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.

Poll

Should the officially recommended version of LAME be upgraded now if possible, or should we wait for 4.0?

Keep 3.90.3 forever, baby! It works fine!
[ 19 ] (5.2%)
Let's thoroughly test 3.96 now, and then possibly upgrade.
[ 306 ] (83.4%)
I'm in no hurry, let's wait a year or two for 4.0.
[ 42 ] (11.4%)

Total Members Voted: 494

Topic: Upgrade the official HA LAME version? (Read 53550 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Upgrade the official HA LAME version?

Reply #25 –
Nice idea to count test samples that became better or worse with 396b!

I can add here sophia2 is clean the first time with aps!

390.3 -> sandpaper noise
395 -> added plop
396b -> clean

Wombat
Is troll-adiposity coming from feederism?
With 24bit music you can listen to silence much louder!

Upgrade the official HA LAME version?

Reply #26 –
Quote
Oh - and about ABR/VBR: We would need to know what to test, i.e. what setting is supposed to give best quality at a given average bitrate. IIRC the abr presets like --preset 128 still work with lame 3.95/3.96, but the -V settings have been changed by Gabriel and are supposed to work similar to Musepack/Vorbis -q ... settings. Probably it would be a good idea to test both while we're at it (e.g. --preset 128 and -V ... (whatever gives 128kbps on average)) - unless Gabriel (or someone else who should know) contradicts.

I always thought LAME 3.90.3 was recommended for --APS only
--alt-presets are there for a reason! These other switches DO NOT work better than it, trust me on this.
LAME + Joint Stereo doesn't destroy 'Stereo'

Upgrade the official HA LAME version?

Reply #27 –
LAME 3.90.3 is recommended over other versions for many different settings.  APS is the recommended setting for perceptual transparency.  Sometimes you need to make a compromise on quality vs. filesize (which means you'll lose transparency).  This is why other bitrates also need to be tested.

Upgrade the official HA LAME version?

Reply #28 –
Is there a special reason to be testing 3.96 rather than the upcomming 3.97?

I'm not trying to sound sarcastic. Maybe the developers consider 3.96 to be a very good version. Maybe they feel it is just an interim release before the real spanking 3.98 comes out.

I'm asking because with every new version people will come and ask if it is recommended over the current one. I just want to make sure that good effort wich should maybe be spent on a later (not so distant) version isn't wasted on this version.

Upgrade the official HA LAME version?

Reply #29 –
Serious testing should be done, even if lame 3.96 isn't a major version. There are two possibilities:
- lame 3.96 is fine => recommanded version, and bye-bye old 3.90
- lame 3.96 have major problems => this will help developers to improve the next version.

Waiting unfortunately doesn't help. Lame developers need feedback, otherwise, we can't expect major improvements.

Upgrade the official HA LAME version?

Reply #30 –
Quote
Is there a special reason to be testing 3.96 rather than the upcomming 3.97?

I'm not trying to sound sarcastic. Maybe the developers consider 3.96 to be a very good version. Maybe they feel it is just an interim release before the real spanking 3.98 comes out.

I'm asking because with every new version people will come and ask if it is recommended over the current one. I just want to make sure that good effort wich should maybe be spent on a later (not so distant) version isn't wasted on this version.

maybe we should give Gabriel the chance to state his opinion. However, if you take a look at the change history, there is quite a big time frame between LAME 3.93.1 and the newest stable release 3.95.1 (more than 1 year!).

So I think we have to ask Gabriel. He once told me that there will be of course always a newer release...so it wouldn't make much sense to wait and wait, especially if LAME 3.97 would take another year or so...

Personally, I wouldn't wait to long for test...because AAC is coming much faster than expected...probably because of Apple's: iPod, Music Store, Superior AAC Encoder and iTunes...it's easy to use, free and gives very good quality at low bitrates; no confusion about all the different settings...so what I really want to say is, that a test that takes place in a year or so might not be that interesting for many people, because of other formats that more and more find their way on people's computer's... I mean, iTunes AAC @ 160kbps = awesome
--alt-presets are there for a reason! These other switches DO NOT work better than it, trust me on this.
LAME + Joint Stereo doesn't destroy 'Stereo'

Upgrade the official HA LAME version?

Reply #31 –
ACH!  my post disappeared.

well, anyways, i say wait for 4.0

in my opinion there's very little difference in the quality of --alt-presets from version 3.90 up.  it would make more sense to go to all that testing effort with 4.0 rather than a release that it's taken as a given that the difference will be tremendously difficult to spot.

Upgrade the official HA LAME version?

Reply #32 –
Quote
Is there a special reason to be testing 3.96 rather than the upcomming 3.97?

I'm not trying to sound sarcastic. Maybe the developers consider 3.96 to be a very good version. Maybe they feel it is just an interim release before the real spanking 3.98 comes out.


3.96 will probably be promoted to stable.

3.90.X are based on a more than 2 years old release.

You have some choices:
*keep using 3.90.X, and do not bother with new versions. Of course, you fully understand that the current justification used to not test new versions will forever be true, so it means that you will always keep using the same version.

*Try new versions. If they are fine to you, then use them. If they are not fine to you, then report why so it could be corrected in next versions.

By choosing the second option, you will be able to know if you can replace the version you are using, and will help new better versions to appear.
By choosing the first option, you choose to ignore if you can replace your current version, and are also choosing to not help in development.

You also have to keep in mind that 3.97 will be based on 3.96, and 3.98 will be based on 3.97. They will not be based on 3.90.X.

So jump in, or stay where you are. But in this case, you will likely stay there forever.

Upgrade the official HA LAME version?

Reply #33 –
Quote
it would make more sense to go to all that testing effort with 4.0 rather than a release that it's taken as a given that the difference will be tremendously difficult to spot.


I hope that you do not have preset standard in mind, because a preset targeted to transparency will always be close to a preset targeted to transparency, beeing in 3.90.3, 3.96, 4.0 or 9.0.

Upgrade the official HA LAME version?

Reply #34 –
Well the birds sample is cured absolutely also with aps!

Sandpaper noise is gone!

Very promising so far, Gabriel

Wombat
Is troll-adiposity coming from feederism?
With 24bit music you can listen to silence much louder!

Upgrade the official HA LAME version?

Reply #35 –
We can't keep the 3.90 release "haunting" us forever...it might be a landmark in the Lame history, but we have to check if things have actually progressed since then. Hydrogenaudio is all about testing and suggesting accordingly. Keeping up-to-date is not always essential, but we have to check v3.96's quality before condemning it as inferior and sticking again with 2 years old code. I don't know if the latest version is better, but I sure want to find out.

Upgrade the official HA LAME version?

Reply #36 –
Quote
.... Lame developers need feedback, otherwise, we can't expect major improvements.

I think that's the point.

The developers have invested their valuable time to improve the new versions.
So we, the users should give our feedback.
Keeping 3.90.x as the holy cow forever and ignoring what the developers offer might be disrespectful ...
Maybe it is not necessary to test every new release to the maximum extend, but  the ones the developers recommend as worth to be.
Maybe Gabriel or s.o. could give a clue if 3.96 is THE ONE or when the next relase comes out that has the potential to be the successor of the honourable 3.90
...and as Guruboolez stated, this is also a chance to detect the difference between new releases, which could result in further improvements. 

Upgrade the official HA LAME version?

Reply #37 –
Thanks for your answers, Gabriel. The remaining question would be this:
Can the current 3.96 beta be considered stable quality-wise? From what I read from the change-log there haven't been any quality-related changes since 3.95.1 - is this correct? Of course there can always be bugs that affect quality, finding them is one reason for testing - I just mean starting tests with big efford would be pointless if quality-related changes are planned before 3.97 stable. Comments?
Let's suppose that rain washes out a picnic. Who is feeling negative? The rain? Or YOU? What's causing the negative feeling? The rain or your reaction? - Anthony De Mello

Upgrade the official HA LAME version?

Reply #38 –
Quality related changes are always planned: we are developing in mp3 encoder, and so quality is one of the goals.
So yes, there will be quality related changes, but how is that preventing you from testing the current version?

I hope that you are not waiting for the end of quality related changes before trying a new version , or you will probably never try any new version before the final stop of the Lame development.

Upgrade the official HA LAME version?

Reply #39 –
you also have to take into account, that even if we now test 3.96 and tune it(if necessary)... and then one day there'll be an 3.97 - then 3.97 will probably take advantage of at least some of the tunings and fixes of 3.96.

So, later versions will take advantage of 3.96 testing anyways. Of course with the implementation of new features, this advantage will slowly fade. Still... even if we dont get the absoluetely-total-optimum-version to do testing, future versions will take advantage of this. In other words - no effort gets lost.

- Lyx
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.

Upgrade the official HA LAME version?

Reply #40 –
Quote
Thanks for your answers, Gabriel. The remaining question would be this:
Can the current 3.96 beta be considered stable quality-wise? From what I read from the change-log there haven't been any quality-related changes since 3.95.1 - is this correct? Of course there can always be bugs that affect quality, finding them is one reason for testing - I just mean starting tests with big efford would be pointless if quality-related changes are planned before 3.97 stable. Comments?

3.96 has some bugs fixed that have been in LAME for over a year. those bugs surely have an effect on quality. we want 3.96 to be as stable as we can get to have some anchor for further development. if there are no big problems (*encoding* problems), end of march we hope to release 3.96 stable. For 3.97 we will probably focus more on the decoder. there is a plan replacing mpglib by hip finally.

Upgrade the official HA LAME version?

Reply #41 –
Bitrate bloat seems under control now as well. I was using --lowpass 17600 on 3.90.3. This version gives lower bitrates than that setting without even using a lowpass.
flac > schiit modi > schiit magni > hd650

Upgrade the official HA LAME version?

Reply #42 –
Quote
You have some choices:
*keep using 3.90.X, and do not bother with new versions.[...]

*Try new versions.[...]

By choosing the second option, you will be able to know if you can replace the version you are using, and will help new better versions to appear.
By choosing the first option, you choose to ignore if you can replace your current version, and are also choosing to not help in development.

I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't saying that we should stick to 3.90.3 forever and testing new versions was pointless.

I believe that the amount of testing required to possibly find a replacement for the current recommendation is very large. A great effort like this will not be made often and the amount of (free) time people are willing to invest should be wisely spent.

So I'm mainly asking if this version is worth it or if maybe you have a not so distant version on your roadmap that would benefit more from such an effort. For example a developer has been working on theoretically significant quality improvements which are going to be merged with the official branch in version 3.97.

I have no insight in the development process, so I was asking about that, without implying that the status quo should remain unchanged forever.

Upgrade the official HA LAME version?

Reply #43 –
Quote
Quality related changes are always planned: we are developing in mp3 encoder, and so quality is one of the goals.
So yes, there will be quality related changes, but how is that preventing you from testing the current version?

I hope that you are not waiting for the end of quality related changes before trying a new version , or you will probably never try any new version before the final stop of the Lame development.

You've said that before, but obviously I wasn't able to ask my question in an understandable way...

My point is: If many people start testing with the current beta, but the next version you're working on right now contains modifications that would change these test results completely, the modifications are already finished, there's just no new beta version released yet ... in this case it would make more sense to test the next version than starting tests right now. Of course - if you want a comparision between current beta and next one, you can ask for tests and people will help, as it has happened here before.

Quote
So, later versions will take advantage of 3.96 testing anyways. Of course with the implementation of new features, this advantage will slowly fade. Still... even if we dont get the absoluetely-total-optimum-version to do testing, future versions will take advantage of this. In other words - no effort gets lost.

Well, if - as in the example I described above - tests are outdated while they're done, the benefit from the effort is not optimal ...

Anyway, Robert's post answers my question - thanks.
Let's suppose that rain washes out a picnic. Who is feeling negative? The rain? Or YOU? What's causing the negative feeling? The rain or your reaction? - Anthony De Mello

Upgrade the official HA LAME version?

Reply #44 –
Quote
I believe that the amount of testing required to possibly find a replacement for the current recommendation is very large. A great effort like this will not be made often and the amount of (free) time people are willing to invest should be wisely spent.

But why do we need a grand test before changing the official recommandation? Couldn't we simply use lame 3.96 for two or three weeks, and then decree 3.96 fully safe if nothing wrong was reported? It makes sense. I don't see anybody keeping Buschman 1.78c encoder, just because Klemm's encoders weren't collectively tested. Same for AAC, same for vorbis, etc... From where come this idea of a big, collective and complete check-up? And why is it so specific to lame? When a new Nero version is released, all people expect a new release of aacenc32.dll; they're not saying to Ivan "sorry, but PsyTEL 2.15 was more tested than Nero 2.6.2.0, I'll consider Nero AAC in two years if stable. Bye."

If people really care about a possible and serious regression, they have to prove it. It's not to other people to prove that the newest version is superior to the 27 months (!!) old 3.90.x.

Upgrade the official HA LAME version?

Reply #45 –
Your position makes sense, guruboolez.
The burden of the proof lies on the person making the claim. LAME has undergone tweaking and has become faster at encoding. That alone is an improvement that warrants upgrading. If the upgrade hasn't been made, is because there is an implicit claim stating that 3.90.3 is still better than 3.96, despite the slower encoding and its age. Is it so? Prove it. Otherwise, the logical choice is to recommend the newer version, which in theory should be better.

Upgrade the official HA LAME version?

Reply #46 –
To make it clear: there is no major quality improvment ready to be released just now.

Upgrade the official HA LAME version?

Reply #47 –
There is no major quality improvement IN 3.96 beta over 3.95?

Or do you mean that there isn't any major quality improvement to be expected for some time AFTER 3.96 (beta)?

Upgrade the official HA LAME version?

Reply #48 –
Quote
There is no major quality improvement IN 3.96 beta over 3.95?

Or do you mean that there isn't any major quality improvement to be expected for some time AFTER 3.96

Quote
there is no major quality improvment ready to be released just now.


3.96b has already been released, so its quality improvments are already released.

Upgrade the official HA LAME version?

Reply #49 –
TNX for clarification.

I hope, that the HA recommendation can be updated now soon.

TNX for spending time with working on LAME, Takehiro, Gabriel, Robert and the others.