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: Upcoming changes to --dm-presets - Part 2. (Read 31134 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Upcoming changes to --dm-presets - Part 2.

Reply #25 –
No.  It should just work.  It's either an issue with your system or WinME.

Upcoming changes to --dm-presets - Part 2.

Reply #26 –
Where can I get the MSVC version?  I'd really like to test out the new preset.

mp3

Upcoming changes to --dm-presets - Part 2.

Reply #27 –
I'm cleaning up the rest of these changes (encapsulating experimental options in --dm-tune) to get ready to submit to CVS.  Then I'll try to compile an MSVC version.  I may have it ready tonight, but maybe not till the morning.  Soon anyway.

Upcoming changes to --dm-presets - Part 2.

Reply #28 –
Dibrom you never cease to amaze me!

I quickly tried the new compile and --alt-preset normal
sounds very good!!!

One question though...

Why the change from lowpass 19.5 to 19?

Its such a small change... but perhaps it decreases bitrate
for you by 10 kbps?

I am really impressed....

RD

PS I usually don't like to be divisive, but I hope this new preset,
which bears no one's name, is the final nail in the coffin of the preset known as "--r3mix"  Despite the claims of some, that preset has outlived its usefulness, has been the source of much flaming and pain, and is just a dead end for the lame community and its users...

Upcoming changes to --dm-presets - Part 2.

Reply #29 –
Quote
Originally posted by RD
Dibrom you never cease to amaze me!

I quickly tried the new compile and --alt-preset normal
sounds very good!!!


Good to hear

Quote
One question though...

Why the change from lowpass 19.5 to 19?

Its such a small change... but perhaps it decreases bitrate
for you by 10 kbps?


It does decrease bitrate slightly (I should measure this more accurately) and considering I am attempting to really be "efficient" with this profile, it kind of makes sense I think.  Also, considering the fact that I don't know many people (maybe only 1 that might detect this) who can detect a lowpass at 19 vs 19.5 in real music, I don't think it's such an issue really.  However, nothing is set and stone, and if someone can convince me otherwise, I'll change it back to 19.5.

Upcoming changes to --dm-presets - Part 2.

Reply #30 –
This is great stuff, Dibrom, as always.

Any sort of potential timetable for when the tweaks to --alt-preset high (so they'll perform better on impulses, whatnot, like normal does now) will be done?

Upcoming changes to --dm-presets - Part 2.

Reply #31 –
I probably won't get the high preset for a day or so.. it will require some more tuning and I think I'm going to take a little bit of a break first

Upcoming changes to --dm-presets - Part 2.

Reply #32 –
Damn!  It sucks being the only one here who can't seem to get it to work!  I tried it in dos and it gives me the same stackdump message.  I guess it must be my OS. 

Here is a copy of the error report:

Exception: STATUS_ILLEGAL_INSTRUCTION at eip=0040CCE3
eax=00000061 ebx=00000081 ecx=0040B1CA edx=00000000 esi=007EFD0E edi=6108BB67
ebp=007EEA3C esp=007EE8C4 program=C:LAME.EXE
cs=017F ds=0187 es=0187 fs=3E7F gs=0000 ss=0187
Stack trace:
Frame    Function  Args
007EEA3C  0040CCE3  (00A51F78, 00000005, 00A203E8, 007EEFFC)
007EFBCC  00402872  (00000005, 00A203E8, 00A20278, 00000000)
007EFD88  61003FA2  (00000000, 00000000, 4D088DCE, 00000002)
007EFDB8  610041B9  (0040260C, 00000000, 817CB9B0, 00000000)
007EFDD8  610041F8  (00000000, 00000000, FFFFFFFF, 817A4D3C)
007EFE08  004588C3  (0040260C, 007EFC8C, BFFBB490, 007EFF68)
007EFE38  0040103D  (00000000, 817A5074, 005E0000, 656D614C)
007EFF78  BFF7B9E4  (817CB964, 00000008, 817A5074, 00000000)
538673 [main] LAME 958005 handle_exceptions: Exception: STATUS_ACCESS_VIOLATION
539287 [main] LAME 958005 handle_exceptions: Error while dumping state (probably corrupted stack)

mp3

Upcoming changes to --dm-presets - Part 2.

Reply #33 –
It's not your OS, mp3fan.

I'm using WinME and a 1200 MHz Tbird Athlon.  Works for me.  Slow, freezes the system for a bit when initialising, but it works.

Upcoming changes to --dm-presets - Part 2.

Reply #34 –
It's probably the assembly stuff.  I'll compile a new version (with cygwin) without it in a few minutes.  It will be very very slow though.

Upcoming changes to --dm-presets - Part 2.

Reply #35 –
Seems to be a K6 issue, i just started up my K6 2+ 500  and this compile doesn´t work there, too.


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

Upcoming changes to --dm-presets - Part 2.

Reply #37 –
Hmm,

Same problem.  Some kind of error won't let it work. 

mp3

Upcoming changes to --dm-presets - Part 2.

Reply #38 –
I'm also having trouble, here's the error code:

C:>lame --alt-preset high track11.wav
      0 [main] LAME 521667 handle_exceptions: Exception: STATUS_ILLEGAL_INSTRUCTION
  2207 [main] LAME 521667 open_stackdumpfile: Dumping stack trace to LAME.EXE.stackdump

My system: 98SE, IP266MMX  (kinda ancient  ).

Upcoming changes to --dm-presets - Part 2.

Reply #39 –
Quote
Originally posted by TheBashar
I'm really tired and maybe I'm mistaken, but I could swear DB's original post with the links to the two compiles had exactly the same link for both the K6 and other.  Maybe that's why the K6 people are having trouble.

Yup there's a mistake there. Too bad I can't edit it. Correct link should be http://static.hydrogenaudio.org/extra/lame_dm_k6.zip

But it seems that there are more issues than that with the cygwin compiler, I guess it's best to wait for the MSVC compile.

Evaldas: are you using the correct compile? I'm using Win98SE with a P3-450, working ok (except for the error msg and lack of bitrate bars)

Upcoming changes to --dm-presets - Part 2.

Reply #40 –
I'm using correct compile - lame_dm.zip.
Actually, now I tried them both, but none of them is working. :confused:

cygwin1.dll is in the same directory as lame.exe. I even tried older version of cygwin1.dll 1.3.2.

Upcoming changes to --dm-presets - Part 2.

Reply #41 –
hmm.. i guess you have to wait then. BTW, you did copy the cygwin1.dll into the same directory as lame.exe did you?

Upcoming changes to --dm-presets - Part 2.

Reply #42 –
There is a new compile, Lame_alpha_20011111.zip,
available at
http://www.hot.ee/smpman/mp3/

BUT IT DOES NOT accept --alt-preset normal

I thought, however, Dibrom submitted everything to
sourceforge?

If someone who knows smpman could tell him about the
great new changes maybe we could get a nice fast working
encoder in a day or two...



Just a hope... a man can hope can't he?...

Upcoming changes to --dm-presets - Part 2.

Reply #43 –
Well I haven't submitted them yet actually.  I was still cleaning up the code last night and found a place where I might further still be able to increase quality (no promises).. so I decided to hold of a little longer.

Upcoming changes to --dm-presets - Part 2.

Reply #44 –
Well that is very understandable...
I am all for quality improvements!!

Have you implemented 50% of your ideas for -X9 or more? perhaps less?

What do we have to look forward to in the weeks ahead, quality wise? Or are your new goals -vbr mtrh? or has that been abandoned?

Sorry I'm so full of questions but you have resurrected the lame project so much that I, who was starting to sleep on lame, am now teeming with anticipation!!

Thanks again Dibrom!!!!

Upcoming changes to --dm-presets - Part 2.

Reply #45 –
Quote
Originally posted by RD
Have you implemented 50% of your ideas for -X9 or more? perhaps less?


Not really.  It's kind of backwards, but just doing some real fine tuning of the settings does most of what I was originally shooting for.. so only a few small things have been added from my original idea, but they pretty much have the same effect as I had hoped they would.

For that matter in the latest sources there is no -X9 anymore.  Instead I just built upon -X3 and enable the changes to it via an internal switch which the --alt-presets activate. 

Quote
What do we have to look forward to in the weeks ahead, quality wise? Or are your new goals -vbr mtrh? or has that been abandoned?


Well after I get some of this stuff a little more settled, I'm going to redo the high (standard) and extreme preset probably.  After that I'll be taking a break and working on something else for awhile.  I'll eventually look more at vbr-mtrh probably, but not immediately.

Upcoming changes to --dm-presets - Part 2.

Reply #46 –
No X9 anymore ??? :mad:

What do you want to archive whith this?

Do you want to force everybody to use the presets?

I am old enough to use a switch whenever i like it.

This is not the sense behind the lame thing.

I´m a bit angry about this, sorry.

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

Upcoming changes to --dm-presets - Part 2.

Reply #47 –
*Sigh*....

Let me try to explain something.  Maybe you will understand, maybe you will just think I'm sort of evil tyrant.  Whatever.

Anyway.. the reason I'm not using -X9 is because it will not work correctly[/b] with other switches.

To give an example when using -X9 I greatly increase masking on short blocks, so much that if you don't use the right switches with it you are going to get bitrates absolutely through the roof.  Second, another noise measuring mode is not needed.  You see the "9" there?  That should only be 1.

I'm not going to add another noise measuring mode then have to answer everyone's questions about why it doesn't behave this way or that way in a certain situation.

It is meant to be an internal switch

Look at nspsytune for example.  Do you chastise Naoki for encapsulating noise shaping 2 and maximum noise measuring within his switch?  Of course not.  But its easy to do so for me.. after all I'm some sort of evil tyrant communist who wants to take over the world with his presets and destroy the LAME project.  Right?

The reason this kind of preset has taken me so long is because it is extremely sensitive to tuning, you cannot just take one of the switches and modify it without breaking something or having a different effect.  That's why I'm encapsulating all of the experimental stuff in --dm-tune.

Before you look at me in the light that you apparently have, maybe you should ask yourself what you are doing directly for the project to increase quality and simplify things for people.

If you want to modify my presets, fine.. you can specify them and then add whatever you want afterwards.  I'm not going to be adding any more external switches for experimental options for anything I do though.  It's a bad idea to do this because it promotes the very behavior that I am trying to advocate against (too many experimental options).

Anyway, I'm tired of seeing crap like this.  If you don't like what I'm doing, fine don't use it.. I could care less.  I don't owe anyone anything, I work on LAME in my free time and I increase quality in a manner which most others don't bother to do.  This is valuable to some, but there are people out there that will always find something to complain about..

Upcoming changes to --dm-presets - Part 2.

Reply #48 –
I am just a bit unlucky cause the line i use X 9 with fitts perfectly, i think.

When X9 together with other switches cause problems - ok. thats another thing.

Myself isn´t in the position to tell you what you have to do.

Do whatever you like.

I won´t complain anymore.

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

Upcoming changes to --dm-presets - Part 2.

Reply #49 –
Are you sure about that?  Functionally X9 is going to be pretty much identical to X3, only even more powerful.

I'd suspect if you encoded more files you'd find the bitrate would increase by a huge amount.