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 3.95 vs 3.90.3 (Read 26227 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Lame 3.95 vs 3.90.3

Starting with mine:

ABC/HR for Java Version 0.4b, 12 styczeñ 2004
Testname: velvet (aps)

1R = C:\Music\LAMEsamples\velvet.3-90-3.wav
2L = C:\Music\LAMEsamples\velvet.3-95.wav

---------------------------------------
General Comments: Original vs Sample 1 - warm up, but still managed to ABX it at 32 tries. (I use techinque of min. 16x, 24x, 32x) Most noticeable artifacti 8.11-9.30
---------------------------------------
1R File: C:\Music\LAMEsamples\velvet.3-90-3.wav
1R Rating: 4.0
1R Comment: Slightly smeared percussion, no ATH problem
---------------------------------------
2L File: C:\Music\LAMEsamples\velvet.3-95.wav
2L Rating: 3.0
2L Comment: Smeared percussion, ATH problems
---------------------------------------

ABX Results:
Original vs C:\Music\LAMEsamples\velvet.3-95.wav
    16 out of 16, pval < 0.001
Original vs C:\Music\LAMEsamples\velvet.3-90-3.wav
    23 out of 32, pval = 0.01
--

Bad news. 3.95 still worse, noticeably.
I didn't even try to ABX these against themselves, the difference is glaring.

EDIT: Yes, glaring. Glaring PLACEBO. Failed ABX, pval ~0.4 at 32 tries.
Maybe I've got tired of this percussion, I'll redo this tomorrow.

EDIT2: Failed again, similar result.
ruxvilti'a

Lame 3.95 vs 3.90.3

Reply #1
Nice initiative. Thanks

Lame 3.95 vs 3.90.3

Reply #2
Oh, I see that there's 3.95.1 out now.
I'll retest with this later. (although the chance is slim the result may be different)
Next sample tomorrow.

Bug report - Lame 3.95.x can't decode at all. (jon33 compile)
Even can't decode its own files!
ruxvilti'a

Lame 3.95 vs 3.90.3

Reply #3
Quote
Bug report - Lame 3.95.x can't decode at all. (jon33 compile)
Even can't decode its own files!

Verified.

Lame 3.95 vs 3.90.3

Reply #4
foobar 0.77a ABX, replaygain, no DSP
Sony MDR-P70 headphones, somewhat noisy PC, Terratec PCI soundcard 5 years old

the candidate: fatboy

1) --preset cbr 128
-wav vs. 3.90.3
outrageous, mp3 sounds very "scratchy".. 8/8, 0.4% guess prob.

-wav vs. 3.95.1
much better than 3.90.3, still easy to pick from wav. 8/8, 0.4%

-3.90.3 vs. 3.95.1:
3.90.3 very severe artifacts, 3.95.1 much better.  8/8, 0.4%

clear winner 3.95.1
---

2) --preset 160 (ABR)
wav vs. 3.90.3 (191kbit):
still very scratchy vocals, slightly better than 128CBR.  8/8 0,4%

wav vs. 3.95.1 (204kbit):
needs utmost concentration, scratching is gone  10/16, 22.7% guess prob.

3.90.3 vs. 3.95.1:
easy. 8/8

clear winner 3.95.1
---

3)--preset medium
wav vs. 3.90.3 (247kbit):
scratchy vocals, big letdown for that bitrate.  8/8

wav vs. 3.95.1 (237kbit):
4/16, 98,9% of guessing. transparent for me

3.90.3 (247kbit) vs. 3.95.1 (237kbit):
scratchy vocals in 3.90.3. 8/8

clear winner 3.95.1
---

4) --preset standard
wav vs. 3.90.3 (265kbit):
impossible
wav vs. 3.95.1 (268kbit):
impossible

both transparent to me
---

3.90.3 is very disapointing for this sample at medium bitrates, 3.95 does good
thanks, need a pause now
edit: added bitrates for ABR 160

Lame 3.95 vs 3.90.3

Reply #5
huh, astralstorm, please edit your post until you came up with a decision.

it is a bit ... biased now.
my feelings are too.

Sony666's results are very promising though. I think, that if there are any major differences, they will be rather in the low bitrate area.
testing preset medium with 3.90.3 is a bit unfair, because that wasn't tuned for 3.90.x.
it was added afterwards and tuned for 3.93, I think.

EDIT: typos

Lame 3.95 vs 3.90.3

Reply #6
more samples from http://lame.sourceforge.net/gpsycho/quality.html

Metallica - Fade To Black (ftb_samp.wav)

1) --preset cbr 128
-wav vs. 3.90.3:
very small "warbling" effect at ~0.4s, only listenable with headphones, but 8/8

-wav vs. 3.95.1:
11/16 (10.5% of guess.) hmmm.... very hard to diff, if possible at all. need direct comparison vs. 3.90.1

3.90.3 vs. 3.95.1:
8/16 (59.8% guess).. bleh, I could have sworn the guitar attack at very start was more distorted with 3.90.3, but...

Conclusion: both do excellent on this real world sample. I was very surprised with 128k CBR quality  higher bitrates useless to abx here..
---


the "infamous" velvet

1) --preset cbr 128
-wav vs. 3.90.3:
obvious.. can't handle the sharp attacks, hissing...  8/8

-wav vs. 3.95.1:
better handling of sharp attacks, still hissing  8/8

3.90.3 vs. 3.95.1:
14/16 (0.2% guess) 3.90.3 has a slight error in first base drum attack

3.95.1 ahead
---

2) --preset 160 (ABR)
-wav vs. 3.90.3 (163kbit):
base drum has obvious errors  8/8

-wav vs. 3.95.1 (171kbit):
base drum errors are gone, trying to diff via hissing... yes. 8/8. hi-hat(?) sounds softer in original wav, but encoding is good here

3.90.3 vs. 3.95.1:
easy, 3.90.3 has erros in base drum that sound a little like clipping  8/8

3.95.1 clear winner for me
---

3) --preset standard
--wav vs. 3.90.3 (231kbit):
took long, long time to figure this out... slight unnatural hissing in encode. 13/16 (1.1% guess)

-wav vs. 3.95.1 (188kbit):
not hard to pick with the training from 3.90.3, slight unnatural sharpness. same as above  7/8 (3.5% guess)

-3.90.3 vs. 3.95.1:
7/8 (3.5%)... 3.95.1 sharp hissing seems a tiny little more obvious. I will dream of this sample tonight.

3.95 better at medium bitrates, --aps.. very hard.. numbers say 3.90.3 but wait for other opinions on that

Lame 3.95 vs 3.90.3

Reply #7
I used the Waiting sample using the --preset standard command line on both v3.90.3 and 3.95.1 - I found v3.95.1 to be slightly better than 3.90.3 - hard to ABX the two - had to rest, then I got it

ABC/HR Version 0.9b, 30 August 2002
Testname: Waiting --preset standard

1L = Z:\Music\Test Samples\3.90.3\Wavs\001 Waiting.wav
2R = Z:\Music\Test Samples\3.95\Wavs\001 Waiting.wav

---------------------------------------
General Comments:
Tested 3.5 to 5 sec
---------------------------------------
1L File: Z:\Music\Test Samples\3.90.3\Wavs\001 Waiting.wav
1L Rating: 4.4
1L Comment: Smearing, seems worse than sample 2, very close
---------------------------------------
2R File: Z:\Music\Test Samples\3.95\Wavs\001 Waiting.wav
2R Rating: 4.7
2R Comment: Smearing as well, not as bad as 1, not anoying
---------------------------------------
ABX Results:
Original vs Z:\Music\Test Samples\3.90.3\Wavs\001 Waiting.wav
    13 out of 14, pval < 0.001
Original vs Z:\Music\Test Samples\3.95\Wavs\001 Waiting.wav
    10 out of 10, pval < 0.001
Z:\Music\Test Samples\3.90.3\Wavs\001 Waiting.wav vs Z:\Music\Test Samples\3.95\Wavs\001 Waiting.wav
    34 out of 45, pval < 0.001

Lame 3.95 vs 3.90.3

Reply #8
ABC/HR Version 0.9b, 30 August 2002
Testname: Fatboy --preset standard

1L = Z:\Music\Test Samples\3.90.3\Wavs\Fatboy Audio Quality Test File.wav
2L = Z:\Music\Test Samples\3.95\Wavs\Fatboy Audio Quality Test File.wav

---------------------------------------
General Comments:
Very hard to call which encoder is really better at this sample - 1 seams to have problems with a sort of crackle, but 2 seems slightly distorted throughout - actually had trouble w/ 2 for a sec cause of room noise - i would call 2 the winner cause it doesnt seem as harsh as 1 does in places
---------------------------------------
1L File: Z:\Music\Test Samples\3.90.3\Wavs\Fatboy Audio Quality Test File.wav
1L Rating: 3.9
1L Comment: Slight crackle sound, not bad, close to origional
---------------------------------------
2L File: Z:\Music\Test Samples\3.95\Wavs\Fatboy Audio Quality Test File.wav
2L Rating: 4.3
2L Comment: Less distortion then 1, pre-echo, but no crackles
---------------------------------------
ABX Results:
Original vs Z:\Music\Test Samples\3.90.3\Wavs\Fatboy Audio Quality Test File.wav
    10 out of 10, pval < 0.001
Original vs Z:\Music\Test Samples\3.95\Wavs\Fatboy Audio Quality Test File.wav
    16 out of 18, pval < 0.001
Z:\Music\Test Samples\3.90.3\Wavs\Fatboy Audio Quality Test File.wav vs Z:\Music\Test Samples\3.95\Wavs\Fatboy Audio Quality Test File.wav
    10 out of 10, pval < 0.001

Lame 3.95 vs 3.90.3

Reply #9
Don't forget that there are 2 vbr modes

Lame 3.95 vs 3.90.3

Reply #10
from http://sound.media.mit.edu/mpeg4/audio/sqam/
harp40_1.wav (harpsichord)

1) --preset cbr 128
-wav vs. 3.90.3: obvious distortions, 8/8
-wav vs. 3.95.1: obvious distortions, 8/8
-3.90.3 vs. 3.95.1: unable to find diff, would be pure guess

2) --preset 160 (ABR)
-wav vs. 3.90.3 (144kbit): less annoying than 128k, still 8/8
-wav vs. 3.95.1 (145kbit): less annoying than 128k, still 8/8
-3.90.3 vs. 3.95.1: 3/8, pure guess

3) --preset medium (VBR)
-wav vs. 3.90.3 (134kbit): 8/8, obvious distortions like 128k
-wav vs. 3.95.1 (111kbit): 8/8, obvious distortions
-3.90.3 vs. 3.95.1: 2/8, both deliver equally bad results for that VBR preset

4) --preset standard
-wav vs. 3.90.3 (159kbit): 10/16, slight distortion at very first note, hard to find
-wav vs. 3.95.1 (144kbit): 16/16 yes..same as above, training from 3.90 helped finding it
-3.90.3 vs. 3.95.1: 10/10, 3.95.1 has slightly more annoying distortion

conclusion: If I was a Harpsichord fan I'd stay away from mp3 . But I dont even know what they look like.

edit:
5) --preset fast standard
-wav vs. 3.90.3 (159kbit): very easily noticeable background noise added during first sec, 8/8
-wav vs. 3.95.1 (165kbit): 15/20 something is not right about background noise during 1st second, hard to find
-3.90.3 vs. 3.95.1: 8/8, 3.90.3 sounds "dirty" during first second, 3.95 clearer

Lame 3.95 vs 3.90.3

Reply #11
v3.90.3 seems to edge out v3.95.1 in Waiting using --preset fast standard - read the comments below...

ABC/HR Version 0.9b, 30 August 2002
Testname: Waiting --preset fast standard

1R = Z:\Music\Test Samples\3.95.1 Fast.wav
2L = Z:\Music\Test Samples\3.90.3 Fast.wav

---------------------------------------
General Comments:
Neither clip sounds great, comparing the encoded files to the origional was easy with or without boosted trebble, 2 seems to have a slight edge
---------------------------------------
1R File: Z:\Music\Test Samples\3.95.1 Fast.wav
1R Rating: 4.3
1R Comment: Slightly worse than sample 2, suffers from a loss of high end - seems like background hiss is removed, smearing, sounds harsh in places, such as the during the "at all"
---------------------------------------
2L File: Z:\Music\Test Samples\3.90.3 Fast.wav
2L Rating: 4.6
2L Comment: Very slight loss of clarity, loss of "air" in the file - easy to tell w/ boosted trebble, the "for.....this....moment" part of the song sounds smeared
---------------------------------------
ABX Results:
Original vs Z:\Music\Test Samples\3.95.1 Fast.wav
    18 out of 21, pval < 0.001
Original vs Z:\Music\Test Samples\3.90.3 Fast.wav
    15 out of 18, pval = 0.004
Z:\Music\Test Samples\3.95.1 Fast.wav vs Z:\Music\Test Samples\3.90.3 Fast.wav
    13 out of 14, pval < 0.001

Lame 3.95 vs 3.90.3

Reply #12
LARGE difference in quality here - v3.90.3 has the clear advantage in this instance.

ABC/HR Version 0.9b, 30 August 2002
Testname: DaFunk --preset cbr 128

1L = Z:\Music\Test Samples\3.95.1 CBR 128.wav
2R = Z:\Music\Test Samples\3.90.3 CBR 128.wav

---------------------------------------
General Comments:
Very supprised between the large difference in qual between 1 and 2 here - 2 very close to the origional while 1 sounds distorted.
---------------------------------------
1L File: Z:\Music\Test Samples\3.95.1 CBR 128.wav
1L Rating: 3.2
1L Comment: Kind of ringing / warble in the background - anoying, much worse than sample 2
---------------------------------------
2R File: Z:\Music\Test Samples\3.90.3 CBR 128.wav
2R Rating: 4.2
2R Comment: Even at 128kbps this sounds decent - the warble that is present in 1 is almost completely absent - actually had to concentrate for a sec to ABX from the origional - crisper than 1
---------------------------------------
ABX Results:
Original vs Z:\Music\Test Samples\3.95.1 CBR 128.wav
    10 out of 10, pval < 0.001
Original vs Z:\Music\Test Samples\3.90.3 CBR 128.wav
    12 out of 12, pval < 0.001
Z:\Music\Test Samples\3.95.1 CBR 128.wav vs Z:\Music\Test Samples\3.90.3 CBR 128.wav
    13 out of 14, pval < 0.001

EDIT - Added encspot info - it seems that v3.95.1 uses many more short blocks than 3.90.3 (On this clip, 3.90.3 uses 7.9% short blocks while 3.95.1 uses 25.3%) - I have seen this in many other clips as well.


v3.90.3 --preset cbr 128[/u]

Bitrates:
----------------------------------------------------
128    ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||      99.9%
----------------------------------------------------

Type                : mpeg 1 layer III
Bitrate            : 127
Mode                : joint stereo
Frequency          : 44100 Hz
Frames              : 791
ID3v2 Size          : 0
First Frame Pos    : 0
Length              : 00:00:20
Max. Reservoir      : 486
Av. Reservoir      : 281
Emphasis            : none
Scalefac            : 37.4%
Bad Last Frame      : no
Encoder            : Lame 3.90

Lame Header:

Quality                : 58
Version String        : Lame 3.90
Tag Revision          : 0
VBR Method            : cbr
Lowpass Filter        : 17600
Psycho-acoustic Model  : nspsytune
Safe Joint Stereo      : no
nogap (continued)      : no
nogap (continuation)  : no
ATH Type              : 2
ABR Bitrate            : 128
Noise Shaping          : 2
Stereo Mode            : Joint Stereo
Unwise Settings Used  : no
Input Frequency        : 44.1kHz

v3.95.1 --preset cbr 128

Bitrates:
----------------------------------------------------
128    ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||      99.9%
----------------------------------------------------

Type                : mpeg 1 layer III
Bitrate            : 127
Mode                : joint stereo
Frequency          : 44100 Hz
Frames              : 791
ID3v2 Size          : 0
First Frame Pos    : 0
Length              : 00:00:20
Max. Reservoir      : 482
Av. Reservoir      : 175
Emphasis            : none
Scalefac            : 1.1%
Bad Last Frame      : no
Encoder            : Lame 3.95

Lame Header:

Quality                : 57
Version String        : Lame 3.95
Tag Revision          : 0
VBR Method            : cbr
Lowpass Filter        : 17500
Psycho-acoustic Model  : nspsytune
Safe Joint Stereo      : no
nogap (continued)      : no
nogap (continuation)  : no
ATH Type              : 4
ABR Bitrate            : 128
Noise Shaping          : 1
Stereo Mode            : Joint Stereo
Unwise Settings Used  : no
Input Frequency        : 44.1kHz

Lame 3.95 vs 3.90.3

Reply #13
If I'm reading these right, it would seem that 3.90.3 does better on some samples, with 3.95.1 doing better on others (when using APS).
flac>fb2k>kernel streaming>audiophile 2496>magni>dt990 pro

Lame 3.95 vs 3.90.3

Reply #14
Where can I download the DaFunk sample?


 

Lame 3.95 vs 3.90.3

Reply #16
Just tested the Layla sample at --preset cbr 128 :: v3.90.3 seems to be the distinct winner of this one as well - might try at --preset standard in a few min..... EDIT - tried and failed 

ABC/HR Version 0.9b, 30 August 2002
Testname: Layla --preset cbr 128

1R = Z:\Music\Test Samples\Layla 3.90.3 cbr 128.wav
2L = Z:\Music\Test Samples\Layla 3.95.1 cbr 128.wav

---------------------------------------
General Comments:
Started the ABX test focusing in the 3.5 - 5 sec area of the song, used it to compare the 2 files to the original (easy at 128kbps  Could not distinguish between the 2 mp3s in that area, focused on the 0-2 sec range and found a large difference.
---------------------------------------
1R File: Z:\Music\Test Samples\Layla 3.90.3 cbr 128.wav
1R Rating: 3.9
1R Comment: Does not exhibit the obvious under water sound of sample 2 in the 0-2 sec range, decent overall, rest of file sounds similar to 2
---------------------------------------
2L File: Z:\Music\Test Samples\Layla 3.95.1 cbr 128.wav
2L Rating: 3.0
2L Comment: Very bad under water sound from 0-2 sec, rest of file sounds less crisp than origional
---------------------------------------
ABX Results:
Original vs Z:\Music\Test Samples\Layla 3.90.3 cbr 128.wav
    10 out of 10, pval < 0.001
Original vs Z:\Music\Test Samples\Layla 3.95.1 cbr 128.wav
    13 out of 14, pval < 0.001
Z:\Music\Test Samples\Layla 3.90.3 cbr 128.wav vs Z:\Music\Test Samples\Layla 3.95.1 cbr 128.wav
    13 out of 14, pval < 0.001

Lame 3.95 vs 3.90.3

Reply #17
Hmm, is 3.95.1 generally worse at 128 kbps CBR? Viper, can you give 128 kbps ABR a try?

Lame 3.95 vs 3.90.3

Reply #18
Quote
Hmm, is 3.95.1 generally worse at 128 kbps CBR? Viper, can you give 128 kbps ABR a try?

Sure.... results are pretty much the same as CBR, except both clips sound better overall

ABC/HR Version 0.9b, 30 August 2002
Testname: Layla --preset 128 ABR

1R = Z:\Music\Test Samples\Layla 3.90.3 128kbps ABR.wav
2L = Z:\Music\Test Samples\Layla 3.95.1 128kbps ABR.wav

---------------------------------------
General Comments:
Sample 2 sounds distinctively worse in the 0-2 sec range, both samples sound better than CBR - would bet sample 2 is v3.95.1 (sounds similar to CBR)
---------------------------------------
1R File: Z:\Music\Test Samples\Layla 3.90.3 128kbps ABR.wav
1R Rating: 4.1
1R Comment: Not bad sounding, better than sample 2
---------------------------------------
2L File: Z:\Music\Test Samples\Layla 3.95.1 128kbps ABR.wav
2L Rating: 3.6
2L Comment: Warble in the 0-2 sec range, worse than sample 1
---------------------------------------
ABX Results:
Original vs Z:\Music\Test Samples\Layla 3.90.3 128kbps ABR.wav
    16 out of 18, pval < 0.001
Original vs Z:\Music\Test Samples\Layla 3.95.1 128kbps ABR.wav
    14 out of 15, pval < 0.001
Z:\Music\Test Samples\Layla 3.90.3 128kbps ABR.wav vs Z:\Music\Test Samples\Layla 3.95.1 128kbps ABR.wav
    12 out of 12, pval < 0.001

Lame 3.95 vs 3.90.3

Reply #19
Quote
conclusion: If I was a Harpsichord fan I'd stay away from mp3 . But I dont even know what they look like.


They look pretty elegant: 

http://www.henrylim.org/Harpsichord.html

Lame 3.95 vs 3.90.3

Reply #20
Tested the 41_30 sample with both encoders at --preset standard - I'll have to call this one a tie.

ABC/HR Version 0.9b, 30 August 2002
Testname: 41_30 --preset standard

1R = Z:\Music\Test Samples\3.95.1 41_30 --preset standard.wav
2R = Z:\Music\Test Samples\3.90.3 41_30 --preset standard.wav

---------------------------------------
General Comments:
Focused on the 0 - 2.3 sec range of this clip - both encoders suffer from smearing, but I can not ABX the difference between the 2 - I thought I could hear a difference at first, but couldnt ABX it - I'll have to call this one a tie
---------------------------------------
1R File: Z:\Music\Test Samples\3.95.1 41_30 --preset standard.wav
1R Rating: 4.5
1R Comment:
---------------------------------------
2R File: Z:\Music\Test Samples\3.90.3 41_30 --preset standard.wav
2R Rating: 4.5
2R Comment:
---------------------------------------
ABX Results:
Original vs Z:\Music\Test Samples\3.95.1 41_30 --preset standard.wav
    10 out of 10, pval < 0.001
Original vs Z:\Music\Test Samples\3.90.3 41_30 --preset standard.wav
    14 out of 15, pval < 0.001
Z:\Music\Test Samples\3.95.1 41_30 --preset standard.wav vs Z:\Music\Test Samples\3.90.3 41_30 --preset standard.wav
    15 out of 24, pval = 0.154

Lame 3.95 vs 3.90.3

Reply #21
Fresh new.
Heh, I like Pink Floyd - this one sound like a fragment of a piece from album "Saucerful of Secrets".
Highly psychedelic.

ABC/HR for Java Version 0.4b, 14 styczeń 2004
Testname: main_theme (preset standard)

1R = C:\Music\LAMEsamples\main_theme.3-90-3.mp3.wav
2R = C:\Music\LAMEsamples\main_theme.3-95-1.mp3.wav

---------------------------------------
General Comments: Well well, it seems that without Sensaura on (resamples -> 48 kHz) it is much easier to ABC/HR anything. I didn't even bother to ABX with it on.
---------------------------------------
1R File: C:\Music\LAMEsamples\main_theme.3-90-3.mp3.wav
1R Rating: 4.0
1R Comment: 5-7s: Sharper transition center->right, ABX vs orig is based sollely on this. Failure ABXing with 2 on that, but detected warbling in plates 3-5s
---------------------------------------

ABX Results:
Original vs C:\Music\LAMEsamples\main_theme.3-95-1.mp3.wav
    8 out of 17, pval = 0.685
Original vs C:\Music\LAMEsamples\main_theme.3-90-3.mp3.wav
    12 out of 16, pval = 0.038
C:\Music\LAMEsamples\main_theme.3-90-3.mp3.wav vs C:\Music\LAMEsamples\main_theme.3-95-1.mp3.wav
    18 out of 24, pval = 0.011
ruxvilti'a

Lame 3.95 vs 3.90.3

Reply #22
Quote
Fresh new.
Heh, I like Pink Floyd - this one sound like a fragment of a piece from album "Saucerful of Secrets".
Highly psychedelic.

ABC/HR for Java Version 0.4b, 14 styczeń 2004
Testname: main_theme (preset standard)

1R = C:\Music\LAMEsamples\main_theme.3-90-3.mp3.wav
2R = C:\Music\LAMEsamples\main_theme.3-95-1.mp3.wav

I took that sample from "More"

Lame 3.95 vs 3.90.3

Reply #23
so, from skimming over this thread, I'm guessing that 3.95 is a "meh" release since quality is more or less the same while file sizes have increased

Lame 3.95 vs 3.90.3

Reply #24
Quote
Quote

conclusion: If I was a Harpsichord fan I'd stay away from mp3 . But I dont even know what they look like.


They look pretty elegant: 

http://www.henrylim.org/Harpsichord.html

OT:
That Harpsichord is fake! Is made of LEGO pieces!
Although it does look like the real thing


On Topic:
I think that this version of LAME is not going to do very good on Roberto's test 
I'm the one in the picture, sitting on a giant cabbage in Mexico, circa 1978.
Reseñas de Rock en Español: www.estadogeneral.com

 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2021