Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: LAME 3.97 Stable (Read 22069 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

LAME 3.97 Stable

I'm posting this simply because activity seems to have ground to a halt at alpha 10.

Is there any active development currently going on?
Is there any meaningful testing/tuning currently under way?
Are we at all likely to see a stable release of 3.97 anytime soon?

Please revive my hopes if at all possible.

Regards,
Madrigal

LAME 3.97 Stable

Reply #1 –
Quote
I'm posting this simply because activity seems to have ground to a halt at alpha 10.

Is there any active development currently going on?
Is there any meaningful testing/tuning currently under way?
Are we at all likely to see a stable release of 3.97 anytime soon?

Please revive my hopes if at all possible.

Regards,
Madrigal
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=295560"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Alpha 10 was posted what, six weeks ago?

LAME 3.97 Stable

Reply #2 –
The best way to measure the development progress is looking at the CVS checkins mailing list

http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_id=33168

As you can notice, Takehiro is working furiously in what is to become Lame 4.


There are checkins by me too, but I only take care of the web pages really (my biggest recent contribution was cleaning the links page throughly, removing dead links and updating existing ones, as well as making the WYSIWYG-generated code more usable).

LAME 3.97 Stable

Reply #3 –
Quote
Alpha 10 was posted what, six weeks ago?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Fair enough, but how come there isn't a stable release of 3.97 yet, the latest being 3.97a10, when there are allready several alphas around the web from the 4.0 version?

Alpha version Lame 4.0a10
[a href="http://mitiok.free.fr/lame-4.0a10.zip]http://mitiok.free.fr/lame-4.0a10.zip[/url]

Alpha version Lame 4.0a14
http://www.rarewares.org/files/mp3/lame4.0a14.zip

This is a serious question, since I don't really know how the developement of open source projects works.

NB:
Alpha versions are test versions only. They are recommended for test purposes only, see thread:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=28125
I have no particular talent, I am merely inquisitive.  Albert Einstein

LAME 3.97 Stable

Reply #4 –
Quote
Fair enough, but how come there isn't a stable release of 3.97 yet, the latest being 3.97a10, when there are allready several alphas around the web from the 4.0 version?
Because they're not done with it yet. Neither is version 4 finished. Hence the alphas.
//From the barren lands of the Northsmen

LAME 3.97 Stable

Reply #5 –
I think this is because even LAME developers have something like a real life which is more important than typing and modifying C++ code

LAME 3.97 Stable

Reply #6 –
Quote
I think this is because even LAME developers have something like a real life which is more important than typing and modifying C++ code


How dare they!

It's a good sign that so many are so interested in 3.97. It should be well received and we all look forward to it.

LAME 3.97 Stable

Reply #7 –
I'm wondering when 4.0 comes out will that be tuned to the same degree as 3.96.1 and 3.97?

Or will tuning LAME 4 require a new effort (listening tests etc) because the code will be changed so much, removing a lot of limitations but altering the basic characteristic of the encoder?

In other words, will there be an on going comparison between 4.0 and the 3.9x branch, that will ultimately only be resolved say with a series of 4.x releases?

LAME 3.97 Stable

Reply #8 –
Quote
In other words, will there be an on going comparison between 4.0 and the 3.9x branch, that will ultimately only be resolved say with a series of 4.x releases?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=295643"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That seems very probable to me. Of course, there is the possibility, that the initial 4.0 performs so well that this will be resolved soon. From what i have read, the changes in 4.0 are very significant, so comparisions will probable happen. What seems most probable to me, is that 3.97 will become the "stable" variant while work is being done on 4.0 becoming "the next big thing". Someone more involved in lame may be able to clarify this.

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

LAME 3.97 Stable

Reply #9 –
Quote
I'm wondering when 4.0 comes out will that be tuned to the same degree as 3.96.1 and 3.97?

Or will tuning LAME 4 require a new effort (listening tests etc) because the code will be changed so much, removing a lot of limitations but altering the basic characteristic of the encoder?

In other words, will there be an on going comparison between 4.0 and the 3.9x branch, that will ultimately only be resolved say with a series of 4.x releases?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=295643"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


From what I read at lame-dev, it seems Lame 4 won't have the same quality as 3.9x series at launch time. But it'll be waaay faster (faster than 3.96.1 even) and much easier to tune. So while it won't have the same quality, quality is expected to progress quite quickly.

LAME 3.97 Stable

Reply #10 –
Quote
From what I read at lame-dev, it seems Lame 4 won't have the same quality as 3.9x series at launch time. But it'll be waaay faster (faster than 3.96.1 even) and much easier to tune. So while it won't have the same quality, quality is expected to progress quite quickly.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[a href="http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=29575&view=findpost&p=263440]Gabriel's post[/url] confirms that.  I'm sure Gabriel would say the same thing now??

LAME 3.97 Stable

Reply #11 –
Quote
There are checkins by me too, but I only take care of the web pages really (my biggest recent contribution was cleaning the links page throughly, removing dead links and updating existing ones, as well as making the WYSIWYG-generated code more usable).
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=295564"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The daily grind is hard work too. Your toils are appreciated RJ.

LAME 3.97 Stable

Reply #12 –
I don't really want to be a troll, but what is the reason for not contributing to an .mp4 encoder?
r3mix zealot.

LAME 3.97 Stable

Reply #13 –
I assume you mean AAC.

There are lots of people working in AAC at Nero and Apple. I don't understand your question.

LAME 3.97 Stable

Reply #14 –
Quote
I don't really want to be a troll, but what is the reason for not contributing to an .mp4 encoder?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=295709"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Probably because mp3 is much more popular than aac. LAME is currently more useful than faac.

LAME 3.97 Stable

Reply #15 –
Quote
Quote
Fair enough, but how come there isn't a stable release of 3.97 yet, the latest being 3.97a10, when there are allready several alphas around the web from the 4.0 version?
Because they're not done with it yet. Neither is version 4 finished. Hence the alphas.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=295586"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Nooo?!? Serious?? Ya think?? 

Ok, let me rephrase my question:

Why is there work being done on  a 4.x version (hence the alphas...  ), when there isn't a stable/final release of 3.97 yet?
Does this have to do with different teams of developers?
I have no particular talent, I am merely inquisitive.  Albert Einstein

LAME 3.97 Stable

Reply #16 –
Quote
Ok, let me rephrase my question:

Why is there work being done on  a 4.x version (hence the alphas...  ), when there isn't a stable/final release of 3.97 yet?
Does this have to do with different teams of developers?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=295789"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


To make things simple: Takehiro works on 4.0, Gabriel and Robert work on 3.x

So, yeah, you could consider them "different teams"

LAME 3.97 Stable

Reply #17 –
Quote
Quote
Ok, let me rephrase my question:

Why is there work being done on  a 4.x version (hence the alphas...  ), when there isn't a stable/final release of 3.97 yet?
Does this have to do with different teams of developers?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=295789"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


To make things simple: Takehiro works on 4.0, Gabriel and Robert work on 3.x

So, yeah, you could consider them "different teams"
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=295790"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Maybe I'm getting on your nerves now (don't mean to) but, why isn't Takehiro working on 3.97 together with Gabriel and Robert?
Or vice versa...., why not drop further developement of 3.97 and concentrate all efforts on 4.x?
I have no particular talent, I am merely inquisitive.  Albert Einstein

LAME 3.97 Stable

Reply #18 –
I guess one part of the long 3.97 alpha story is that the developers want to present a version that is accepted as the new 'recommended build' by everyone ... to succeed in that, 3.97 has to be 'better' than 3.90.3 in every aspect (encoding speed, filesize, preset transparency) which does need a lot of testing and fine-tuning (hence the large number of alphas). Maybe 3.97 will even be the last 3.x version.

Given the fact that 4.x is based on totally re-written code IIRC, we can expect 3.97 final to stick around a long time before there is a useable 4.x build to reliably encode your music with ... so personally I don't care if the developers take the time needed to present a flawless build.
The name was Plex The Ripper, not Jack The Ripper

LAME 3.97 Stable

Reply #19 –
Quote
Quote
Quote
Ok, let me rephrase my question:

Why is there work being done on  a 4.x version (hence the alphas...  ), when there isn't a stable/final release of 3.97 yet?
Does this have to do with different teams of developers?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=295789"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


To make things simple: Takehiro works on 4.0, Gabriel and Robert work on 3.x

So, yeah, you could consider them "different teams"
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=295790"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Maybe I'm getting on your nerves now (don't mean to) but, why isn't Takehiro working on 3.97 together with Gabriel and Robert?
Or vice versa...., why not drop further developement of 3.97 and concentrate all efforts on 4.x?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=295798"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Personally, I assume that the LAME devs are rational people and there are good reasons for why they are doing what they are doing, especially when the question you are asking has already been answered in the thread that is linked to by an earlier post in this one. 

As I understand it, 4.0 is a major rewrite of the LAME code and if they waited until the 3.9x was completely done, there would be a very long wait for 4.0.  At the same time, 3.9x has not been taken as far as it can go, and that is what the remaining tuning on 3.97 seeks to accomplish.  That way 3.97 can ultimately stand as a benchmark against which 4.0 can be measured.

LAME 3.97 Stable

Reply #20 –
I've just finished looking over this thread, and I'm not really sure if any of the original 3 questions has been answered or not.

Oh well ... (sigh) ...  I guess I'm just too impatient.

Regards,
Madrigal
 

LAME 3.97 Stable

Reply #21 –
Quote
and I'm not really sure if any of the original 3 questions has been answered or not.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=295890"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Sigh...

Quote
Is there any active development currently going on?


I told you to look at CVS activity. Development on Lame 4 is progressing very fast. Not as much on Lame 3.

Quote
Is there any meaningful testing/tuning currently under way?


None that I know of.

Quote
Are we at all likely to see a stable release of 3.97 anytime soon?[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=295560"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


It's ready when it's ready.

LAME 3.97 Stable

Reply #22 –
when should we expect LAME 4.0? Any quality differences besides the speed? When should we expect the LAME 3.97? And when should we expect HO.org to update their recommended encoder?

Thank you

LAME 3.97 Stable

Reply #23 –
As always in the long history of LAME, no release date is to be expected. Just be happy when the time has come

LAME 3.97 Stable

Reply #24 –
Quote
As always in the long history of LAME, no release date is to be expected. Just be happy when the time has come
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=295906"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


i know....but not even a rough guess? weeks? month(s)? year(s)?
 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2018