  I used APS for both encoders.
Title: 3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Post by: Turing on 2005-03-06 10:48:56
Quote
I switched from 3.90.3 to 3.96.1 for a bit, and noticed an easily discernable degradation when encoding some Strauss and some live Springsteen tracks (and I did ABX checks to confirm my suspicions).  I've since switched back; I'm happy enough with the 3.90.3 encoding times.  I used APS for both encoders.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=279696"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


What settings did you use?  I suspect that 3.90.3 is better for some settings and 3.96.1 for others.
Title: 3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Post by: LadFromDownUnder on 2005-03-06 10:55:34
Quote
Quote
I switched from 3.90.3 to 3.96.1 for a bit, and noticed an easily discernable degradation when encoding some Strauss and some live Springsteen tracks (and I did ABX checks to confirm my suspicions).  I've since switched back; I'm happy enough with the 3.90.3 encoding times.  I used APS for both encoders.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=279696"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


What settings did you use?  I suspect that 3.90.3 is better for some settings and 3.96.1 for others.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=279699"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I used "--preset standard" for both encoders.
Title: 3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Post by: Jojo on 2005-03-06 19:26:55
another vote for LAME 3.96.1 . Overall, lower bitrates for --preset standard (in some cases 40kbps less) , faster encoding, more presets
Title: 3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Post by: Lyx on 2005-03-06 19:44:57
Quote
wow!  im suprised.  ive been using 3.90.3, and probably still will, cause encoding speed isn't a factor to me, but i am going to at least reevaluate and take a second look at 3.96.1 (or 3.96b2) and see if i have been making the wrong decision...  by the way, whats the difference between 3.96.1 and 3.96b2?  of the two, which is generally *prefered*?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=279688"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

My proposal would be to stay with 3.90.3 and instead wait until 3.97 becomes stable - currently, it looks as if 3.97 when its finalized may offer more than just speed over 3.90.3 - or in other words, a more worthy update. That way, you will save yourself one update-step(you would then go 3.90.3 -> 3.97 final, instead of 3.90.3->3.96.1->3.97 )

Or in short: if you haven't yet changed to 3.96.1, then wait for 3.97 instead.

- Lyx
Title: 3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Post by: AtaqueEG on 2005-03-06 20:15:54
Quote
3.96.1. 3.90.3 is effete.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=279658"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


From Dictionary.com:
Quote
Marked by self-indulgence, triviality, or decadence


Wonderful.

I would have not dared to say it that way myself, though.
3.90.3 is nothing short of canonized around here.

I am using alpha 7. I have been getting used to the overnight transcodes from FLAC.
No much pain once you have you files properly tagged and encoded to lossless. You can try whatever encoder comes around when you feel like it.

I am still waiting for implementation of HE-AAC on the iPod, though, maybe then I could get some rest.
Title: 3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Post by: Acid Orange Juice on 2005-03-06 20:27:41
Quote
3.96.1 here because its faster and there is no quality degradation to my ears using preset standard.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=279674"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


exact situation for me.
Title: 3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Post by: Turing on 2005-03-06 20:36:07
Quote
Quote
wow!  im suprised.  ive been using 3.90.3, and probably still will, cause encoding speed isn't a factor to me, but i am going to at least reevaluate and take a second look at 3.96.1 (or 3.96b2) and see if i have been making the wrong decision...  by the way, whats the difference between 3.96.1 and 3.96b2?  of the two, which is generally *prefered*?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=279688"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

My proposal would be to stay with 3.90.3 and instead wait until 3.97 becomes stable - currently, it looks as if 3.97 when its finalized may offer more than just speed over 3.90.3 - or in other words, a more worthy update. That way, you will save yourself one update-step(you would then go 3.90.3 -> 3.97 final, instead of 3.90.3->3.96.1->3.97 )

Or in short: if you haven't yet changed to 3.96.1, then wait for 3.97 instead.

- Lyx
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=279835"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Since 3.96b2 has not yet finished ABX testing, what is the basis for saying that 3.97 is better than either 3.96.1 or 3.90.3?  This is not a hostile question, I just want to know.
Title: 3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Post by: Turing on 2005-03-06 20:48:08
Quote
Quote
3.96.1. 3.90.3 is effete.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=279658"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


From Dictionary.com:
Quote
Marked by self-indulgence, triviality, or decadence


3.90.3 is nothing short of canonized around here.

[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=279839"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Interesting how if one were to recommended one version of software over another without ABX backup (e.g. 3.90.3 vs. 3.96.1) TOS rule #8 would be invoked by big brother.  Yet this very sort of recommendation is unquestionable around here.

Who will watch the watchers?
Title: 3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Post by: Madrigal on 2005-03-06 21:45:22
3.96.1 -V1 --scale x.xxxx (as calculated by WaveGain).

Regards,
Madrigal
Title: 3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Post by: Megaman on 2005-03-06 22:06:56
From http://dictionary.reference.com (http://dictionary.reference.com)

effete \eh-FEET; ih-\, adjective:
1. No longer capable of producing young; infertile; barren; sterile.
2. Exhausted of energy; incapable of efficient action; worn out.
3. Marked by self-indulgence or decadence; degenerate.
4. Overrefined; effeminate.


I consider 3.90.3 overrefined indeed .

One could also say that 3.90.3 is "incapable of efficent action" if appropriate listening test were done, the results being 3.96.1 quality is equal or better than 3.90.3. Because speed is part of efficiency you know .

95% of my MP3 encodings are 3.90.2/3.90.3. Nowadays I´m using 3.90.3 for the very rare MP3 encoding (generally for friends, don´t have a portable). Don´t care waiting for the extra time. Anyway for the highest efficiency I prefer vorbis.
Title: 3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Post by: AtaqueEG on 2005-03-06 22:07:28
Quote
3.96.1 -V1 --scale x.xxxx (as calculated by WaveGain).

Regards,
Madrigal
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=279861"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


V1? Isn't that a bit too much?
Title: 3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Post by: earphiler on 2005-03-06 23:45:34
I have to say I'm surprised. I would've thought nearly everyone would've said 3.90.3 because it has been more tested, and I stereotyped that you were all overly paranoid with mp3s. Guess not  You proved me wrong, and I'm glad you use 3.96.1 to try something else. I, too, am tired of beating a dead cow to death

and rjamorim -- very interesting bandwidth stats!
Title: 3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Post by: WarChild on 2005-03-06 23:54:53
Right now 3.97a7 it's faster and have noticed nothing bad or worse yet.
Title: 3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Post by: westgroveg on 2005-03-07 00:19:32
Thanks to the wonderful dev0 we have a 3.90.3 vs. 3..96 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=19813&hl=) ABX test thread.

I personally think that it's best to use 3.90.3 only for --alt-preset standard encodings.
Title: 3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Post by: smz on 2005-03-07 00:25:58
Quote
Thanks to the wonderful dev0 we have a 3.90.3 vs. 3..96 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=19813&hl=) ABX test thread.[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=279907"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That was 3.90.3 vs. 3.96b2. Are we sure it still applies to 3.96.1?
Sergio
Title: 3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Post by: Jebus on 2005-03-07 00:48:13
Been using 3.96.1 to encode about 50% of my library, but taking a pause until 3.97 gets worked out, as the --vbr-new stuff is interesting.
Title: 3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Post by: kindofblue on 2005-03-07 01:50:35
Call me an unreconstructed, hidebound traditionalist, but I'm sticking to 3.90.3 -- at least until 3.97 comes out. 
Title: 3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Post by: AtaqueEG on 2005-03-07 03:02:09
Quote
Call me an unreconstructed, hidebound traditionalist, but I'm sticking to 3.90.3 -- at least until 3.97 comes out. 
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=279925"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


What will stop you from being a "traditionalist" then?

3.97 won't be tested as much as 3.90.2 was. At some point, as many of us did, you will have to take a leap of faith.

Although I do undesrtand your point, and if you are archiving, it would be ill-advised to use anything but a stable version. But if you are only "temporarly" encoding (for example, to listen to music on your DAP, or something like that) you could enjoy the benefits on the newer versions, and I would bet you wouldn't notice the quality difference (if there is indeed one of significant importance to speak of)
Title: 3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Post by: music_man_mpc on 2005-03-07 04:09:21
Quote
3.96.1. 3.90.3 is effete.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=279658"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I postulate that Roberto invokes a thesaurus for such exuberant articulations.

edit:  I use 3.96.1 because it is faster and produces better results for my portable (-V5 --athaa-sensitivity 1) then 3.90.3.
Title: 3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Post by: DreamTactix291 on 2005-03-07 04:19:29
I use 3.96.1 when I need to make mp3s because I honestly can't hear a difference between it and 3.90.3 for --alt-preset standard.  3.96.1 is also a lot smaller which is kind of the point of using lossy compression IMO
Title: 3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Post by: Synthetic Soul on 2005-03-07 08:54:41
I use 3.96.1 -V5 --athaa-sensitivity 1, as per music_man_mpc (and the setting used in rjamorim's recent 128kbps test (http://www.rjamorim.com/test/multiformat128/presentation.html)).

I think this thread should be a poll, and should have some bearing on the HA recommended version.  As it appears thus far that the majority are using 3.96.1, isn't it a little wrong to be recommending 3.90.3?!

Whether it is less tested or not, if the majority of the community are using it then surely that is the implied recommendation of that community?

Edit: Sorry, just re-read the initial post. My reason is thus: to support the continued development of LAME.  If everyone stuck with 3.90.3 no improvements would ever be made.  Unfortunately my support is of little benefit, compared to the those great souls who actually conduct the ABX tests which let me make my informed decisions, but it's a camaraderie thing.
Title: 3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Post by: Lev on 2005-03-07 10:40:17
Quote
I postulate that Roberto invokes a thesaurus for such exuberant articulations.

Nah, its Mac's word of the month.

This discussion can go on for ever.. In reality, I dont expect anyone is disappointed / annoyed at the quality of either 3.90.3 or 3.96.1
Title: 3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Post by: guruboolez on 2005-03-07 10:47:14
Quote
This discussion can go on for ever.. In reality, I dont expect anyone is disappointed / annoyed at the quality of either 3.90.3 or 3.96.1
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=280046"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Same goes for many formats. MPC encoders made by Buschmann are as transparent as Frank Klemm's one for most people (if not all...). But the old one is not recommanded.

The problem is HA.org current recommandations, and not LAME quality.
Title: 3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Post by: rjamorim on 2005-03-07 15:22:47
Quote
The problem is HA.org current recommandations, and not LAME quality.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=280048"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I wholeheartedly agree.


@Lev: actually, I mentioned that word to Iain first, as well as other oddities like ennui and some slightly unmentionable ones.
Title: 3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Post by: VCSkier on 2005-03-07 16:50:31
as said earlier, get a poll for perfered lame encoder version.  that might have more impact, and give a better representation of everyone here.  careful how you word stuff tho.  dont want to step on any toes.  i know alot of work was put into 3.90.3, and it is undisputedly amazing what dibrom and others have done with lame.
Title: 3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Post by: Turing on 2005-03-07 16:56:32
I understand why HA can only recommend 3.90.3 because that is the only one that has been properly tested.

What I don't understand is the comment that 3.96.x is better at lower bitrates than 3.90.3 (Lame Versions on HA (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=28125)).  This advice is repeated often on these forums.  If it has not been tested then why should there even be a recommendation?

Anyone know of the background to this recommendation?  Is there some thread I have missed?
Title: 3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Post by: freakngoat on 2005-03-07 19:15:25
3.96.1 -V1

For me, best compromise between quality and bit rate based on my personal ABX tests...
Title: 3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Post by: Lyx on 2005-03-07 19:27:16
Polls - suprisingly - only show whats popular. It doesn't tell you anything about the reasons why people did choose something nor does it tell you which one overally is better. Polls are just a popularity-meter... not more, not less.

- Lyx
Title: 3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Post by: Synthetic Soul on 2005-03-07 19:48:38
Quote
Polls - suprisingly - only show whats popular. It doesn't tell you anything about the reasons why people did choose something nor does it tell you which one overally is better. Polls are just a popularity-meter... not more, not less.

I basically agree - but what I'm saying is, rightly or wrongly, if the majority of the members of this forum are using 3.96.1 how we can credibly tell new members that 3.90.3 is the codec we'd recommend?

This forum is its members, and should reflect their choices (whether they are right or wrong).

If I were asked personally what version someone should use I would say 3.96.1, because that's what I use, and I feel that I have made an informed decision in choosing my encoder.

Someone may say, quite rightly, that I am not as informed as the senior members of this forum. However, when the majority of the members say the same thing, that person can't say that we are all imbeciles and voting against the ideals of Hydrogen Audio... we are Hydrogen Audio.

Edit: I am very aware that there have been 1849 views on this thread, and only 38 replies.  A formal poll, in contradiction to the minor response so far,  may reflect a huge majority for 3.90.3 - in which case I would gladly see it remain as the recommended codec (well, I could understand it anyway).  I am also aware that 3.97 may not be too far off, and perhaps that version will be the one to finally take the throne.  I just think we've raised some interesting questions here.
Title: 3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Post by: Polar on 2005-03-08 00:31:47
Most of you will have noticed by now, but I'd like to invite you to place your votes in this preferred MP3 codec poll (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=32176).
Title: 3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Post by: kindofblue on 2005-03-08 02:22:48
Quote
What will stop you from being a "traditionalist" then?


Sorry, I meant to say I'm being conservative in my choice of lame version, at least for now.  I've actually been thinking of switching to 3.96.1 when I came across some posts here saying it had a few problems with highly tonal music. Yes, I know that most people can't tell between 3.96.1 and 3.90.3 in most cases,  but then about the same time excitement began bubbling over hereabouts with testing of the 3.97 alphas (not to mention the news about work being done on LAME 4).  I gathered from the alpha testing thread that 3.97 looks quite promising and even trumps 3.96.1 in some cases (and 3.90.3 IIRC), so I've decided to wait for 3.97 instead.  Actually, I can't wait to try it out, so  I guess I'm not as hidebound as my post implied after all, because I do want LAME to get even better. 

Quote
3.97 won't be tested as much as 3.90.2 was. At some point, as many of us did, you will have to take a leap of faith.


It looks like many have indeed. I seem to be the only one who voted for the recommended version so far.   

cheers
Title: 3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Post by: LoFiYo on 2005-03-08 05:31:00
I use both for different purposes.

I understand that a lot of people use version 3.96.1 for one of the following reasons:

1) other people say it's good
2) they can't tell the difference (even with critical samples)
3) it's faster
4) they blind-tested 3.96.1 (or whatever the latest stable version) and found it better than 3.90.3
5) it's the latest stable version
6) other

If people want to change the recommended version for the reason 1) or 2) or 3), I don't think that's a good enough reason. That's lowering our standards. Rather, I would love to see 3.90.3 overthrown for the reason 4), which is the hardest and the most time-consuming (but true to the original HA principles) option.

5) seems like a tricky one. From the developers' standpoint, this is the way to go, and they have no reason not to recommend the latest stable version. But since HA is a separate entity from the LAME project, it should ideally hold onto its own standard (QA) that it's founded upon.

I think a compromise (copout) might be to recommend the latest stable version, and move 3.90.3 aside to a Legacy status (or an alternative recommendation) - something that we can fall back on if we want to, and to encourage users to report any quality problems. Or, do the right thing and test the hell out of the latest stable version (or the lastest alpha) in order to overthrow 3.90.3. But who would have the time and energy to volunteer except Guru?

Only my 2c.
Title: 3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Post by: guruboolez on 2005-03-08 07:11:00
Quote
I've actually been thinking of switching to 3.96.1 when I came across some posts here saying it had a few problems with highly tonal music.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=280255"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

What posts? Which samples?
Title: 3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Post by: Gabriel on 2005-03-08 08:20:59
Quote
But since HA is a separate entity from the LAME project, it should ideally hold onto its own standard (QA) that it's founded upon.

But let's be honest: nowadays, I can easily list the number of people testing Lame versions using fingers of a single hand.
Title: 3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Post by: kindofblue on 2005-03-08 08:40:56
Quote
Quote
I've actually been thinking of switching to 3.96.1 when I came across some posts here saying it had a few problems with highly tonal music.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=280255")

What posts? Which samples?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=280297"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


whoops... I think I may have been wrong about the "problems with highly tonal music" (my mistake, sorry  ), but I do remember looking at [a href="http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=19813&st=25]this thread[/url] and the regression samples reported here (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=19441&).    There was also some stuff about abr/cbr at here (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=28910).
Title: 3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Post by: schonenberg on 2005-03-08 12:30:45
I'm no programmer, but could Lame 3.90.3 be further optimized
for speed?
Everyone universally likes 3.90.3, but its speed at preset standard can be painful.
Title: 3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Post by: Gabriel on 2005-03-08 12:33:36
Quote
I'm no programmer, but could Lame 3.90.3 be further optimized
for speed?

Yes, but who would do it?
Title: 3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Post by: Lyx on 2005-03-08 13:50:48
Quote
Quote
Polls - suprisingly - only show whats popular. It doesn't tell you anything about the reasons why people did choose something nor does it tell you which one overally is better. Polls are just a popularity-meter... not more, not less.

I basically agree - but what I'm saying is, rightly or wrongly, if the majority of the members of this forum are using 3.96.1 how we can credibly tell new members that 3.90.3 is the codec we'd recommend?

This forum is its members, and should reflect their choices (whether they are right or wrong).

If I were asked personally what version someone should use I would say 3.96.1, because that's what I use, and I feel that I have made an informed decision in choosing my encoder.

Edit: I am very aware that there have been 1849 views on this thread, and only 38 replies.  A formal poll, in contradiction to the minor response so far,  may reflect a huge majority for 3.90.3 - in which case I would gladly see it remain as the recommended codec (well, I could understand it anyway).  I am also aware that 3.97 may not be too far off, and perhaps that version will be the one to finally take the throne.  I just think we've raised some interesting questions here.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=280167"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I was against the decision of keeping 3.90.3 as the recommended version when 3.96.1 was tested. My arguments were the same as yours plus some others. Many thought the same way and the pressure on 3.90.3 was quite high at that time. Regardless of that, it was decided to keep 3.90.3 for reasons which have nothing to do with popularity. Therefore, i doubt popularity will change anything. In a nutshell, one could say that the point why 3.96.1 did not take over was that it was very good, possibly as good as 3.90.3 in most cases - but didn't offer a convincing enough quality-IMPROVEMENT over 3.90.3. Or in short, for a version to ursupate 3.90.3 its not enough if its equal to 3.90.3 qualitywise and better in other departments - it has to be significantly BETTER than 3.90.3 qualitywise, not just even. Notice that this is not my personal opinion - i'm just gauging why 3.90.3 was not replaced and what would need to happen for it to be replaced. For the above reasons, i doubt that 3.96.1 will ever replace 3.90.3. The upcoming 3.97 on the other hand could _maybe_ offer the slight necessary edge over 3.90.3 to finally make the switch official and consolidate the recommended version again with reality.

- Lyx
Title: 3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Post by: Synthetic Soul on 2005-03-08 14:15:14
@Lyx

Thanks for the comprehensive reply.  I was unaware of this previous pressure and subsequent decision, and am midly surprised to hear that you were an advocate of 3.96.1 - only as I (wrongly) got the impression that you were opposed to a rethink.

I understand the thinking that a replacement must be significantly better.  I'm not sure I agree, but it is logical.

I also agree that 3.97 may turn out to be the man for the job.  Let's hope so.


<off topic>Your English is superb, and that is the reason that I thought I should point out that there is no such word as "ursupate" - the word you were after is "usurp (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=usurp)".  The quality of English on this site astounds me, and is often richer and more eloquant than most monolingual Englishmen.</off topic>
Title: 3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Post by: john33 on 2005-03-08 14:22:17
Well, just to upset everybody(!!  ), I tend to use 3.90.3 as I'm only interested in --preset standard and above. I shall probably only switch from this once 4.0 becomes established.
Title: 3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Post by: OldSkoOL on 2005-03-08 16:45:12
Quote
I tend to use 3.90.3 as I'm only interested in --preset standard and above. I shall probably only switch from this once 4.0 becomes established.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=280365"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Thats my thoughts too. I recently decided to encode my huge cd collection and choose 3.90.3 being the most stable using preset standard. I will look forward to LAME 4 too. Testing on the alphas looks promising
Title: 3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Post by: schuberth on 2005-03-08 20:29:00
One more vote for 3.90.3. Yes I'm interested in seeing lame progress and evolve but for my encodes I use the version that has been tested and proven. You see, most of the things I encode only once (too little time and energy to play with 1000s of settings and codecs) so I use 3.90.3, which has known strengths and weaknesses. With 3.96.1 you might get better or worse results but you can't tell in advance (when compared to 3.90.3). I prefer predictable behavior. Speed or the coolness factor do not matter.
Title: 3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Post by: larswes on 2005-03-09 11:13:33
I use Lame 3.96.1 @ -V 4
For me, that's perfect compromise of quality/bitrate.
On my old pc I need a fast encoder.
Title: 3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Post by: Mac on 2005-03-09 18:50:22
Quote
Quote
I postulate that Roberto invokes a thesaurus for such exuberant articulations.

Nah, its Mac's word of the month.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=280046"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

One could claim 3.90.3 is lacking in virility, I doubt we will see any offspring from the old version with newer and more lavish encoders being worked on!
Title: 3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Post by: timcupery on 2005-03-10 21:23:17
Quote
005, 07:19 PM] I personally think that it's best to use 3.90.3 only for --alt-preset standard encodings. [a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=279907"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I agree here - if people are going to stick with 3.90.3, they should only do it when they're using --preset standard - to my knowledge, that's what was heavily tested in 3.90.3. (And maybe --preset extreme). I usually use --preset medium (aka -V4 on 3.96.1) and this setting has undergone a fair bit of development up to 3.96.1 and is better than 3.90.3 (actually, the version of --preset medium in 3.90.3 modified was ported back from 3.93, I believe).

Generally, I use 3.96.1 even for --preset standard (aka -V2) encodes, because it's so much faster even without using --vbr-new (which I don't totally trust).

I should note that I have found a number of samples where 3.90.3 --preset standard is [/I]lower bitrate than 3.96.1.
Title: 3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Post by: Yaztromo on 2005-03-10 22:15:12
When I do use MP3. I use 3.90.3. Because I only ever use "--alt-preset standard" setting. From the reading I've done on the forums, 3.90.3 often beats 3.96.1 when using APS.

I can't see why HA could recommend 3.96.1, it's like taking a step backwards. 3.97 and 4.0 will hopefully be better.
Title: 3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Post by: miscellanea on 2005-03-12 10:24:30
Quote
Well, just to upset everybody(!!  ), I tend to use 3.90.3 as I'm only interested in --preset standard and above. I shall probably only switch from this once 4.0 becomes established.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=280365"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Quote
Thats my thoughts too. I recently decided to encode my huge cd collection and choose 3.90.3 being the most stable using preset standard. I will look forward to LAME 4 too. Testing on the alphas looks promising
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=280397"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


That's also my thoughts. I use --preset standard and --preset extreme. I think 3.90.3 is better to me.
Title: 3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Post by: guruboolez on 2005-03-12 10:27:50
Quote
That's also my thoughts. I use --preset standard and --preset extreme. I think 3.90.3 is better to me.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=281469"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

What do you mean by "I think"? It's recommanded to experience quality difference first, and then thinking about it.

I wonder how many people on this board, using lame 3.90.3 --preset standard, have really tested it.
Title: 3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Post by: Ollie on 2005-03-12 10:53:11
Quote
But let's be honest: nowadays, I can easily list the number of people testing Lame versions using fingers of a single hand.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=280300"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Just curious, when you say testing new lame versions, what is involved in that?

My only problem is, all my cds were stolen (yes every single one was in my cd case).
Title: 3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Post by: miscellanea on 2005-03-12 12:10:22
Quote
What do you mean by "I think"? It's recommanded to experience quality difference first, and then thinking about it.

I wonder how many people on this board, using lame 3.90.3 --preset standard, have really tested it.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=281470"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Yes, sure I have tested over 100 songs and various parameters. I've not said just my feeling but my hearing. Right? 

I wonder how many people on this board, saying like you, have thought that everyone writing like me hasn't tested anything.
Title: 3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Post by: Jojo on 2005-03-12 20:29:38
Quote
When I do use MP3. I use 3.90.3. Because I only ever use "--alt-preset standard" setting. From the reading I've done on the forums, 3.90.3 often beats 3.96.1 when using APS.

I can't see why HA could recommend 3.96.1, it's like taking a step backwards. 3.97 and 4.0 will hopefully be better.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=281102"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I only use --preset standard as well, however I use LAME 3.96.1
Title: 3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Post by: AtaqueEG on 2005-03-13 04:44:51
Quote
From the reading I've done on the forums, 3.90.3 often beats 3.96.1 when using APS.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=281102"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Yes, and 3.96.1 often beats 3.90.3 when using APS

It seems like you have to read a little bit more, because the testing thread says just that: 3.90.3 sometimes beats AND sometimes is beaten by 3.96.1. On APS.
I don't even want to talk about other bitrate/settings.

But YOU, on your CDs, double-blind test, can you hear anything remotely resembling a difference?

To me, 3.90.3 is just hanging to the "recommended" thread by popularity alone.
Title: 3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Post by: guruboolez on 2005-03-13 13:35:05
Quote
Yes, sure I have tested over 100 songs and various parameters. I've not said just my feeling but my hearing. Right?

I wonder how many people on this board, saying like you, have thought that everyone writing like me hasn't tested anything.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=281496"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

In other words, you've tested 100 samples,  many parameters? found problems with latest build, and didn't send any report to any lame developer? Am I right?
Title: 3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Post by: k.eight.a on 2005-04-09 10:35:51
Quote
3.96.1. 3.90.3 is effete.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=279658"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm sorry, but I still don't understand what do you mean by that...
Do you mean the discussion about 3.96.1. vs. 3.90.3 ???
Quote
I switched from 3.90.3 to 3.96.1 for a bit, and noticed an easily discernable degradation when encoding some Strauss and some live Springsteen tracks (and I did ABX checks to confirm my suspicions).  I've since switched back, I'm happy enough with the 3.90.3 encoding times.  I used APS for both encoders.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=279696"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Can you post us your ABX results?
I'm still considering switching over to 3.96.1 , later 3.97 stable...
Title: 3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Post by: guruboolez on 2005-04-09 10:43:38
Quote
Quote
3.96.1. 3.90.3 is effete.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=279658"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm sorry, but I still don't understand what do you mean by that...
Do you mean the discussion about 3.96.1. vs. 3.90.3 ???


No, the encoder itself. 3.90.3 is a dead branch. Nobody's working on it.
Title: 3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Post by: evereux on 2005-04-09 11:09:16
Quote
Quote
Quote
3.96.1. 3.90.3 is effete.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=279658"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm sorry, but I still don't understand what do you mean by that...
Do you mean the discussion about 3.96.1. vs. 3.90.3 ???


No, the encoder itself. 3.90.3 is a dead branch. Nobody's working on it.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=289281"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I interpreted it as meaning inefficient.
Title: 3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Post by: k.eight.a on 2005-04-09 11:46:43
Unfortunately, when I was posting my first post to this thread I've read only the first page so there are my reactions... 

I'm still using Lame 3.90.3 and considering to step further so I'm following similar discussions for a quite while...
Quote
I think this thread should be a poll, and should have some bearing on the HA recommended version. As it appears thus far that the majority are using 3.96.1, isn't it a little wrong to be recommending 3.90.3?!

Very good point!
Quote
Whether it is less tested or not, if the majority of the community are using it then surely that is the implied recommendation of that community?

A very good point again!
Quote
Unfortunately my support is of little benefit, compared to the those great souls who actually conduct the ABX tests which let me make my informed decisions, but it's a camaraderie thing.

Unfortunately me too! 
Quote
I know a lot of work was put into 3.90.3, and it is undisputedly amazing what Dibrom and others have done with lame.

I think that one of the reasons why are people sticking with 3.90.3 is that Dibrom, the founder of HydrogenAudio.org, was heavily contributing to the development while on the later not...
Quote
...if the majority of the members of this forum are using 3.96.1 how we can credibly tell new members that 3.90.3 is the codec we'd recommend?

This forum is its members, and should reflect their choices (whether they are right or wrong).

We are Hydrogen Audio.

Yeah!     
Quote
Rather, I would love to see 3.90.3 overthrown by blind-testing 3.96.1 (or whatever the latest stable version) and found it better than 3.90.3, which is the hardest and the most time-consuming (but true to the original HA principles) option.

Yes, exactly!
Quote
I wonder how many people on this board, using lame 3.90.3 --preset standard, have really tested it.

To be honest, I think the problem is that not so many HA members have sufficient equipment and hearing to contribute on those tests, anyway that's the reason why I'm not a part... 
Quote
Quote

Do you mean the discussion about 3.96.1. vs. 3.90.3 ???

No, the encoder itself. 3.90.3 is a dead branch. Nobody's working on it.

Thanks for explanation guruboolez!
Title: 3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Post by: odious malefactor on 2005-04-09 11:51:33
ef·fete
Pronunciation: e-'fEt, i-
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin effetus, from ex- + fetus fruitful -- more at FEMININE
1 : no longer fertile
2 a : having lost character, vitality, or strength....
Title: 3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Post by: LadFromDownUnder on 2005-04-09 12:25:58
Quote
Quote
I switched from 3.90.3 to 3.96.1 for a bit, and noticed an easily discernable degradation when encoding some Strauss and some live Springsteen tracks (and I did ABX checks to confirm my suspicions).  I've since switched back, I'm happy enough with the 3.90.3 encoding times.  I used APS for both encoders.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=279696"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Can you post us your ABX results?
I'm still considering switching over to 3.96.1 , later 3.97 stable...
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=289280"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Typically I discard ABX results after proving the point to myself (I used to keep them but realised I was never referring to them afterward), and this particular comparison is no exception.  However, as the ABX results were for my ears, equipment, and environment, they would be unsuitable for another listener.

I am working with the 3.97 alpha releases, and am pleased with what I'm hearing.
Title: 3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Post by: VCSkier on 2005-04-09 13:45:39
Quote
Typically I discard ABX results after proving the point to myself (I used to keep them but realised I was never referring to them afterward), and this particular comparison is no exception.  However, as the ABX results were for my ears, equipment, and environment, they would be unsuitable for another listener.

I am working with the 3.97 alpha releases, and am pleased with what I'm hearing.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=289297"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

would you consider giving the abx another shot and posting the new results.  im curious. 
Title: 3.90.3 versus 3.96.1
Post by: dev0 on 2005-04-09 14:36:20
3.97 will become the new recommended version once it's released.

As opposed to guruboolez, I wouldn't recommend using the 3.97 alphas for anything but testing. Stay with 3.90.3 or 3.96.1 until 3.97 is released.

Thread closed.