HydrogenAudio

Lossy Audio Compression => MP3 => MP3 - General => Topic started by: AgentMil on 2001-12-22 04:51:06

Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: AgentMil on 2001-12-22 04:51:06
Are these the same as the LAME 3.90 Stable binaries?
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: Dibrom on 2001-12-22 04:52:43
Yes, except they are my own compiles.  They should be a bit faster than the "fast" compiles from Mitiok.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: Dibrom on 2001-12-22 06:01:26
Updated with even faster compiles.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: Enig on 2001-12-22 06:05:46
Dibrom, would you please offer a slow version compiled by MSVC which I and others may be happy to get because it produce a bit smaller MP3s.

Thank you in advance.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: Dibrom on 2001-12-22 06:17:53
OK, I'll have to upload these a little later though.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: jkml on 2001-12-22 08:01:00
Quote
Originally posted by Enig
Dibrom, would you please offer a slow version compiled by MSVC which I and others may be happy to get because it produce a bit smaller MP3s.


Does anyone know why the executables compiled with different compilers produce MP3's of different sizes?  Isn't the source code the same except compiler-specific optimizations? :confused:
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: superorc on 2001-12-22 08:43:31
each uses a different assembler to produce the files, and each one produces different output then another one. but i tried mitiok's and dibroms and noticed little i think mitioks might have been faster on my amd thunderbird 1.4 ghz but even then on --alt-preset insane i get like 7.2x realtime and around 4.5 realtime --alt-preset standard.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: Dibrom on 2001-12-22 08:51:27
Quote
Originally posted by superorc
but i tried mitiok's and dibroms and noticed little i think mitioks might have been faster on my amd thunderbird 1.4 ghz but even then on --alt-preset insane i get like 7.2x realtime and around 4.5 realtime --alt-preset standard.


Hrmm.. are you sure his was faster?  The things I changed should not have slowed down encoding.

Also, did you try the faster version?  That one should for sure be faster than his normal compile.  If it isn't, then something is wrong..

Make sure that when comparing speed you test on the exact same file with both compiles, some files will encode slower than others, especially with --alt-preset standard.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: john33 on 2001-12-22 11:36:07
The lame_enc.dll which has been provided by Dibrom is DLL3. The others are still available at rjamorim's site.

BTW, thanks for the 'blessing', Dibrom, I feel rather flattered!!

john33
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: jkml on 2001-12-22 14:03:30
Quote
Originally posted by superorc
each uses a different assembler to produce the files, and each one produces different output then another one. but i tried mitiok's and dibroms and noticed little i think mitioks might have been faster on my amd thunderbird 1.4 ghz but even then on --alt-preset insane i get like 7.2x realtime and around 4.5 realtime --alt-preset standard.


The executables will certainly be different, but, given the same wav file, they should produce identical MP3 files, right?  It is the algorithm that affects the output (e.g. size of the encoded MP3 files) and the implementation of that algorithm that affects the executable (speed and size of lame.exe itself).  So why does the MSVC-compiled lame.exe produce a smaller .mp3 file than the one produced by the ICL-compiled lame.exe??

:confused:
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: MaTTeR on 2001-12-22 15:52:56
Any chance this DLL has the new --alt-presets compiled in it? I don't mean to be pushy, just curious.

Happy Holidays!

EDIT-- Argh...just seen the fine print at the top about mapping the --alt-presets. Sorry.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: Dibrom on 2001-12-22 19:20:27
Quote
Originally posted by jkml
The executables will certainly be different, but, given the same wav file, they should produce identical MP3 files, right?  It is the algorithm that affects the output (e.g. size of the encoded MP3 files) and the implementation of that algorithm that affects the executable (speed and size of lame.exe itself).  So why does the MSVC-compiled lame.exe produce a smaller .mp3 file than the one produced by the ICL-compiled lame.exe??


A lot of the algorithms are purposely based on not absolutely precise math (floating point).  Mainly due to this, and issues such as rounding when converting from floating point to integers and the like, when compilers begin to aggressively optimize the code in favor of speed, certain differences can creep in.

In short, the code isn't as "precise" as you think it is, and certain compilers take advantage of this more than others.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: superorc on 2001-12-23 06:10:53
yes i used the exact same file. i didnt use the normal version i used the fast version and it was still slower.maybe it has to do with me not having SSE?
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: Dibrom on 2001-12-23 06:54:22
Quote
Originally posted by superorc
yes i used the exact same file. i didnt use the normal version i used the fast version and it was still slower.maybe it has to do with me not having SSE?


LAME doesn't make use of SSE, and the flags I use to compile with do not allow ICL to use SSE during vectorization either.

Can you give me some info on your system? And can you post some histograms of my compile vs the other one?  In the testing I have done, my compile is a bit faster and a few other people seem to have confirmed this also.

And to be sure, you are testing on the exact same file?

Unless Mitiok is doing something different with his new compile, I don't see how it is possible that my compile (especially the fast one) is actually slower.  If this is the case on your system though I'd be interested in more information.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: Dibrom on 2001-12-23 07:15:57
Here are some benchmarks of my "fast" compile vs the compile on Mitiok's page, run on a p2 300 laptop:

http://static.hydrogenaudio.org/extra/p2bench.txt (http://static.hydrogenaudio.org/extra/p2bench.txt)

Tomorrow I'll post some benchmarks from a p3 900, athlon 1.4ghz and a p4 1.7ghz as well.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: superorc on 2001-12-23 08:24:07
ok i guess im wrong. i benchmarked both, but instead of using one of those test clips i used Rammstein - Du Hast for the test song.

http://www.mycgiserver.com/~superorc/lame.txt (http://www.mycgiserver.com/~superorc/lame.txt)

heres my system info:

athlon 1.4 ghz tbird
1 gig ram
60 gig hd, and 20 gig both ntfs
win2k.

also do you know what mitiok uses for compiling??? the msvc or icl?
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: Dibrom on 2001-12-23 08:30:09
Thanks, that clears it up some

Mitiok uses ICL 4.5, same as me, I just use some slightly different compile time optimizations.  Produced files are bit identical though.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: AgentMil on 2001-12-23 08:32:31
On my computer using mitiok's compiles yield a speed of 3.4x (*approx. it goes up and down) and using Dibrom's compiles yielded a speed of 3.4~5x (*approx. it goes up and down).

Dibroms compiles are faster on my account by the 5% - 10% mentioned on an earlier post.

Also FYI "fast" version encoded files are a tiny,weeny, little bit bigger than slower compiles.

AgentMil
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: Dibrom on 2001-12-23 08:38:18
Quote
Originally posted by AgentMil
Also FYI "fast" version encoded files are a tiny,weeny, little bit bigger than slower compiles.


Hrmm.. are you sure?  They should be bit identical.  Is LAME reporting a different bitrate between the two?  Or are you looking purely at filesize?  More info would be cool
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: superorc on 2001-12-23 08:42:51
i will be compiling my own version of lame, but using whats normally used to compile lame in win32 and thats msvc + nasm. ill see how that goes and add it to my list.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: AgentMil on 2001-12-23 08:43:41
HEHE I meant ICL encoded binaries when compared with binaries compiled using a different compiler.

I compared 3 different compiles yours (Dibroms), Mitioks and www.mp3-tech.org (http://www.mp3-tech.org) compile.

Listed below are the speed in order of fastest to slowest:
1.) Dibrom
2.) mitioks
3.) www.mp3-tech.org (http://www.mp3-tech.org) (I only get 2.7X on this compile)

Listed below are bitrates in order of smallest to biggest:
1.) www.mp3-tech.org (http://www.mp3-tech.org)
2.) mitioks and dibrom

I hope this clears things up. 

AgentMil
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: Dibrom on 2001-12-23 08:45:47
AgentMil:

Ah, OK, I thought you meant going from my normal ICL compile to my "fast" compile.  There should be no bitrate difference there.  With MSVC compiles though, there is a slight difference.  MSVC is slightly smaller, and usually a fair deal slower.  I'll probably be putting an MSVC compile up before too long here..
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: AgentMil on 2001-12-23 08:52:03
It also seems that there is two different compiles of mitioks binaries.

I downloaded one from mitioks site as soon as it was available, and then today I decided to download it again (because it was not on my laptop, and was too lazy to boot up desktop to copy file), and then went to run, I noticed that the ")" at the end of the (www.mp3-dev.org (http://www.mp3-dev.org)) had reappeared in the "new" exe as in the first release exe the ) was missing, so I booted up my desktop and did fc/b on the two exe, and found that it was different.

Can anyone else verify this?

AgentMil
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: Dibrom on 2001-12-23 08:54:29
I updated my benchmarks with results from an MSVC compile (I'll be posting the MSVC compile shortly).

And yes, Mitiok updated the compile to add the ) back in.

EDIT:  Oops, forgot to run tests with "fast" standard.  I'll do that and add results in a few.

EDIT2:  "fast" standard results are now in.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: AgentMil on 2001-12-23 08:57:14
HEHE that is very funny, a whole new re compile because of a missing ). Guess it didn't look to good aesthetically with the missing ) .

Waiting for your MSVC version, so I can test it out.
Dibrom is it possible to upload test results as in a text file onto this forum?

AgentMil
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: Dibrom on 2001-12-23 08:59:30
Quote
Originally posted by AgentMil
Dibrom is it possible to upload test results as in a text file onto this forum?


Not at the moment since I have attachments disabled.  I'll probably be changing this soon.

For now, you can just paste your histogram in here and use the:

[code ][/ code] (no spaces in the brackets) to surround the text..

It should come out formatted correctly.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: superorc on 2001-12-23 09:21:57
hehe ok i guess im happy with 4.7x compared to .24 ;-)

EDIT: im not even concerned over disk usage esp. since i have 60 gigs free form 80 total ;-)

EDIT 2:hmm gcc for linux and msvc must be real similiar:
Code: [Select]
[root@192 root]# lame --alt-preset standard fatboy.wav fatboy.mp3

LAME version 3.90  ([url]http://www.mp3dev.org/[/url])

Using polyphase lowpass  filter, transition band: 18671 Hz - 19205 Hz

Encoding fatboy.wav to fatboy.mp3

Encoding as 44.1 kHz VBR(q=2) j-stereo MPEG-1 Layer III (ca. 7.3x) qval=2

   Frame          |  CPU time/estim | REAL time/estim | play/CPU |    ETA

  191/193    (99%)|    0:25/    0:25|    0:25/    0:25|   0.1993x|    0:00

32 [  1] *$<3>

128 [  6] %%%%*$<3>

160 [ 26] %%%%%%%%%%%%%%*****$<3>

192 [  9] %%%%***$<3>

224 [ 11] %*******$<3>

256 [ 49] %%**********************************$<3>

320 [ 91] %*****************************************************************$<3>

average: 263.3 kbps   LR: 33 (17.10%)   MS: 160 (82.90%)



Writing LAME Tag...done

[root@192 root]#
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: CiTay on 2001-12-23 15:09:39
Quote
Originally posted by AgentMil
It also seems that there is two different compiles of mitioks binaries.

I downloaded one from mitioks site as soon as it was available, and then today I decided to download it again (because it was not on my laptop, and was too lazy to boot up desktop to copy file), and then went to run, I noticed that the ")" at the end of the (www.mp3-dev.org (http://www.mp3-dev.org)) had reappeared in the "new" exe as in the first release exe the ) was missing, so I booted up my desktop and did fc/b on the two exe, and found that it was different.

Can anyone else verify this?



Hehe..

From the IRC channel:

Quote
[04:16] <@CiTay> hey mitiok, will you compile a "fast" version again? i really liked it
[04:17] <+mitiok> only in the future after most people donload lame
[04:17] <@CiTay> and why does it say "LAME version 3.90 MMX (http://www.mp3dev.org/ (http://www.mp3dev.org/)"
[04:17] <@CiTay> the ")" is missing, after (http://www.mp3dev.org/ (http://www.mp3dev.org/)
[04:17] <+mitiok> i.e. wait 1-2 weeks
[04:18] <@CiTay> ok, nice
[04:18] <+mitiok> dammed ) is missed
[04:18] <@CiTay> yea
[04:19] <+mitiok> should i recompile it?
[04:19] <@CiTay> with the ")"?
[04:19] <+mitiok> yeah
[04:19] <@CiTay> why not, it's not too late
[04:19] <+mitiok> ok

Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: Dibrom on 2001-12-24 02:17:35
Removed the "fast" compiles, since with the latest compile the normal versions were actually slightly faster.  For clarification, yes, that means that the new "normal" compile is faster than the old "fast" compile which was faster than the compiles on Mitiok's page.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: ff123 on 2001-12-24 03:10:06
Quote
For clarification, yes, that means that the new "normal" compile is faster than the old "fast" compile which was faster than the compiles on Mitiok's page.


Oh, that's clear as mud. 
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: Dibrom on 2001-12-24 03:11:47
Sorry.  Translation = "fast" compiles are no longer needed (at least for now).
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: Dibrom on 2001-12-26 15:24:09
Uploaded an MSVC compile of 3.90.2 due to popular request.  I do NOT recommend that people use this compile over the ICL compile though but they are now free to do so if they wish
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: Jens Rex on 2001-12-26 23:22:35
Quote
Originally posted by Dibrom
Uploaded an MSVC compile of 3.90.2 due to popular request.  I do NOT recommend that people use this compile over the ICL compile though but they are now free to do so if they wish :)


Isn't the only tradeoff size vs. speed?

I thought the MSVC was more accurate because of less aggressive optimizations. How could this ever yield lower quality MP3, compared to ICL.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: Dibrom on 2001-12-26 23:43:44
Quote
Originally posted by Zalkalin

Isn't the only tradeoff size vs. speed?


No.  This "tradeoff" is not implicit.

Quote
I thought the MSVC was more accurate because of less aggressive optimizations. How could this ever yield lower quality MP3, compared to ICL.


Once again, more accurate floating point precsion != better quality.  For that matter, its not always a matter of float precision, sometimes ICL just changes the way the compiler handles things such as casts and rounding which may not comply 100% to the C standard but will offer greater speed and will usually bring very similar results.

At any rate, this difference may soon be a non-issue as the cause of the bitrate difference may have been pinpointed (I need to test some more to be sure).
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: Dibrom on 2001-12-27 01:27:42
Just found some interesting stuff after a short discussion on the lame-dev...

I've recompiled my ICL build and turned off one of the flags that is normally defaulted on.  The results show that the compiled binaries are now extremely close in bitrate (often the same)  to MSVC.  Often times the new modified ICL compile very slightly differs in the bitrate histogram, but for the most part things are much closer and the speed hit isn't too bad.  I'll probably post this compile a little later for people to mess around with since it basically offers the lower bitrates than MSVC does but with the speed of the normal ICL compiles.

Some results:

--alt-preset standard:

Quote
[span style='font-size:9']
MSVC File1:

LAME version 3.90.2 MMX  (http://www.mp3dev.org/ (http://www.mp3dev.org/))
-- Compiled at http://www.hydrogenaudio.org (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org)
-- Check this website for up to date information on the --alt-presets

CPU features: i387, MMX (ASM used)
Using polyphase lowpass  filter, transition band: 18671 Hz - 19205 Hz
Encoding fatboy.wav to fatboy.mp3
Encoding as 44.1 kHz VBR(q=2) j-stereo MPEG-1 Layer III (ca. 7.3x) qval=2
    Frame          |  CPU time/estim | REAL time/estim | play/CPU |    ETA
   191/193    (99%)|    0:25/    0:26|    0:25/    0:26|   0.1935x|    0:00
32 [  1] *
128 [  6] %%%%*
160 [ 26] %%%%%%%%%%%%%%*****
192 [  9] %%%%***
224 [ 11] %*******
256 [ 49] %%**********************************
320 [ 91] %*****************************************************************
average: 263.3 kbps   LR: 33 (17.10%)   MS: 160 (82.90%)

Writing LAME Tag...done


Modified ICL File1:

LAME version 3.90.2 MMX  (http://www.mp3dev.org/ (http://www.mp3dev.org/))
-- Compiled at http://www.hydrogenaudio.org (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org)
-- Check this website for up to date information on the --alt-presets

CPU features: i387, MMX (ASM used)
Using polyphase lowpass  filter, transition band: 18671 Hz - 19205 Hz
Encoding fatboy.wav to fatboy.mp3
Encoding as 44.1 kHz VBR(q=2) j-stereo MPEG-1 Layer III (ca. 7.3x) qval=2
    Frame          |  CPU time/estim | REAL time/estim | play/CPU |    ETA
   191/193    (99%)|    0:20/    0:20|    0:20/    0:20|   0.2476x|    0:00
32 [  1] *
128 [  5] %%%%
160 [ 27] %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%****
192 [  8] %%%***
224 [ 12] %********
256 [ 50] %%***********************************
320 [ 90] %*****************************************************************
average: 263.3 kbps   LR: 33 (17.10%)   MS: 160 (82.90%)

Writing LAME Tag...done


ICL File1:

CPU features: i387, MMX (ASM used)
Using polyphase lowpass  filter, transition band: 18671 Hz - 19205 Hz
Encoding fatboy.wav to fatboy.mp3
Encoding as 44.1 kHz VBR(q=2) j-stereo MPEG-1 Layer III (ca. 7.4x) qval=2
    Frame          |  CPU time/estim | REAL time/estim | play/CPU |    ETA
   191/193    (99%)|    0:20/    0:20|    0:20/    0:20|   0.2527x|    0:00
32 [  1] *
128 [  2] %%
160 [ 24] %%%%%%%%%%********
192 [ 14] %%%%%%%%***
224 [ 13] %%********
256 [ 47] %%********************************
320 [ 92] ******************************************************************
average: 265.3 kbps   LR: 30 (15.54%)   MS: 163 (84.46%)

Writing LAME Tag...done[/span]

File1 (normal standard) = 22% faster than MSVC, 3% slower than Normal ICL compile



--alt-preset fast standard

Quote
[span style='font-size:9']
MSVC File1:

LAME version 3.90.2 MMX  (http://www.mp3dev.org/ (http://www.mp3dev.org/))
-- Compiled at http://www.hydrogenaudio.org (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org)
-- Check this website for up to date information on the --alt-presets

CPU features: i387, MMX (ASM used)
Using polyphase lowpass  filter, transition band: 18671 Hz - 19205 Hz
Encoding fatboy.wav to fatboy.mp3
Encoding as 44.1 kHz VBR(q=2) j-stereo MPEG-1 Layer III (ca. 7.3x) qval=2
    Frame          |  CPU time/estim | REAL time/estim | play/CPU |    ETA
   191/193    (99%)|    0:03/    0:03|    0:03/    0:03|   1.3956x|    0:00
32 [  1] *
128 [  4] %%%*
160 [ 22] %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%****
192 [ 21] %%%%%%%%%%%*******
224 [ 27] ***********************
256 [ 78] ******************************************************************
320 [ 40] %%%%%*****************************
average: 243.1 kbps   LR: 38 (19.69%)   MS: 155 (80.31%)

Writing LAME Tag...done


Modified ICL File1:

LAME version 3.90.2 MMX  (http://www.mp3dev.org/ (http://www.mp3dev.org/))
-- Compiled at http://www.hydrogenaudio.org (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org)
-- Check this website for up to date information on the --alt-presets

CPU features: i387, MMX (ASM used)
Using polyphase lowpass  filter, transition band: 18671 Hz - 19205 Hz
Encoding fatboy.wav to fatboy.mp3
Encoding as 44.1 kHz VBR(q=2) j-stereo MPEG-1 Layer III (ca. 7.3x) qval=2
    Frame          |  CPU time/estim | REAL time/estim | play/CPU |    ETA
   191/193    (99%)|    0:02/    0:02|    0:03/    0:03|   1.7005x|    0:00
32 [  1] *
128 [  4] %%%*
160 [ 22] %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%*****
192 [ 22] %%%%%%%%%%%%********
224 [ 28] *************************
256 [ 75] ******************************************************************
320 [ 41] %%%%%********************************
average: 242.9 kbps   LR: 38 (19.69%)   MS: 155 (80.31%)

Writing LAME Tag...done


ICL File1:

LAME version 3.90.2 MMX  (http://www.mp3dev.org/ (http://www.mp3dev.org/))
-- Compiled at http://www.hydrogenaudio.org (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org)
-- Check this website for up to date information on the --alt-presets

CPU features: i387, MMX (ASM used)
Using polyphase lowpass  filter, transition band: 18671 Hz - 19205 Hz
Encoding fatboy.wav to fatboy.mp3
Encoding as 44.1 kHz VBR(q=2) j-stereo MPEG-1 Layer III (ca. 7.4x) qval=2
    Frame          |  CPU time/estim | REAL time/estim | play/CPU |    ETA
   191/193    (99%)|    0:03/    0:03|    0:02/    0:02|   1.8527x|    0:00
32 [  1] *
128 [  3] %%*
160 [ 18] %%%%%%%%%********
192 [ 26] %%%%%%%%%%%%%%**********
224 [ 27] %************************
256 [ 74] %*****************************************************************
320 [ 44] %%%%************************************
average: 245.4 kbps   LR: 33 (17.10%)   MS: 160 (82.90%)


Writing LAME Tag...done[/span]

File1 (fast standard) = 18% faster than MSVC and 8% slower than Normal ICL compile



--alt-preset standard

Quote
[span style='font-size:9']
MSVC File2:

LAME version 3.90.2 MMX  (http://www.mp3dev.org/ (http://www.mp3dev.org/))
-- Compiled at http://www.hydrogenaudio.org (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org)
-- Check this website for up to date information on the --alt-presets

CPU features: i387, MMX (ASM used)
Using polyphase lowpass  filter, transition band: 18671 Hz - 19205 Hz
Encoding Andy McCoy-Mind Over Matter (clip).wav to andy.mp3
Encoding as 44.1 kHz VBR(q=2) j-stereo MPEG-1 Layer III (ca. 7.3x) qval=2
    Frame          |  CPU time/estim | REAL time/estim | play/CPU |    ETA
  4507/4510  (100%)|    2:22/    2:22|    2:22/    2:22|   0.8274x|    0:00
32 [   1] *
128 [  29] **
160 [ 204] %********
192 [ 503] %********************
224 [1332] %%%%%**************************************************
256 [1612] %%%%%%%%%%%*******************************************************
320 [ 829] %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%******************
average: 246.0 kbps   LR: 774 (17.16%)   MS: 3736 (82.84%)

Writing LAME Tag...done


Modified ICL File2:

LAME version 3.90.2 MMX  (http://www.mp3dev.org/ (http://www.mp3dev.org/))
-- Compiled at http://www.hydrogenaudio.org (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org)
-- Check this website for up to date information on the --alt-presets

CPU features: i387, MMX (ASM used)
Using polyphase lowpass  filter, transition band: 18671 Hz - 19205 Hz
Encoding Andy McCoy-Mind Over Matter (clip).wav to andy.mp3
Encoding as 44.1 kHz VBR(q=2) j-stereo MPEG-1 Layer III (ca. 7.3x) qval=2
    Frame          |  CPU time/estim | REAL time/estim | play/CPU |    ETA
  4507/4510  (100%)|    1:47/    1:47|    1:48/    1:48|   1.0951x|    0:00
32 [   1] *
128 [  29] **
160 [ 205] %********
192 [ 497] %********************
224 [1344] %%%%%***************************************************
256 [1604] %%%%%%%%%%%*******************************************************
320 [ 830] %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%*******************
average: 246.0 kbps   LR: 774 (17.16%)   MS: 3736 (82.84%)

Writing LAME Tag...done


ICL File2:

LAME version 3.90.2 MMX  (http://www.mp3dev.org/ (http://www.mp3dev.org/))
-- Compiled at http://www.hydrogenaudio.org (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org)
-- Check this website for up to date information on the --alt-presets

CPU features: i387, MMX (ASM used)
Using polyphase lowpass  filter, transition band: 18671 Hz - 19205 Hz
Encoding Andy McCoy-Mind Over Matter (clip).wav to andy.mp3
Encoding as 44.1 kHz VBR(q=2) j-stereo MPEG-1 Layer III (ca. 7.4x) qval=2
    Frame          |  CPU time/estim | REAL time/estim | play/CPU |    ETA
  4507/4510  (100%)|    1:42/    1:42|    1:42/    1:42|   1.1514x|    0:00
32 [   1] *
128 [  13] *
160 [ 165] %******
192 [ 404] %***************
224 [1156] %%%%****************************************
256 [1736] %%%%%%%%%*********************************************************
320 [1035] %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%**********************
average: 252.8 kbps   LR: 775 (17.18%)   MS: 3735 (82.82%)

Writing LAME Tag...done[/span]

File2 (normal standard) = 24% faster than MSVC, 5% slower than Normal ICL compile



--alt-preset fast standard

Quote
[span style='font-size:9']
MSVC File2:

LAME version 3.90.2 MMX  (http://www.mp3dev.org/ (http://www.mp3dev.org/))
-- Compiled at http://www.hydrogenaudio.org (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org)
-- Check this website for up to date information on the --alt-presets

CPU features: i387, MMX (ASM used)
Using polyphase lowpass  filter, transition band: 18671 Hz - 19205 Hz
Encoding Andy McCoy-Mind Over Matter (clip).wav to andy.mp3
Encoding as 44.1 kHz VBR(q=2) j-stereo MPEG-1 Layer III (ca. 7.3x) qval=2
    Frame          |  CPU time/estim | REAL time/estim | play/CPU |    ETA
  4507/4510  (100%)|    1:39/    1:39|    1:39/    1:39|   1.1803x|    0:00
32 [   1] *
128 [  85] ****
160 [ 389] %*****************
192 [ 933] %%****************************************
224 [1494] %%%%%%%***********************************************************
256 [ 995] %%%%%%%%%%%%%*******************************
320 [ 613] %%%%%%%%%%%%%%**************
average: 230.1 kbps   LR: 769 (17.05%)   MS: 3741 (82.95%)

Writing LAME Tag...done


Modified ICL File2:

LAME version 3.90.2 MMX  (http://www.mp3dev.org/ (http://www.mp3dev.org/))
-- Compiled at http://www.hydrogenaudio.org (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org)
-- Check this website for up to date information on the --alt-presets

CPU features: i387, MMX (ASM used)
Using polyphase lowpass  filter, transition band: 18671 Hz - 19205 Hz
Encoding Andy McCoy-Mind Over Matter (clip).wav to andy.mp3
Encoding as 44.1 kHz VBR(q=2) j-stereo MPEG-1 Layer III (ca. 7.3x) qval=2
    Frame          |  CPU time/estim | REAL time/estim | play/CPU |    ETA
  4507/4510  (100%)|    1:18/    1:18|    1:19/    1:19|   1.5034x|    0:00
32 [   1] *
128 [  85] ****
160 [ 390] %*****************
192 [ 942] %%*****************************************
224 [1478] %%%%%%%***********************************************************
256 [ 996] %%%%%%%%%%%%%********************************
320 [ 618] %%%%%%%%%%%%%%**************
average: 230.2 kbps   LR: 769 (17.05%)   MS: 3741 (82.95%)

Writing LAME Tag...done


LAME version 3.90.2 MMX  (http://www.mp3dev.org/ (http://www.mp3dev.org/))
-- Compiled at http://www.hydrogenaudio.org (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org)
-- Check this website for up to date information on the --alt-presets

CPU features: i387, MMX (ASM used)
Using polyphase lowpass  filter, transition band: 18671 Hz - 19205 Hz
Encoding Andy McCoy-Mind Over Matter (clip).wav to andy.mp3
Encoding as 44.1 kHz VBR(q=2) j-stereo MPEG-1 Layer III (ca. 7.4x) qval=2
    Frame          |  CPU time/estim | REAL time/estim | play/CPU |    ETA
  4507/4510  (100%)|    1:13/    1:13|    1:13/    1:13|   1.6138x|    0:00
32 [   1] *
128 [  61] ***
160 [ 351] ****************
192 [ 760] %%*********************************
224 [1467] %%%%%%************************************************************
256 [1144] %%%%%%%%%%%%****************************************
320 [ 726] %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%****************
average: 235.9 kbps   LR: 766 (16.98%)   MS: 3744 (83.02%)

Writing LAME Tag...done[/span]

File2 (fast standard) = 21% faster than MSVC, 7% slower than Normal ICL compile


Summary:

Code: [Select]
File1 (normal standard) = 22% faster than MSVC, 3% slower than Normal ICL compile

File2 (normal standard) = 24% faster than MSVC, 5% slower than Normal ICL compile



File1 (fast   standard) = 18% faster than MSVC, 8% slower than Normal ICL compile

File2 (fast   standard) = 21% faster than MSVC, 7% slower than Normal ICL compile



 Avg (normal standard) = 23% faster than MSVC, 4% slower than Normal ICL compile

 Avg (fast   standard) = 20% faster than MSVC, 8% slower than Normal ICL compile



           Overall Avg = 22% faster than MSVC, 6% slower than Normal ICL compile
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: Wombat on 2001-12-27 03:01:37
ok. When somebody has the "Song Of Sophia" from "Dead Can Dance", "A Passage in Time" it is worth comparing it!! I can´t upload anything and test at the moment - Sorry!

But this is a one that sounded bad without adding -b128 to preset standard. It added noise to some vocals. So i think it would be interesting to test a compile which even needs less bits.

Wombat
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: Dibrom on 2001-12-27 03:03:54
Quote
Originally posted by Wombat
ok. When somebody has the "Song Of Sophia" from "Dead Can Dance", "A Passage in Time" it is worth comparing it!! I can´t upload anything and test at the moment - Sorry!

But this is a one that sounded bad without adding -b128 to preset standard. It added noise to some vocals. So i think it would be interesting to test a compile which even needs less bits.


Very interesting..  Well I hope you can upload an LPAC from this sometime, then I'll certainly test it
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: Wombat on 2001-12-27 03:07:04
Are you in IRC? I will be able to be there in about 20 min.!?

Wombat
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: Dibrom on 2001-12-27 03:08:09
Yes I am.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: SNYder on 2001-12-27 03:38:57
kick ass!  YOU GOT THE ICL FILE SIZE DOWN!  Now there is no need for MSVC or for me to make my own gcc compiles.    YES!!!!!!

just make sure mitiok knows about this new found ICL change so his compiles will produce smaller files too.

WOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! /me does backflip!

p.s.  Dibrom.  You know how you were showing me where to get the official CVS site for the LAME source code?  Well, as I found HERE (http://www.mp3dev.org/mp3/download/download.html), under "latest versions/In tar.bz2 format", a link to this site...  ftp://cedric.vabo.cz/pub/linux/apps/lame/ (http://ftp://cedric.vabo.cz/pub/linux/apps/lame/)  ... with the latest source strait from cvs, packed into one nice little tar.bz2 file.  just to let you know, incase you didn't.

And here... http://lame.sourceforge.net/download/src/ (http://lame.sourceforge.net/download/src/) ... is the official place to get the source.  But everything is in rpm format.  Do you have any idea what the rpm format is? =
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: Dibrom on 2001-12-27 03:51:02
Quote
Originally posted by SNYder
kick ass!  YOU GOT THE ICL FILE SIZE DOWN!  Now there is no need for MSVC or for me to make my own gcc compiles.    YES!!!!!!


Hehe..

Quote
just make sure mitiok knows about this new found ICL change so his compiles will produce smaller files too.


Eh... don't think this is too likely to happen (/me vaguely refers to the crap going on at lame-dev)..

Quote
p.s.  Dibrom.  You know how you were showing me where to get the official CVS site for the LAME source code?  Well, as I found HERE (http://www.mp3dev.org/mp3/download/download.html), under "latest versions/In tar.bz2 format" is a link to this site...  ftp://cedric.vabo.cz/pub/linux/apps/lame/ (http://ftp://cedric.vabo.cz/pub/linux/apps/lame/)  ... with the latest source strait from cvs.   just to let you know.


Yes, this is where Mitiok gets his source from.  I prefer getting it straight from CVS though instead of going through someone else who also gets it from CVS

Quote
And here... http://lame.sourceforge.net/download/src/ (http://lame.sourceforge.net/download/src/) ... is the OFFICIAL place to get the source.  But everything is in rpm format.  Do you have any what the rpm format is? =


The problem is that this source isn't from CVS, it's only from official builds, so you can't really use it for testing much.  RPM is the Redhat (Linux) packaging format.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: SNYder on 2001-12-27 04:03:00
Quote
Originally posted by Dibrom
Eh... don't think this is too likely to happen (/me vaguely refers to the crap going on at lame-dev)...
Huh?

I believe you are refering to their bitching about you making a 3.90.2 and other junk that is making you consider forking lame.  Am I right?

If so, what does that have to do with Mitiok and him just changing one simple switch to make his compiles produce smaller files? =

you see, the reason I got so happy was because I thought Mitiok was going to be doing this thingy too... So I could just stop by his site and grap the latest compile when I need to make an mp3 for one of my artists mp3 sites and know they will be the same size as a MSVC or GCC compiled version.  But if he doesn't do it, then I'm still gonna have to compile my own because your not always gonna be making compiles available for download.  Only when you add stuff, or when there is an increase in quality.

In other words, I was happy because I knew that no matter when it was I needed to make and upload an mp3, I would be able to get the latest compile and do my thing.  Now, if the compile you have up isn't the latest, I'll have to make my own...  Sure the quality might not be different, but I'm pretty damn close to being obsesive compulsive about this type of thing  I need to use the latest version of everything (except Windows Media Player) or else I go INSANE!!!

Quote
Originally posted by Dibrom
Yes, this is where Mitiok gets his source from.  I prefer getting it straight from CVS though instead of going through someone else who also gets it from CVS
Well, I don't even know how to download the entire CVS thingy yet, so this is rather conventient.

Quote
Originally posted by Dibrom
The problem is that this source isn't from CVS, it's only from official builds, so you can't really use it for testing much.
I'm not sure I get what your saying.  Are they compiled by the LAME developers themselves (which would make the official ) or somthing?

Quote
Originally posted by Dibrom
RPM is the Redhat (Linux) packaging format.
oh.  well... redhat sucks!  Go Mandrake!
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: Dibrom on 2001-12-27 04:27:25
Quote
Originally posted by SNYder
Huh?

I believe you are refering to their bitching about you making a 3.90.2 and other junk that is making you consider forking lame.  Am I right?


Yes.

Quote
If so, what does that have to do with Mitiok and him just changing one simple switch to make his compiles produce smaller files? =


Umm.. because Mitiok is busy spending all of his time trolling me there.. heh.  After the initial discussion just died down, he decided to start a new thread about it again... argh.  At any rate, I have enough to worry about just trying to take care of the people on this site.. and especially with the circumstances, I have little desire to go out of my way to try and "suggest" this to such a person.

Quote
you see, the reason I got so happy was because I thought Mitiok was going to be doing this thingy too... So I could just stop by his site and grap the latest compile when I need to make an mp3 for one of my artists mp3 sites and know they will be the same size as a MSVC or GCC compiled version.  But if he doesn't do it, then I'm still gonna have to compile my own because your not always gonna be making compiles available for download.


Says who?

I'm going to be making compiles available for download from now on, and my compiles will be synchronized with any major quality developments also... so from that standpoint you'd be even safer to use mine.

Quote
Only when you add stuff, or when there is an increase in quality.


I'll be making compiles available that mirror improvements in functionality and quality.  Nightly compiles are not really necessary.

Quote
In other words, I was happy because I knew that no matter when it was I needed to make and upload an mp3, I would be able to get the latest compile and do my thing.  Now, if the compile you have up isn't the latest, I'll have to make my own...  Sure the quality might not be different, but I'm pretty damn close to being obsesive compulsive about this type of thing   I need to use the latest version of everything (except Windows Media Player) or else I go INSANE!!!


Well the sad fact of that matter is that Mitiok and I do not work together.  I thought we did, but he seems to have mood swings to where one day he'll link to my site and be more than happy to work with me, then the next day he won't like a revision number on my compile or something I say about quality so he'll remove it all again.. heh.

It seems the more I do with LAME, the more I end up having to rely on myself and the people that help me run this site because many others already established in the community end up having "issues" with something that I'm doing, whether it be improving a preset they think is pointless or providing a bug fixed compile so people can actually have a nice release for christmas and a relatively bug free 3.90 after nearly a year and a half.  Sometimes you just gotta wonder what the hell some people are thinking when they make such a fuss about what should be a good thing.

Quote
Well, I don't even know how to download the entire CVS thingy yet, so this is rather conventient.


CVS isn't hard to use really.  All you need is CVS.exe if you are on windows, and you just type in the exact command shown on the LAME CVS page.. it will checkout the LAME source and expand it in the directory you run the .exe from.

Quote
I'm not sure I get what your saying.  Are they compiled by the LAME developers themselves (which would make the official ) or somthing?


They are built and maintained by the developers, yes.

Quote
oh.   well... redhat sucks!  Go Mandrake!


Hehe.  Actually Mandrake uses RPMS also, but you probably knew that.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: Dibrom on 2001-12-27 04:30:20
Quote
Originally posted by SNYder
p.s.  Dibrom... Has your changes in 3.90.2 made it into the official lame source code yet?  like in this guys "ftp://cedric.vabo.cz/pub/linux/apps/lame/".


Yes.  It's in 3.91 CVS.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: Dibrom on 2001-12-27 07:13:45
Alright, Linux stuff was getting a little too far off topic, so I split it out and moved it to the off-topic section for further discussion
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: Jan on 2001-12-27 12:43:33
I don't know if this is in the right thread...

I know that the small mistake in alt-preset fast standard in 3.90 is gone in 3.90.2

What about alt-preset fast extreme? Is there a similar bug as in fast std?? Or was it only in fast standard???

Thanks in advance for your reply


And another thing: Since fast standard and fast extreme are equally speedy, is there a reason not to use fast extreme instead of fast standard despite of the space issue? I don't here differences (don't have the high-end equipment anyway).
Would you advise to use fast standard because it is maybe more tweaked or tested?
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: Dibrom on 2001-12-27 16:36:39
Quote
Originally posted by Jan
I don't know if this is in the right thread...

I know that the small mistake in alt-preset fast standard in 3.90 is gone in 3.90.2 

What about alt-preset fast extreme? Is there a similar bug as in fast std?? Or was it only
in fast standard???


I don't believe there was a similar bug in extreme, but if there was, it was fixes simultanoesly.

Quote
And another thing: Since fast standard and fast extreme are equally speedy, is there a reason not to use fast extreme instead of fast standard despite of the space issue?


No.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: SNYder on 2001-12-27 18:39:07
Quote
Originally posted by Dibrom
Well the sad fact of that matter is that Mitiok and I do not work together.  I thought we did, but he seems to have mood swings to where one day he'll link to my site and be more than happy to work with me, then the next day he won't like a revision number on my compile or something I say about quality so he'll remove it all again.. heh.

It seems the more I do with LAME, the more I end up having to rely on myself and the people that help me run this site because many others already established in the community end up having "issues" with something that I'm doing, whether it be improving a preset they think is pointless or providing a bug fixed compile so people can actually have a nice release for christmas and a relatively bug free 3.90 after nearly a year and a half.  Sometimes you just gotta wonder what the hell some people are thinking when they make such a fuss about what should be a good thing.
  well...  if that's how it has to be.  so be it.  you still got this community backing you up.

Quote
Originally posted by Dibrom
Says who?

I'm going to be making compiles available for download from now on, and my compiles will be synchronized with any major quality developments also... so from that standpoint you'd be even safer to use mine.

I'll be making compiles available that mirror improvements in functionality and quality.  Nightly compiles are not really necessary.
ah cool  glad to hear that
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: olcios on 2001-12-31 16:14:36
Quote
it basically offers the lower bitrates than MSVC does but with the speed of the normal ICL compiles.


Wow!
That's the best news I've heard since alt-presets were released!
Good work!
Could you specify what exactly is that flag you've changed? I'm very curious.

Maybe you should add a small note about that change to the main "List of recommended Lame compiles" post because otherwise some ppl will be downloading MSVC because they think it still produces 3% smaller files. Most ppl don't read replies to the "Recommended settings/compiles" posts and they may not notice that (IMO very significant) change.
Just to be sure, you've already upgraded the links with the modified versions of compiles, right?

Quote
Well the sad fact of that matter is that Mitiok and I do not work together. I thought we did, but he seems to have mood swings to where one day he'll link to my site and be more than happy to work with me, then the next day he won't like a revision number on my compile or something I say about quality so he'll remove it all again.. heh.


I'm very sad to hear that.
It would suck if because of stuff like that he didn't change the settings for his compiles. I don't want the Lame project to be affected by issues like that. Is there anything we can do about that?
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: Dibrom on 2001-12-31 21:16:52
Quote
Originally posted by olcios
Could you specify what exactly is that flag you've changed? I'm very curious.


/QIfist and/or /Qrcd

Quote
Maybe you should add a small note about that change to the main "List of recommended Lame compiles" post because otherwise some ppl will be downloading MSVC because they think it still produces 3% smaller files.


I'll be completely removing the MSVC compile soon so that should take care of the issue.  I may still add a note of some sort though, we'll see.

Quote
Just to be sure, you've already upgraded the links with the modified versions of compiles, right?


Nope, I haven't had time in the last few days since I've been moving.  I only have limited computer and internet access at the moment so I won't be able to fix this until I compile 3.91 (which is taking a bit longer due to a few decisions I recently made which I'll specify shortly).

Quote
I don't want the Lame project to be affected by issues like that. Is there anything we can do about that?


Not really..  but LAME being Open Source, we have the power to do what we think needs to be done on our own regardless of what other people are not doing when they should be.  Sometimes we take some flack over this (think 3.90.2) though, but as long as progress is being made and the actual "users" are made happy by these actions...

I'm going to just keep doing what I do now.  That is, work on this website, continue to work on the Tools sphoid and I have mentioned on occasion (we may see the first part released pretty soon here now..) and work on LAME.  I don't really have the time, energy, or desire to worry about what other people are doing or not doing anymore at this point.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: Dologan on 2002-01-05 19:32:08
Quick question: Is Lame 3.90.2-ICL still recommended over the official Lame 3.91?
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: Madrigal on 2002-01-06 03:50:58
Dologan,

Quick answer:

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/showth...s=&threadid=673 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=673)

Regards,
Madrigal
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: Dibrom on 2002-01-09 07:15:29
Sorry for letting the compiles slide everyone.. I've been without a usable connection since I recently moved about 2 weeks ago.  I'm planning to update the compile here soon, implementing the modifications I mentioned above which bring the ICL binary's bitrate closer to the MSVC binary's bitrate.  Sphoid and I are also working on another nifty LAME related project which pertains to the compiles HydrogenAudio will distribute.  Maybe I can post a screenshot of it soon
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: feckn_eejit on 2002-01-09 07:23:38
Dibrom,

In your opinion, from a pure quality standpoint, is it worth it to wait for your next compile to update all my MP3's to your --alt-preset insane?

I've been waiting for you to release a 3.91 compile, but I've learned that 3.91 is just a bugfix for your --alt-preset-standard, so I could just use 3.90.2... or do you have some other extra goodies planned to increase sound quality in your next compile?

Thank you infinitely for your efforts to improve MP3 encoding quality, it has been greatly useful to me.

--jeff
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: Dibrom on 2002-01-09 07:33:43
feckn_eejit:

No increases for sound quality will be in my 3.91 compile at this time, so 3.90.2 would work fine in that regard.  At some point I will try to improve quality some more, but even then it won't be in the "insane" mode, at least for awhile.  I still have to work on the ABR/CBR modes some more.

As for the other project I mentioned, it is only related to usability improvements and will provide no difference in the encoded mp3s at all.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: feckn_eejit on 2002-01-09 07:46:55
Thanks for the speedy reply!

I will use 3.90.2.

--jeff
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: olcios on 2002-01-18 19:27:25
Hi Dibrom,

I had an interesting conversation with mitiok about different compiles recently, and he sent me an excerpt from ICL guide:

Quote
The Intel compiler uses the -Qrcd option to improve the performance of code that requires floating-point-to-integer conversions. The optimization is obtained by controlling the change of the rounding mode.

The system default floating point rounding mode is round-to-nearest. This means that values are rounded during floating point calculations. However, the C language requires floating point values to be truncated when a conversion to an integer is involved. To do this, the compiler must change the rounding mode to truncation before each floating point-to-integer conversion and change it back afterwards.

The -Qrcd option disables the change to truncation of the rounding mode for all floating point calculations, including floating point-to-integer conversions. Turning on this option can improve performance, but floating point conversions to integer will not conform to C semantics.
=========================


Therefore: ICL is MORE accurate than MSVC. Because rounding-to-nearest is more 'accurate' than truncating.
As far as I remember, some time ago someone suggested that MSVC is more accurate.
You probably know all this, but I thought it would be appropriate to state all this clearly on this forum.

Of course, you may consider this irrelevant, because you once argued that more-accurate-arithmetics!=better-quality

The reason why mitiok is not going to change his compile, sounds very reasonable to me: he is making "default" Lame compiles, and the /QIfist (= /Qrcd) option is included in Makefile.MSVC, indeed. This file is a part of original Lame sourcecode. (to avoid misunderstanding: yes, Makefile.MSVC contains sections for both MSVC and ICL compilers)
(EDIT: I think I didn't write it clear enough here: mitiok and smpman both use ICL 4.5 compiler with default settings. The default settings for ICL 4.5 are: 'round-to-nearest'. Dibrom recommends ICL as well, though he considers changing the settings to 'truncate'. All settings are set in Makefile.MSVC)

My suggestion is that You, Dibrom talked to _all_ the Lame developers to decide which version (with or without /QIfist) should be defaulted in Makefile.MSVC .
As mitiok told me, some of developers disagree with You, Dibrom, that more-accurate-arithmetics!=better-quality.
If you're sure, that disabling this switch is a wise thing to do - convince them.
Instead of making a non-default compile, try a compromise with them, and then use the default options (or maybe make 2 sections: recommended and unrecommended in Makefile.MSVC...?) and everyone will be happy.

I hope it makes sense to solve this problem this way:)

Oh, btw, smpman promised to add the modified ICL compile of Lame 3.91stable to his site, but not of the alpha versions.

Regards,
Olcios
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: 11beats on 2002-01-22 16:04:10
quote:

The -Qrcd option disables the change to truncation of the rounding mode for all floating point calculations, including floating point-to-integer conversions. Turning on this option can improve performance, but floating point conversions to integer will not conform to C semantics.
=========================

Therefore: ICL is MORE accurate than MSVC. Because rounding-to-nearest is more 'accurate' than truncating.
As far as I remember, some time ago someone suggested that MSVC is more accurate.
----------------------

Olios,

if the code does not perform in the way it is intended by the programmer (and the ANSI C standard) you can't call this code "more accurate". It might work but there are risks that it has side effects.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: john33 on 2002-01-22 17:38:06
Surely if the original author of the code was looking for rounding to nearest, they would have added 0.5 to floats(etc) and truncated - same difference?

john33
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: 11beats on 2002-01-22 20:17:03
quote:

Surely if the original author of the code was looking for rounding to nearest, they would have added 0.5 to floats(etc) and truncated - same difference?
--------------------------------------

Hi john33,

C-like fp to int conversion ( var_int = (int) var_double ) uses rounding toward zero ( 1.6 -> 1; -1.3 -> -1 ); the addition of a constant positive offset creates new problems ( (1.6 +.5) -> 2; (-1.3 +.5) -> 0 ) but does not give the same results as rounding to nearest.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: RD on 2002-01-23 22:30:12
I wonder how much we are splitting hairs now....

I believe Dibrom when he says he heard a sample that was better with ICL than with mitioks compile... but  if it only helps 0.5% of ifles out ( 1 out of 200) is it really a big deal...

The problem I have is my ignorance about this stuff... am I underestimating the benefit of ICL compiles...?

Any further commentary by Dibrom or others would be appreciated....
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: olcios on 2002-01-24 02:58:05
Quote
I believe Dibrom when he says he heard a sample that was better with ICL than mitioks


No! He was saying that the default ('round-to-nearest') ICL compile sounds better than MSVC compile ('truncate') on file fatboy.wav. Mitiok and smpman and Dibrom's (current, 2002-01-24) compile are ALL default ICL 4.5 . So they are ALL BETTER than MSVC in terms of quality. And they all produce 3% larger file than MSVC.

Dibrom is considering changing a switch in ICL so that it will produce the same filesizes as MSVC. The quality would be affected than - would be a little worse on fatboy.wav .

BTW, Dibrom, please state it clearly, did you test the modified ICL on fatboy.wav, and does it work on it just like MSVC does or maybe somehow, miraculously, the quality is as high as with default ICL, while the filesizes are the same as with MSVC?

Quote
Surely if the original author of the code was looking for rounding to nearest

That is the question. What was the developer looking for? Mitiok suggested it might be a problem in nspsytune which causes so large differences between compiles. ....I don't know why he thinks that nspsytune and not something else....Naoki is the author of nspsytune.....

BTW, fatboy.wav is the only file on which anyone have ever reported any difference between compiles. Maybe conducting some hearing tests on various files would be a wise thing to do now?

Olcios
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: Madrigal on 2002-01-24 15:08:07
Quote
Originally posted by olcios
...Dibrom's (current, 2002-01-24) compile...
olcios (or anybody),
Could you please supply a link as to where this compile may be obtained?  Or are you simply referring to 3.90.2, and saying that it is still "current"?  Thanks.

Regards,
Madrigal
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: john33 on 2002-01-24 16:12:36
If I remember correctly, after some argument with the lame dev people, Dibrom's 3.90.2 became 3.91. In other words, they're the same thing.

john33
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: Madrigal on 2002-01-24 21:57:45
Quote
Originally posted by john33
...Dibrom's 3.90.2 became 3.91. In other words, they're the same thing.
Ok, thanks for the quick reply.  I was hoping Dibrom had gotten around to compiling 3.91, as he still plans to do (see earlier in this thread), with some non-qualitative improvements, especially since 3.92 alpha 1 is already being offered at Dmitry's site.  Guess I'll just have to be patient, and wait till it shows up at the start of this thread.

Regards,
Madrigal
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: Dibrom on 2002-01-24 22:29:19
Ok, to respond and try to clarify a few points:

1.  3.91 and 3.90.2 are indeed the same thing.

2.  I will be providing a 3.91 compile in the future, just not sure when yet.  I need to reinstall and setup my C development stuff for this.

3.  About the ICL vs MSVC thing, well it's hard to say which is more accurate.  I tend to say ICL is less accurate because the switch in question will not confirm to standardized C conventions, but its a matter of semantics perhaps.  At any rate, on one file I have heard a difference, and this was fatboy.wav as stated earlier.

4.  I don't believe I have tested the ICL compile in which I have come closer to the MSVC bitrates to see if it had the same problem.  I actually don't remember because I found this out right before I moved and a lot of things where going on.  I do know that the files are not always bit identical, but they are usually within a 1kbps or so of eachother.  So it is possible that the ICL compile even with this modification could still sound better,  I'm not really sure.  One thing is for certain though, the difference is pretty small and it's only on one file that I know of so far.

5.  About mitiok and the lame-dev and standardizing LAME compiles.  I'm not sure I want to take part in this, the reasons are stated in other areas for those who may not be aware.  I have little desire to try and convince anyone on the lame-dev, or especially mitiok, of anything because IMO (and experience) it is mostly an excercise in frustration and futility.  Instead of wasting valuable time with this approach, I'd rather be working on something (or releasing something) directly.

Now, this isn't to say I'm not willing to work with others, I certainly am... but I have tried this road with 3.90.2 and it was not particularly pleasant.  This coupled with my lack of time these days, even to deal with this site to my satisfaction, just makes this seem like an unwise idea.

What I suggest to Olcios is that if you have a very high interest in seeing this happen, that you instead ask others to come here and try to work with me for a change instead of the other way around.

6.  I don't think there is a "problem" with the nspsytune code .  I tend to doubt this because on non-icl compiles it produces bit identical results (MSVC and gcc).  I believe I've seen Mitiok state that he doesn't believe in nspsytune (for whatever reason) so that could be why he says this.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: Delirium on 2002-01-24 22:51:41
Quote
Originally posted by Dibrom
2.  I will be providing a 3.91 compile in the future, just not sure when yet.  I need to reinstall and setup my C development stuff for this.
Just to make sure, until you release your compiles is it okay to use Mitiok's 3.91 compile?  Is there anything problematic with his compiles, or is it just that they're a few percent slower than the ones you had been making?
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: Dibrom on 2002-01-24 22:55:23
Quote
Originally posted by Delirium
Just to make sure, until you release your compiles is it okay to use Mitiok's 3.91 compile?  Is there anything problematic with his compiles, or is it just that they're a few percent slower than the ones you had been making?


Yes, they should be fine for use, and the only real difference should be encoding speed.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: olcios on 2002-01-27 18:38:51
Thanx for your reply, Dibrom.

Quote
[comparing MSVC and 'modified' ICL]I do know that the files are not always bit identical, but they are usually within a 1kbps or so of eachother.

Does anyone have any idea what causes this difference? In other words: there must be another switch in ICL which is default for this compiler and is not ANSI. What is it?

Quote
So it is possible that the ICL compile even with this modification could still sound better, I'm not really sure.

Yeah, I would really like to know it. Now if only someone who has ICL compiler could test it. (comparing to ppl on this board I'm deaf, so I won't even try. Not mentioning that my old comp is too slow to encode)

Quote
What I suggest to Olcios is that if you have a very high interest in seeing this happen, that you instead ask others to come here and try to work with me for a change instead of the other way around.

As for lame-dev, i'll be mailing them next week or later when my exam session ends. I'll present some questions to certain programmers and authors of the makefiles. It may clear up some issues which depend on the intentions of the programmers.

I wonder in which part of the code the float->int conversions occur...how to find them? Maybe it is possible to turn on warnings whenever they occur and localize them that way?

Olcios
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: Dibrom on 2002-01-27 21:09:24
Quote
Originally posted by olcios
Does anyone have any idea what causes this difference? In other words: there must be another switch in ICL which is default for this compiler and is not ANSI. What is it?


I'm not sure.  I haven't had the time to track it down.  However, whatever it is, its probably not an issue, especially if it will further reduce speed.  Often times the bitrate is the same, just on occassion it can very by .1 - 1.0 kbps. 

Quote
I wonder in which part of the code the float->int conversions occur...how to find them? Maybe it is possible to turn on warnings whenever they occur and localize them that way?


I don't think this will help.  Alexander said he was working with this approach awhile ago, but then at some point Mark cleaned up the code and used proper casting to where the majority of warnings disappeared.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: fewtch on 2002-02-20 18:20:14
Any progress in the past month on a newer compile, Dibrom?

I'm not pushing BTW, just curious... please take your time, the current 3.91 is working just fine here (and the improvements are appreciated).
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: Dibrom on 2002-02-20 18:45:32
Quote
Originally posted by fewtch
Any progress in the past month on a newer compile, Dibrom?


Well, I'm working on the ABR stuff again and making progress, but there's a few areas that need work and so I'm holding off on release until I can get things working better in all situations (the enhanced abr modes don't work so well at lower bitrates and need more tuning..).

I've started looking at --alt-preset standard again in an attempt to address the 3 or so samples were it could use a little work.  At least one of the clips is an actual fault in vbr-old I've determined and is completely unrelated to gpsycho or nspsytune or any of my tunings (the dogwhistle clip).. so this one might take a bit of work.  Wombat's samples are simply a matter of tuning I think, and I suspect JohnV's vangelis clip is probably similar.

Quote
I'm not pushing BTW, just curious... please take your time, the current 3.91 is working just fine here (and the improvements are appreciated).


Rest assured I'll let everyone know when I've made some release worthy improvements  I've just been rather busy lately, so I haven't had much time to work on LAME.

The current state of quality though is really pretty high for MP3, and the cases where it doesn't sound perfect usually don't sound that bad (meaning still better than most modes in most mp3 encoders), in addition to the fact that these cases are much lower in frequency apparently than with other encoders/modes.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: kjempen on 2002-02-20 20:08:14
If my memory serves me right there's a new nspsytune in the LAME alphas, will this be utilized in your new tunings? Or is the new nspsytune considered too experimental?
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: Dibrom on 2002-02-21 09:41:30
Quote
Originally posted by kjempen
If my memory serves me right there's a new nspsytune in the LAME alphas, will this be utilized in your new tunings? Or is the new nspsytune considered too experimental?


For starters, nspsytune2 isn't practical to use in a "recommended" build because it requires 2 passes and an external program to be used, not to mention that even according to Naoki it's still very early and needs more tuning.

I think it will be a ways off before nspsytune2 is ready for "production" use so I wouldn't expect to see it in the alt-presets in the very near future.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: fewtch on 2002-04-17 13:19:58
Any changes in recommendations now that 3.92 is out?  Technically at least, 3.90.x is two (minor) versions behind the current release.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: Kblood on 2002-04-17 14:11:30
Quote
Originally posted by Dibrom
For starters, nspsytune2 isn't practical to use in a "recommended" build because it requires 2 passes and an external program to be used, not to mention that even according to Naoki it's still very early and needs more tuning.


Does this mean that it might (finally!! ) bring along a 2-pass vbr mp3 encoding tool? That would be great!!!
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: tangent on 2002-04-17 15:50:37
No, it's not a 2-pass VBR.
With nspsytune2, the first pass calculates tonality estimation, while in the second pass, the tonality estimation calculation is applied to the masking spread function. Or something like that, don't take my word for it.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: JohnV on 2002-04-17 16:18:02
Not 100% sure but I think even bigger reason for nspsy2's 2-pass is the new 4096 point hybrid FIR/FFT filter used by psychoacoustics.
Without nspsy2 Lame's psychoacoustics (both gpsycho and nspsytune) uses the normal 1024 point FFT.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: goweropolis on 2002-04-17 18:48:53
I'd like to suggest that a link to the latest LAME compiles could be maintained in the download section of the site. For those people who don't visit the site daily and aren't familiar with all the technical updates, a one stop link would be a good way for less knowledgable users to stay up to date.

Otherwise, if there are links to recommended compiles of LAME 3.92, could someone please post them.

Thanks,

Andy
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: rjamorim on 2002-04-17 20:17:48
It will be done as soon as the new site design is complete. Which should happen quite soon.

Regards;

Roberto.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: fewtch on 2002-04-19 22:29:32
"Real soon now," i like that phrase :listening
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: Xenion on 2002-05-23 19:48:50
http://www.audiograbber.de/redir/?l=lame_exe (http://www.audiograbber.de/redir/?l=lame_exe)

or http://www.hot.ee/smpman/mp3/ (http://www.hot.ee/smpman/mp3/)
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: sneaker on 2002-05-26 19:59:02
Does anyone know a lame dll version 3.92 or later which can be used with EAC and the alt preset system. I want to use --alt-preset fast standard
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: Jan S. on 2002-05-26 20:15:36
You don't need to have the dll version.
Just use the exe for EAC.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: sneaker on 2002-05-26 20:23:04
I know, but i find using a DLL is more comfortable, because i can see the status of the encoding in EAC without an extra window.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: rjamorim on 2002-05-26 20:30:54
You can use CDex as ripper, then. It uses the DLL.

www.cdex.n3.net (http://www.cdex.n3.net)

Regards;

Roberto.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: sneaker on 2002-05-26 20:52:57
I only use EAC and don't want to change....

Perhabs in the future the --alt-presets can be used in EAC?

Altough, thank for your fast answers!
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: Shiki on 2002-05-27 08:41:46
I thought if you use the configuration wizard of EAC to set up lame.exe, it automatically uses --alt-preset standard already?
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: Jan S. on 2002-05-27 10:16:43
the alt presets CAN be used in EAC!!!
in the compression settings dialog you just choose "LAME mp3 encoder" and write "--alt-preset standard" or something else in the additinal commandline field.
remember to give it the path to the lame.exe.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: sneaker on 2002-05-27 13:25:46
I know that and I am doing it that way already.
But a DLL is more comfortable because it is more integrated in the program.
And with a DLL i don't have to change "delete .wav after compression" when i want to compress directly from CD instead of compressing a file on my hard disc.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: Jan S. on 2002-05-27 14:06:15
I was answering Shiki
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: sneaker on 2002-05-27 17:12:10
oh sorry 

Can you ever forgive me?
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: Jan S. on 2002-05-27 17:41:15
Perhaps.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: goweropolis on 2002-09-30 21:46:24
Quote
The currently recommended DLL binary is:

http://static.hydrogenaudio.org/extra/LAME...ied_dll-ICL.zip (http://static.hydrogenaudio.org/extra/LAME/lame3.90.2-modified_dll-ICL.zip)

Note:  The .dll recommended here makes use of john33's modifications (thanks!) which map certain quality settings to the --alt-presets.  Please READ the included explanation of these mappings before using this .dll

Is there a new link for this DLL? The link here doesn't seem valid anymore. Thanks.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: Jobarr on 2002-10-09 01:07:26
Is there a new dll with the --alt-presets ??
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: JohnV on 2002-10-09 02:03:41
Quote
Is there a new link for this DLL? The link here doesn't seem valid anymore. Thanks.

Now it works again. Thanks.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: masterofimages on 2002-10-09 15:53:01
Quote
in the compression settings dialog you just choose "LAME mp3 encoder" and write "--alt-preset standard" or something else in the additinal commandline field.

The problem with EAC is that it always wants to put in a bitrate parameter, which is surely going to mess with the preset? There's no easy way to put in your own custom command line like you can in RazorLame 

I wanted to use "--alt-preset 150 --lowpass 17.5" - so I wrote a little wrapper app in VB which strips out the extra parameters EAC adds and gives a clean command line. In the old version of EAC it was easy to do this using a command file, but this method no longer works in the latest version 
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: caligae on 2002-10-09 16:06:34
Quote
The problem with EAC is that it always wants to put in a bitrate parameter, which is surely going to mess with the preset? There's no easy way to put in your own custom command line like you can in RazorLame 

No problem at all. Just choose user-defined encoder. Then no additional stuff will be added (but also not the source and destination filename)

So you can use aps in this way:

--alt-preset standard %s %d

Done.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: goweropolis on 2002-10-09 17:28:55
Quote
Quote
Is there a new link for this DLL? The link here doesn't seem valid anymore. Thanks.

Now it works again. Thanks.

Thanks for fixing the link John! 
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: boiling_ice2k4 on 2002-10-09 22:26:27
I have a version of lame 3.92 from the following site:
http://www.hot.ee/smpman/mp3 (http://www.hot.ee/smpman/mp3),
and I downloaded lame 3.90.2 from the link posted and I noticed something different.

LAME 3.90.2
File:  Cymbals.wav (general cymbal test)
Switches: --alt-preset standard
Avg. Bitrate: 219.3Kbps    LR: 871 (75.74%)    MS:  279 (24.26%)

LAME 3.92 (http://www.hot.ee/smpman/mp3)
File:  Cymbals.wav (general cymbal test)
switches:  --alt-preset standard
Avg. Bitrate: 224.4Kbps    LR: 896 (77.91%)    MS:  254 (22.09%)

Would you still recommend using the official LAME 3.90.2? I'm not sure why the bitrate of the two files are different, and why the LR and MS frames are different.
Could somebody explain the cause of this?
-Andrew-
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: Jospoortvliet on 2002-10-17 20:18:31
hmmm, I saw a post about putting a link to the newest lame encoder in the download section. well, why not create a links - section, including links for download all proggy's we are talkin'bout on this site???

(maybe - there was/is/will be such a page, so in that case - just forget this post  )
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: westgroveg on 2002-10-17 21:28:11
Quote
I have a version of lame 3.92 from the following site:
http://www.hot.ee/smpman/mp3 (http://www.hot.ee/smpman/mp3),
and I downloaded lame 3.90.2 from the link posted and I noticed something different.

LAME 3.90.2
File:  Cymbals.wav (general cymbal test)
Switches: --alt-preset standard
Avg. Bitrate: 219.3Kbps    LR: 871 (75.74%)     MS:  279 (24.26%)

LAME 3.92 (http://www.hot.ee/smpman/mp3)
File:  Cymbals.wav (general cymbal test)
switches:  --alt-preset standard
Avg. Bitrate: 224.4Kbps     LR: 896 (77.91%)     MS:  254 (22.09%)

Would you still recommend using the official LAME 3.90.2? I'm not sure why the bitrate of the two files are different, and why the LR and MS frames are different.
Could somebody explain the cause of this?
-Andrew-

Dibrom is aware of the LR and MS/bitrate dif from his unofficial 3.90.2 & 3.92 Dibrom has stated in past threads that he hasn’t verified the 3.92 release & is still only recommending his 3.90.2., this will very soon change with the release of 3.94.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: yourtallness on 2002-10-28 21:47:16
Quote
Dibrom is aware of the LR and MS/bitrate dif from his unofficial 3.90.2 & 3.92 Dibrom has stated in past threads that he hasn’t verified the 3.92 release & is still only recommending his 3.90.2., this will very soon change with the release of 3.94


Does this mean that LAME 3.92 is not tweeked for use with the --alt-presets?
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: ddrawley on 2002-11-10 16:13:57
I own a Kenwood KDC-MP8017. I use mitsui and taiyo yuden media. I use EAC secure mode to rip.
Until recently, I had no immediately audible problems ( from 3.89 to present.)
I experienced problems with the mitiok compile of 3.92. I would get a burst of white noise on my Kenwood car player at the end of some tracks on a few CDs. The smpman compiles did not exhibit this flaw. The Dibrom 3.90.2 did not exhibit this flaw either. This was all with -aps. The flaw was not audible in winamp 2.80. The MP3 files passed the 'mp3check' program for integrity.
I do not have a sense if it is even prudent to use 3.92. I would like to know if it makes sense to wait for 3.93, or use 3.94a2. What is my best bet right now. Should I just be patient?

The state of the union would be most helpful.

And before I forget. Thank you VERY much for all those who have put so much hard work into making this such a great program.

David
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: frozenspeed on 2002-11-10 16:23:42
I'm so confued by the development track of 3.93 & 3.94- is there a chronological progression between the two and will 3.94 have the features integrated into 3.93... ? OR is this the results of the apparent split in the personalities of the developers... ?  This codec has more politics than development it seems =)  I'm not complaining, I'm fully appreciative of the hard work which I and others enjoy the fruits of but this is a question that has come into my mind for the past few weeks...

-Jeff
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: JohnV on 2002-11-10 17:41:32
The plan is that in 3.94 Final, Takehiro's new development will be combined to the official Lame branch.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: DirtRider on 2002-11-12 23:03:15
Oh my, it's a chaos in my head....

Can anyone please give me a simple, straight answer...

i've been using Mitiok compiles of LAME 3.92 (from http://home.pi.be/~mk442837/) (http://home.pi.be/~mk442837/)) but i've read so many articles that I've became confused....
Is there any problems regarding quality (size doesn't matter) with this compile, when using --alt-preset fast extreme ?

Thank You!
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: JohnV on 2002-11-12 23:35:25
Quote
Oh my, it's a chaos in my head....

Can anyone please give me a simple, straight answer...

i've been using Mitiok compiles of LAME 3.92 (from http://home.pi.be/~mk442837/) (http://home.pi.be/~mk442837/)) but i've read so many articles that I've became confused....
Is there any problems regarding quality (size doesn't matter) with this compile, when using --alt-preset fast extreme ?

Thank You!

Lame 3.92 and --alt-preset fast extreme work fine. There could be very minor differences between 3.92 and Dibrom's compile because of the compiler options. Nothing remarkable though.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: ddrawley on 2002-11-16 19:14:59
Has a date to release 3.93 or 3.94 been set. I am eager to see ( hear ) 3.94 following the quality testing that confirms it is good enough to become Dibrom's new recommended compile.

Thanks
David
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: JohnMK on 2002-12-24 05:31:22
Any chance of seeing a Pentium 4 optimized compile by ICL7?
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: David Racho on 2003-01-01 16:02:28
Happy New Year everyone, (1 January 2003 as I write/type this.)


What are people's opinion on these compiles?

1. LAME 3.93.1 released December 1 2002 downloaded from

http://mitiok.cjb.net/ (http://mitiok.cjb.net/) or http://home.pi.be/~mk442837/ (http://home.pi.be/~mk442837/).


2. The currently recommended EXE binary is:

www.hydrogenaudio.org/extra/LAME/lame3.90.2-ICL.zip


?

Is the first one "fixed" already? I'm not sure which one to use. I'm new here and I want to get it right the first time. By limiting myself to either Mitioks or Dibroms I believe I've narrowed it down to the best 2 choices and I hope I am right. I've also done a little research about ABX or DBT and I might get around to doing that later. Otherwise, I prefer to go where everyone is going; your ears are probably better than mine. There is also this tendency for me to prefer the 3.93.1 December release since it seems to be a bug fix that fixed whatever quality bug there was.

I'm just interested in stuffing my collection of Telarc classical music and some Bass 305 music into some "preset standard" bunch of CD-ROMs that can be played by my low-end Pioneer DV-355 and the portable player that I plug into my car.


David
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: Volcano on 2003-01-01 18:11:22
Quote
There is also this tendency for me to prefer the 3.93.1 December release since it seems to be a bug fix that fixed whatever quality bug there was.


It fixes a quality bug that was introduced in LAME 3.93 - the recommended LAME 3.90.2 is not affected by it at all.

I'd say, use 3.90.2. It has received very intensive quality testing (as opposed to 3.93 / 3.93.1), and it's *really* fast. Don't let those version numbers fool you.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: David Racho on 2003-01-02 05:38:57
Okay, thanks.

Just another quick question: the only other encoder out there that can beat LAME 3.90.2 by Dibrom is another LAME?

This insinuates that LAME is the best encoder right now. It's now a fight between 3.90.2 made a year ago and the current developments in an attempt to make it even better.

I have the following equipment: recent LiteOn writer (40x or 48x I believe), EAC beta 4, and LAME 3.90.2. I guess I'm all set.

I'm just your typical good-eared listener who wants audiophile quality even if he can't tell the difference.  Maybe if I had better equipment I could, but that doesn't usually follow. The fact that I can put 100 albums in my car (with some cute cheapo portable player) is more than enough for me. Most of my friends can't play from a selection of more than 6 CDs in their cars without opening the trunk.

I tried listening to 3.93.1 and 3.90.2 (preset standard) of the same song and I can't tell the difference. (I didn't do it blind though.)

Slightly off-topic: but maybe these car audio guys (Kenwood or whoever) should make a 6 CD changer that can play MP3 files.

EDIT: Whoa, Sony has one already. Sony CDX-757MX 10-disc CD/MP3 Changer. Hee Hee!


David
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: amano on 2003-01-03 13:48:55
Quote
I'd say, use 3.90.2. It has received very intensive quality testing (as opposed to 3.93 / 3.93.1), and it's *really* fast. Don't let those version numbers fool you.

there hasn't been much testing on 3.91 and 3.92 either.

so there are 2 candidates for recommendation:

3.90.2 coz it's the most tested one.

3.93.1 coz it's the latest of the "untested ones"

afaik no one has still proven that sound quality of 3.93.1 is inferior or better than 3.90.2.  but there is a known issue. the fast-presets are broken. so don't use it with 3.93.1.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: john33 on 2003-01-03 15:28:48
Quote
there hasn't been much testing on 3.91 and 3.92 either.

so there are 2 candidates for recommendation:

3.90.2 coz it's the most tested one.

3.93.1 coz it's the latest of the "untested ones"

afaik no one has still proven that sound quality of 3.93.1 is inferior or better than 3.90.2.  but there is a known issue. the fast-presets are broken. so don't use it with 3.93.1.

No, 3.91 is the same as 3.90.2, it was the official release if Dibrom's code.

The fast presets were broken in 3.93 but fixed 3.93.1.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: JohnV on 2003-01-03 16:04:10
Quote
No, 3.91 is the same as 3.90.2, it was the official release if Dibrom's code.

The fast presets were broken in 3.93 but fixed 3.93.1.

I think the difference between 3.91 and 3.90.2 is that there's different internal compiler option in use.

John33: you are wrong about the 3.93.1 and fast preset. The problem with fast is, that it's giving too high bitrates with both 3.93 and 3.93.1.

You can read about the other problems in 3.93 in these threads:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....=ST&f=16&t=4455 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=16&t=4455)
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....t=ST&f=2&t=4491 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=2&t=4491)
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: john33 on 2003-01-03 16:27:50
Quote
Quote
No, 3.91 is the same as 3.90.2, it was the official release if Dibrom's code.

The fast presets were broken in 3.93 but fixed 3.93.1.

I think the difference between 3.91 and 3.90.2 is that there's different internal compiler option in use.

John33: you are wrong about the 3.93.1 and fast preset. The problem with fast is, that it's giving too high bitrates with both 3.93 and 3.93.1.

You can read about the other problems in 3.93 in these threads:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....=ST&f=16&t=4455 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=16&t=4455)
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....t=ST&f=2&t=4491 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=2&t=4491)

Hey JohnV, good to see you around again!!  Thanks for the corrections!  I'm obviously suffering from memory failure!
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: David Racho on 2003-01-03 20:16:17
Quote
there are 2 candidates for recommendation:
3.90.2 (Dibrom) coz it's the most tested one.
3.93.1 (Mitiok) coz it's the latest of the "untested ones"

Ugh. Politics I guess. I think I'll stick with 3.90.2 (Dibrom). It will be a matter of time before some 3.94.x or .95 "officially" comes out and I hope by then a lot more people will vouch for its quality.


David
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: Volcano on 2003-01-03 20:49:48
It's not about politics, it's not about using Dibrom's compile to "make him feel good".  His compile is the most throroughly tested one, that's all. (Plus, as least on my machine, it's also the fastest.)
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: alfa156 on 2003-01-04 14:34:26
Quote
The plan is that in 3.94 Final, Takehiro's new development will be combined to the official Lame branch.

what is this Takehiro's "new developement" that many are talking about? Could you please drop a few lines about it?
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: frozenspeed on 2003-01-04 14:47:39
chek the takehiro branch in cvs for any developments that haven't yet been added to the main.

Jeff
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: SK1 on 2003-01-04 14:54:22
Quote
what is this Takehiro's "new developement" that many are talking about? Could you please drop a few lines about it?

You can use search to find much info about takehiro's developments.
The 3.94 alpha builds include the stuff that's being made by takehiro, and therefor often have much higher sound quality than previous stable builds.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: yourtallness on 2003-01-07 23:01:16
In which folder am I meant to put lame_enc.dll? In C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM32 ?
Will this enable applications to see LAME ? Is there a specific way of registering the dll?
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: john33 on 2003-01-07 23:06:01
Quote
In which folder am I meant to put lame_enc.dll? In C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM32 ?
Will this enable applications to see LAME ? Is there a specific way of registering the dll?

You will normally put it in the same folder as the application that uses it, but I guess anything in the path will probably work.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: mithrandir on 2003-01-07 23:23:27
Quote
Quote
what is this Takehiro's "new developement" that many are talking about? Could you please drop a few lines about it?

You can use search to find much info about takehiro's developments.
The 3.94 alpha builds include the stuff that's being made by takehiro, and therefor often have much higher sound quality than previous stable builds.

If only Dibrom's 3.90.2 presets could leverage Takehiro's new code...or at least safely coexist with it. It's like there's a whole lot of work being done and there is no guarantee that the level of sound quality established with the 3.90.2 is being exceeded or even maintained. 3.94 may very well be superior to 3.90.2 but it will always be a crapshoot because only 3.90.2 has been "fully tested".

The presets were a revealation, a huge step forward for LAME. I think that any future non-alpha release of LAME should make sure that the presets leverage any new code and bug fixes. They should not be a snapshot in time. What's the point of continued LAME development if the presets are to rot and die?
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: yourtallness on 2003-01-07 23:26:55
Well, other codecs like l3codeca.acm reside in the system folder, so I thought
I should also put lame_enc.dll there. I think I read in the Plextools manual
that it can use LAME if it finds it the system folder...
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: mmortal03 on 2003-03-09 08:00:48
Quote
The currently recommended EXE binary is:

www.hydrogenaudio.org/extra/LAME/lame3.90.2-ICL.zip

Make sure to read the instructions for RazorLAME etc. (in other words: RTFM).


The currently recommended DLL binary is:

www.hydrogenaudio.org/extra/LAME/lame3.90.2-modified_dll-ICL.zip


I believe the links are broken...
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: Dibrom on 2003-03-09 08:16:55
fixed
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: Crocodil on 2003-04-01 23:10:03
Hi everyone. I'm quite new to LAME encoder (first I heard of it was 4 days

ago) and I have some questions. I'm aware they are lame but if you could

help me I would very much appreciate it  So here goes:

1) Which version of LAME to use and where to get it from?
   I have 3.90.2 by Dibrom and 3.93.1 by mitiok. I've read there

are/were some doubts about the quality of MP3's made with 3.93.1 and also

some problems with "--alt-preset fast standard" switch. I would gladly use

Dibrom's but it works a bit slower and gives higher bitrates (about 10kbps

more with --alt-preset standard), still I'd sacrifice time and disk space

for quality .

2) Just making sure: --r3mix is the thing of the past and now it's best to

use --alt-preset standard (or extreme if someone likes)?

3) I've read that using "--alt-preset fast ..." is faster but may result in

higher bitrates and lower quality...
   I've tried it and on my computer and it makes the bitrate lower

than without "fast". It's hard for me to compare quality (neither my

speakers are high-end nor my hearing is very sensitive) but I can't hear

any difference. I'm confused... Is it all right to use "fast" or not?

4) My last question is about using LAME with EAC.
   I've read earlier in this thread that when in Compression

Options...\External Compression the "Parameter passing scheme:" is set to

"Lame MP3 Encoder" (and all the rest is set correctly) EAC is trying to

send his parameters (e.g. bitrate) instead of command line options which

messes with the presets and therefore to work correctly it should be set to

"User Defined Encoder". On the other hand the other sites I've read say

that the command line options override other parameters. So how is it? How

should it be set?

I'm sorry if my questions seem foolish but please remember I'm new to LAME.


And In the end I'd like to thank all the developers of LAME for creating

it. It's really the best MP3 encoder there is!! Once again: Thank you
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: Jebus on 2003-04-02 00:19:52
First of all, welcome to the boards. Please make use of the search feature however, as these questions have all been answered many times.

1. Use 3.90.2. The presets haven't been properly tuned and tested for a new release since then.

2. --alt-preset standard uses the "old" and well-tested vbr method, while --alt-preset fast standard uses the new one. The new one is way faster, makes files a bit smaller, but MAY screw up the odd sample (not as well tested, which is why it's not the default yet). Fast is by no means poor quality however. It comes highly recommended as well if speed is a concern. Coincidentally, dibrom's (intel compiler) binary is the fastest, but tends to make files a touch larger. Use the available microsoft visual studio compile if you want to shave off a few kilobytes, at the expense of speed.

3. You are correct about EAC. Use "user defined encoder" then put "--alt-preset standard %s %d" in the box there. The %s and %d are needed for lame to get source and destination file paths from EAC.

Hope that helps!
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: Crocodil on 2003-04-02 00:26:59
Thank you Jebus for your reply, it's been very helpful.
In future I'll try to search more but I've been lurking through this here forum for the last couple of days and still had some doubts, thanks for clearing them.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: alexndr on 2003-04-06 22:22:00
Quote
[...]
1. Use 3.90.2. The presets haven't been properly tuned and tested for a new release since then.
[...]

What's wrong with lame 3.91 (from http://mitiok.cjb.net/) (http://mitiok.cjb.net/))?

3.90.2 and 3.91 gives the same filesize (+/- 0 bytes!!!)

(tested with "standard" and "fast standard")

Best regards
Olek
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: fewtch on 2003-04-14 11:59:24
Quote
Quote
[...]
1. Use 3.90.2. The presets haven't been properly tuned and tested for a new release since then.
[...]

What's wrong with lame 3.91 (from http://mitiok.cjb.net/) (http://mitiok.cjb.net/))?

3.90.2 and 3.91 gives the same filesize (+/- 0 bytes!!!)

(tested with "standard" and "fast standard")

Best regards
Olek

Probably no quality differences between 3.90.2, 3.91 and 3.92... but the argument is that 3.90.2 has gotten the most testing, so it's the "safest" choice.  Personally I use 3.92 (with --a-p standard) and have no problems at all with the results.  It does seem slower than 3.90.2, but the files are a bit smaller too.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: Mercuryc on 2003-04-15 14:30:41
The difference between lame3.90.2-ICL and lame3.90.2-MSVC?
I read in this thread the MSVC-Version makes a bit smaller mp3s than the ICL-Version. I tested it with the --alt-presets and it's true, but of course the MSVC-Version used less bits for the mp3 file Ô_o Is there any difference in quality? Or has the faster version the same quality but only a bigger file size?
For me it's like: quality > file size > speed


--alt-preset standard

lame3.90.2-ICL
average: 180.2 kbps  LR: 1239 (14.67%)  MS: 7209 (85.33%)

lame3.90.2-MSVC
average: 175.0 kbps  LR: 1243 (14.71%)  MS: 7205 (85.29%)


--alt-preset 103

lame3.90.2-ICL
average: 101.9 kbps  LR: 695 (8.227%)  MS: 7753 (91.77%)

lame3.90.2-MSVC
average: 101.8 kbps  LR: 700 (8.286%)  MS: 7748 (91.71%)
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: DigitalDictator on 2003-04-15 15:34:32
Does version 3.92 come in the two compiles -- ICL and MSVC? I take it that the common version is the ICL-version? Can I get hold of a MSVC-compile? And what about 3.93.1?
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: tinsun on 2003-04-23 11:38:17
So: is the source code available at http://static.hydrogenaudio.org/extra/LAME/src/ (http://static.hydrogenaudio.org/extra/LAME/src/) the one OS X users should use as well? Or is that code tweaked specifically for intel, and 3.93.1 should be just as good for OS X?
Is there, by the by, any work on optimizing the code for G4/altivec?
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: Dalkus on 2003-04-24 15:46:54
Will Dibrom update 3.90.2 --> 3.90.3 due to the -Z switch or was that just nonsens??
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: amano on 2003-04-24 16:32:50
Well, he told us, he would do. Just be patient. Or am I wrong??
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: TWPD on 2003-04-25 22:11:57
Ok folks...forgive me but I'm thick and confused! Please point me to a decent reliable build of 3.92 or 3.93 cos I am not entirely sure where to go!

Thanks in advance.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: amano on 2003-05-12 21:09:26
now john33 has compiled a 3.90.3 release with the -Z switch integrated into APS and APE. this should now be the release to recommend most.

Quote
lame 3.90.3 2003-05-09

includes lame.exe, lame_enc.dll (--alt-preset standard & extreme with -Z option) - ICL4.5 compile using Dibrom's switches

Download (312Kb) - Sources (20Kb)


get it here at rarewares:
http://rarewares.hydrogenaudio.org/files/l...lame-3.90.3.zip (http://rarewares.hydrogenaudio.org/files/lame-3.90.3.zip)


EDIT: to understand the reasons that led to the integration of the -Z switch, check this thread:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....6&t=7783&st=25& (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=16&t=7783&st=25&)
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: Jan S. on 2003-05-12 21:25:10
Updated the first post.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: amano on 2003-05-12 23:56:05
hmm. I hope that there will be an official "approved" by dibrom himself.
as I just heard from john33 there will be a very special 3.90.3 compile by him tomorrow. just wait and look...
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: Jan S. on 2003-05-13 07:54:58
Quote
hmm. I hope that there will be an official "approve" by dibrom himself.
as I just heard from john33 there will be a very special 3.90.3 compile by him tomorrow. just wait and look...

I was asked by Dibrom to update the recomended compile. So you should probably consider it approved.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: CiTay on 2003-05-13 12:27:52
Latest developments: LAME 3.90.3 is now recommended. However, the instructions (i.e. for RazorLAME) are gone, as well as the license notice and so on. We'll have to see about that.

LAME 3.90.3 now uses -Z by default for --alt-preset standard and --alt-preset extreme (in addition to --alt-preset insane, where it's always been used). There's no need to use -Z in the commandline anymore.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: amano on 2003-05-13 15:42:05
there is now a special compile of 3.90.3 available.  tnx a lot to john33, for messing around with it again. it's goal was to achieve more conformity with newer releases (3.93+), and to pay attention to the fact that the --alt-presets are not ALTernative anymore.

but read for yourself (I quote john33):
Quote
This version has been modified to allow for the use of either --alt-preset or --preset in the command line. The encoded results using our beloved presets are bit identical with the current 3.90.3 compile. 

Further modifications:

1. As in 3.93.1, the old presets - phone, voice, fm, etc., are now alias's for ABR settings.

2. I have added Gabriel's MEDIUM and FAST MEDIUM presets. These do NOT give bit identical results with the 3.93.1 compile because there have library changes in between. However, I can't detect any audible differences but, no doubt, those of you with 'golden' ears will advise whether this is so. I put these presets in because it was easily done. If the consensus is that they shouldn't be in this compile, they are easily removed; it's up to you.


again the question goes to dibrom or the mods, whether it would be more "modern" to recommend this compile, or not. the results should be the same, just alternative commands ( --preset in addition to --alt-preset ) are allowed.

comments are highly appreciated.

EDIT: this modified compile is now hosted at rarewares: http://rarewares.hydrogenaudio.org/files/l...0.3modified.zip (http://rarewares.hydrogenaudio.org/files/lame-3.90.3modified.zip)

or

http://rarewares.hydrogenaudio.org/files/l...APEmodified.zip (http://rarewares.hydrogenaudio.org/files/lame-3.90.3-APEmodified.zip) with additional APE and CUESHEET support.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: Spunky on 2003-05-16 13:15:29
Hi there,

have you got a second mirror for the download? We want to change the lame version on the german audiograbber site to 3.90.3 and the admin needs a second mirror.

Can you help me?

Spunky
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: john33 on 2003-05-16 13:47:31
Quote
Hi there,

have you got a second mirror for the download? We want to change the lame version on the german audiograbber site to 3.90.3 and the admin needs a second mirror.

Can you help me?

Spunky

You can use: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jfe1205/ (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jfe1205/) and then add the filename you're interested in at the end. The filenames are the same as at RareWares.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: STSinNYC on 2003-05-17 18:24:09
Hi friends...I have been trying to download the new 3.90.3 for the last two days, but can't connect to the server. Connecting ok to HA as you can see and to other sites.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: john33 on 2003-05-17 18:59:12
Quote
Hi friends...I have been trying to download the new 3.90.3 for the last two days, but can't connect to the server. Connecting ok to HA as you can see and to other sites.

If you don't mind a list, you can get the same files here: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jfe1205/ (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jfe1205/)
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: MadBison on 2003-05-31 12:39:05
What is the very best LAME version to use now?

3.90.3
3.93.1
or other?

I am currently using 3.90.1, which I hope is OK for now.

Thanks
David
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: Jan S. on 2003-05-31 12:54:16
Quote
What is the very best LAME version to use now?

3.90.3
3.93.1
or other?

I am currently using 3.90.1, which I hope is OK for now.

Thanks
David

Please read the first post in this thread.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: SiMo X on 2003-05-31 22:34:37
On the EasyLAME website, it says that as of April 27th, they've included the LAME 3.90.3 compile to the program. On this sticky thread though, LAME 3.90.3 was added much later on May 12th. My question is; are both LAME compiles exactly the same and would it be ideal for me to just go ahead and download EasyLAME 1.4 which includes this compile -OR- download RazorLame 1.1.5 from the RazorLAME website and point it to the LAME compile that's available on this sticky thread? Everything is set and ready for encoding in EasyLAME, right? Which way should I go?
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: deafmutelame on 2003-06-06 13:53:46
The recommended LAME 3.90.3 compile on this sticky thread ( http://rarewares.hydrogenaudio.org/files/l...lame-3.90.3.zip (http://rarewares.hydrogenaudio.org/files/lame-3.90.3.zip) ) is not working, could you correct it please?
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: sld on 2003-06-06 14:01:45
If you're talking about the download, it works.

Please provide more details than "it's not working", if you expect someone to fix anything quickly.

However, I assume that you must be talking about the download link, since people with hotlinking browsers or browsers and download managers not sending a html referral (if that's what it's called) had plenty of trouble before.

You may want to configure your browser or download manager to send a referral, and then download by LEFT-clicking, not right-clicking.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: darkflame23 on 2003-07-05 05:47:39
i'm still very confused by 3.90.3 and 3.93.1

what is the difference?

which one should i be using and why?

gregg
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: AtaqueEG on 2003-07-05 06:41:16
3.90.3 is the OFFICIAL HA compile. It was compiled by forum-founder Dibrom and was tuned to perfection by exhaustive listening tests by the "premiere" members of this forum. It is regarded as the best that MP3 currently has to offer, simply because it was highly tuned and tweaked by the most knowledgeable community in the history of audio compression. The alt presets are the result of this efforts and should not be messed with, by usage of extra switches. Believe it, if a simple switch could improve quality, it would be there already.
3.93.1 is the "Official" Lame compile, according to the main developing branch. It is supposed to work with the alt presets as 3.90.3 does, but I think it is wiser to use the actual recommended compile from HA, for the reasons exposed before.

Quite simply, HA's alt presets are the best there are, and 3.90.3 is the ONLY compile tested to death to trust it will deliver anytime.

There's really not much to it.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: rjamorim on 2003-07-05 07:09:43
Quote
3.90.3 is the OFFICIAL HA compile. It was compiled by forum-founder Dibrom

Actually, the version hosted at RareWares linked at the first post was compiled by John33. :B
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: darkflame23 on 2003-07-05 14:13:17
Thanks very much AtaqueEG for clearing that up! I am a bit of a newbie...

I will certainly be using 3.90.3 from now on then (in RazorLame and EAC) with Alt Preset Standard/Insane!

BTW - Is it quicker to encode with Alt Preset Standard or Alt Preset Insane? I am more concerned with quality than file size. Is this question in the wrong forum? Sorry!

Thanks once again,

Gregg.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: _Shorty on 2003-07-05 23:06:47
as stated over and over in several places here, insane will give you technically better quality than standard will, but not by much.  And standard will more than likely give you about as good an mp3 as you're going to hear anyways, at probably a much smaller filesize than insane.  The cases where standard has problems will also exhibit the same problems in insane, so there's not much argument for going with anything but standard, really.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: darkflame23 on 2003-07-07 15:25:19
OK, I'll phrase that question again then. I am not so concerned with file size (who needs to be in these days of 12Mbps broad band and close to terrabyte hard drives?), but encoding time is an important consideration. Therefore is it quicker to use Alt Preset Standard or Alt Preset Insane? Guess I should stop being so lazy and go and find out hey?
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: Gabriel on 2003-07-07 16:06:27
Insane is faster than standard
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: _Shorty on 2003-07-07 19:21:30
Quote
I am not so concerned with file size (who needs to be in these days of 12Mbps broad band and close to terrabyte hard drives?)

I am. My deck in my car accepts data CDs, but I see no place on it to plug in a hard drive, let alone a non-existent terabyte one.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: Jebus on 2003-07-07 19:29:22
Quote
Therefore is it quicker to use Alt Preset Standard or Alt Preset Insane? Guess I should stop being so lazy and go and find out hey?

Quickest (and recommended) to use --alt-preset fast standard

Generally sounds the same as regular --alt-preset standard, but uses the newer VBR method which is a LOT faster.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: kryten on 2003-08-05 00:21:44
Can someone point me to the source for these compiles?  The version on sourceforge isn't this one, and john33's source also seems to be very different from the code in sourceforge 3.90

(appologies if I missed it - spent ages searching but just can't spot it)

I want to add the ability for LAME to read tags from RIFF chunks in a WAV file while converting to MP3 as everything i have is ripped to WAVs for home use and I want to convert to MP3 so I can use while I'm not at home.

I have MSVC, though I gather from comments that I should really be using the Intel compiler - is there a audible difference between the sets of files produced?

Thanks.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: TJA on 2003-08-07 14:14:14
The following compiles can be found on RareWares - i left out the alpha version of 3.94 ...


LAME 3.93.1 stable bundle 2003-05-11
includes lame.exe, lame_enc.dll - ICL4.5 compile using Dibrom's switches

LAME 3.90.3 stable bundle 2003-05-09
includes lame.exe, lame_enc.dll (--alt-preset standard & extreme with -Z option) - ICL4.5 compile using Dibrom's switches

LAME 3.90.3 Modified 2003-07-20
lame.exe only (--alt-preset standard & extreme with -Z option) modified to allow use of --preset as well as --alt-preset, also includes MEDIUM and FAST MEDIUM presets - ICL4.5 compile using Dibrom's switches

LAME 3.90.3 Modified and with APE & Cuesheet support 2003-07-20
lame.exe only (--alt-preset standard & extreme with -Z option) (Nyaochi's patch 0.5.3) includes MACDll.dll for APE file input & CUESHEET support modified to allow use of --preset as well as --alt-preset, also includes MEDIUM and FAST MEDIUM presets - ICL4.5 compile using Dibrom's switches

So, which one is recommended right now?

One of 3.90.3 still or 3.93.1 (because it´s called stable now)?!?
If still 3.90.3 is recommended, i assume the last one should be used, it´s the newest and includes all things from the other compiles ...

Thanx for any help :-)
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: Hyrok on 2003-08-07 14:47:09
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=478 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=478)

If LAME 3.93.1 would be the current recommended LAME version, it would be there. LAME 3.90.3 is the most tested one and the presets are tuned to the very end and works best with this version. LAME 3.93.1 may be faster, but... that's it...

I don't know how many times people asks this... Trust Dibrom! Maybe he should just update the thread with a short explanation why this version is recommended?
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: toroco on 2003-08-07 15:00:27
-z-z-z-z-Z-Z-z-z-Z-Z


Dear TJA,

-z is set by default (for 3.90.3) as you could read some replys before.

In another thread (can't find it anymore) someone said the -z option will be disabled if you set it in addition (as it's set twice)



Quote
Dibrom 
Posted: Dec 21 2001, 08:48 PM

No need to specify -Z in the commandline for highest quality anymore.


Quote
CiTay   
Posted: May 13 2003, 03:27 AM

LAME 3.90.3 now uses -Z by default for --alt-preset standard and --alt-preset extreme (in addition to --alt-preset insane, where it's always been used). There's no need to use -Z in the commandline anymore.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: TJA on 2003-08-07 15:10:51
Thanx to both of you!

I will use "LAME 3.90.3 Modified and with APE & Cuesheet support 2003-07-20" from now on and stop using "-Z" for LAME and in my signature :-)
(I came from 3.93 and was hoping that 3.93.1 finally is recommended, tested and stable :-)
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: augi on 2003-08-07 20:38:49
All these presets you are describing here, I assume that refer to the command line version of lame (lame.exe).
I am using the lame_enc.dll (v. 3.90.3) +audiograbber for encoding. The only thing I can choose from the VBR encoding options menu is : the method (ABR), the bitrtate (~192Kbps) , the stereo type (normal,joint, dual) and the quality (low, medium, high). I usually choose :ABR, 192 Kbps, Stereo (not Joint), High quality.
Is that equivalent to the --alt preset-standard or something similar to it, or I am doing it the wrong way?
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: TJA on 2003-08-07 20:56:59
Sure not :-)

But you can use lame.exe as external program in AudioGrabber too!

BUT: Do not use AudioGrabber!
As far as i can remember, it does not provide a "secure" mode (it did not when i switched from AudioGrabber to EAC)! It is quite nice and fast, but not GOOD!
Use EAC - Exact Audio Copy - only!
I mean that :-)
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: Jan S. on 2003-08-07 20:59:28
Yes, you are using a burst mode rippoer like AG.
There is dll's that support the alt-presets but I guess AG doesn't support using it.
Use a decent, secure ripper like EAC or CDex (EAC is best). AFAIK CDex supports the dll with alt-presets but I don't know why you would really need to use the dll instead of the exe you can setup in EAC.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: augi on 2003-08-07 21:03:52
1)I can use an external encoder with audiograbber , so I can use lame.exe and set it up the way I want. That's what I am gonna do from know on.

2)Are you sure tha EAC or CDex are better than AG? When I tried then, they produced some click&pops while AG gave a perfect ripped wav file. Everyone says that AG sucks, but for me it performs better than EAC/CDex. Except if there are some settings I must toogle for EAC/CDex to work best...
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: Jan S. on 2003-08-07 21:11:39
Are you sure you set up EAC up correctly (http://www.ping.be/satcp/tutorials.htm)?
The point of EAC is to avoid clicks and it does this better than anything else. And yes... we are sure that EAC is better if you set it up correctly.

Sure, if you set it up incorrectly it doesn't work as it should.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: tearex on 2003-09-02 23:43:54
Hello, please bear with me if this has already been answered elsewhere.

Where do I get a 3.90.3 for Linux, or the 3.90.3 source code to compile it myself? Or do I have to use Windows for high quality? I hope not. ;-)


Another thing: What about audio books? Is it "allowable" to add something like -a -b 80 or even -a -b 32 when encoding them (only one voice, mono, no music.)? Or does this somehow destroy the whole point of the alt presets? If I do not use it, 99.5% of the frames are encoded at 128 with --preset standard (I'm currently using 3.93.1 though as I have not found the 3.90.3 source code yet.)


Thank you in advance.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: AstralStorm on 2003-09-02 23:50:02
The source and one binary (GLIBC 2.3.1 I believe) is on RareWares (http://rarewares.hydrogenaudio.org).
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: BadHorsie on 2003-09-03 02:47:38
nice... but you should add the cpu type to the filename. is it a i686 compile?

BadHorsie
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: magic75 on 2003-09-03 07:54:57
Quote
Another thing: What about audio books? Is it "allowable" to add something like -a -b 80 or even -a -b 32 when encoding them (only one voice, mono, no music.)? Or does this somehow destroy the whole point of the alt presets? If I do not use it, 99.5% of the frames are encoded at 128 with --preset standard (I'm currently using 3.93.1 though as I have not found the 3.90.3 source code yet.)

Try a search on "voice" or "speech". I know there has been som discussions on good settings for speech. The only generally accepted additions to the alt presets are the -Y and -lowpass switches. If you feel that ~128kbps is a bit to much you may want to skip --alt-preset standard and try the ABR settings --alt-preset xxx. But I think you'll find the information you need in the threads that I mentioned above.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: AstralStorm on 2003-09-03 15:50:49
Quote
nice... but you should add the cpu type to the filename. is it a i686 compile?

BadHorsie

I haven't made these binaries.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: Jan S. on 2003-09-11 21:13:15
I now added the recommendations to the wiki:
http://doc.hydrogenaudio.org/wikis/hydroge...io/LameCompiles (http://doc.hydrogenaudio.org/wikis/hydrogenaudio/LameCompiles)

Perhaps this thread should jsut direct there?
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: idem on 2003-10-29 20:51:50
Quote
Download LAME 3.90.3 (http://rarewares.hydrogenaudio.org/files/lame-3.90.3.zip)

This is a link to some kind of hybrid (with 3.93.1) version and where is no --alt-preset in help. Is some where link to some kind of original version?
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: _Shorty on 2003-10-29 20:57:11
actually it's just 3.90.2 with --alt-preset standard -Z forced when you use --alt-preset standard, got nothing to do with 3.93.1

<edit> whoops, I said -Y when I meant -Z
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: idem on 2003-10-29 21:14:04
Quote
actually it's just 3.90.2 with --alt-preset standard -Z forced when you use --alt-preset standard, got nothing to do with 3.93.1

<edit> whoops, I said -Y when I meant -Z

I read about -Z in first post, but it is strange bundle - in index.html it is 3.93.1, in help and in presets.html where is no --alt-preset, just --preset like in 3.93. But if defference only in "cosmetic" it's ok.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: _Shorty on 2003-10-29 21:33:00
yup, IIRC the only differences were in command line behaviour, it's still the same encoder as 3.90.2 was, hence the only x.xx.1 difference.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: chronicking on 2003-11-20 22:45:40
Quote
Updated May 13, 2003

This list will be kept up to date with the current LAME compiles that are recommended for use for optimal quality and will keep track of any developmental compiles released on this site.

The currently recommended LAME version:

Download LAME 3.90.3 (http://rarewares.hydrogenaudio.org/files/lame-3.90.3.zip)

Automatically uses Noise Shaping mode 1 with --alt-preset standard/extreme/insane.
No need to specify -Z in the commandline for highest quality anymore.

The DLL makes use of john33's modifications which map certain quality settings to the --alt-presets.

ive heard there are Lame encoders better than the one with the CDEX software.  i have version 1.3, 3.92MMx installed and it worx pretty damn good.  is this other lame.dll better?  will i be able to set my own settings(presets) in the encoder settings if i use this one?
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: Societal Eclipse on 2003-11-21 01:47:46
Is it just me or does lamedrop XPd V1.3.3 do nothing?  I set the options I want and drop files over it but nothing happens.  I have it set to log errors and no log is created so I'm not sure what is wrong.

[Edit]
I forgot to mention V1.3.2 works perfectly fine out of a different directory.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: magic75 on 2003-11-21 07:33:51
Quote
i have version 1.3, 3.92MMx installed and it worx pretty damn good.  is this other lame.dll better?

This has been answered plenty of times, so I'll keep this short. Use the search if you need more info. 3.90.3 has been tested much more thoroughly than 3.92. The differences between the versions are very small and if you are happy with the 3.92 dll there is not that many reasons to change.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: chronicking on 2003-11-22 22:01:15
Quote
Quote
i have version 1.3, 3.92MMx installed and it worx pretty damn good.  is this other lame.dll better?

This has been answered plenty of times, so I'll keep this short. Use the search if you need more info. 3.90.3 has been tested much more thoroughly than 3.92. The differences between the versions are very small and if you are happy with the 3.92 dll there is not that many reasons to change.

  im probably gonna get red flagged for this(somebody here must not like the chronic or those who use it).  anywayz,  i have read and im not being lazy.  alot of  these threads are a bit advanced for us layman folk.  everyone is talking about compile, binaries, commandlines, etc.etc.etc.  from what ive gathered from reading, the main diff. in 3.90.3 & 3.92(that ihave in CDEX) is for the -alt. presets(standard ibelieve w/-z in the command line[imnot quite sure wat that means  ])  i guess you need programming knowledge for that stuff i dunno.  i use the VBR settings with a low minimum-192max, J.stereo, highest quality, VBR quality 0, Mp3on the fly, and VBR MTRH.  im happy with the quality, but after reading these threads, i m afraid im losing quality that im not hearing or understanding. 

In short........ i just want an honest straight forward(and knowledgable) answer.  If you don't use the alt presets, is there a reason to switch from 3.92 to 3.90.3???
sorry to interupt this intellectual thread, but i don't know where else to post it.  everytime i post i get some warning (wat's up with that?!!)
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: JeanLuc on 2003-11-22 23:47:44
Quote
[In short........ i just want an honest straight forward(and knowledgable) answer.  If you don't use the alt presets, is there a reason to switch from 3.92 to 3.90.3???
sorry to interupt this intellectual thread, but i don't know where else to post it.  everytime i post i get some warning (wat's up with that?!!)

AFAIK, 3.90.3 is the direct follow-up to 3.90.2 and adds the -Z switch (which improves quality on some rare occasions) to the alt-presets only ...

I could make out differences in encoding speed and file size between 3.90.2 and 3.92, but never in audible quality so it should be no difference to use 3.92 if you are not going to use the alt-presets - encoding quality e.g. at 192 cbr should be the same so hypothetically there would be no reason for you to switch from 3.92 to 3.90.3 (although 3.90.3 can do anything that 3.92 does - and it is more thoroughly tested and may be better-sounding)

I suggest you try out these two compiles yourself ... download winabx and do some serious testing if you can find the time.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: chronicking on 2003-11-23 00:09:42
Quote
Quote
[In short........ i just want an honest straight forward(and knowledgable) answer.  If you don't use the alt presets, is there a reason to switch from 3.92 to 3.90.3???
sorry to interupt this intellectual thread, but i don't know where else to post it.  everytime i post i get some warning (wat's up with that?!!)

AFAIK, 3.90.3 is the direct follow-up to 3.90.2 and adds the -Z switch (which improves quality on some rare occasions) to the alt-presets only ...

I could make out differences in encoding speed and file size between 3.90.2 and 3.92, but never in audible quality so it should be no difference to use 3.92 if you are not going to use the alt-presets - encoding quality e.g. at 192 cbr should be the same so hypothetically there would be no reason for you to switch from 3.92 to 3.90.3 (although 3.90.3 can do anything that 3.92 does - and it is more thoroughly tested and may be better-sounding)

I suggest you try out these two compiles yourself ... download winabx and do some serious testing if you can find the time.

  thank yee kind sir 

your a scholar & a gentleman.......
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: fairyliquidizer on 2003-12-02 10:34:19
Is this a "fast" or "slow" compile and if "fast" will the quality suffer?

In addition, Why doesn't LAME use SSE?  Would a compile with AMDNOW, MMX, and SSE run faster?

Fairy
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: magic75 on 2003-12-02 11:14:26
Quote
Is this a "fast" or "slow" compile and if "fast" will the quality suffer?

You will only (maybe) suffer worse quality by using other compiles. This one is the  best in terms of quality. I think its pretty fast anyway, but maybe not the fastest?
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: john33 on 2003-12-02 13:26:21
Quote
In addition, Why doesn't LAME use SSE?  Would a compile with AMDNOW, MMX, and SSE run faster?

It already does, written as nasm (assembler) routines.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: TakuSkan on 2003-12-06 00:25:01
Quote
I could make out differences in encoding speed and file size between 3.90.2 and 3.92, but never in audible quality so it should be no difference to use 3.92 if you are not going to use the alt-presets - encoding quality...

So can someone report which version produces faster encoding speed, and which a smaller file size?

Shel
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: chronicking on 2003-12-06 22:11:43
Quote
Quote
I could make out differences in encoding speed and file size between 3.90.2 and 3.92, but never in audible quality so it should be no difference to use 3.92 if you are not going to use the alt-presets - encoding quality...

So can someone report which version produces faster encoding speed, and which a smaller file size?

Shel

  i have tested both the 3.90.3 vs. the 3.92 for file size and quality with 192kps CBR/stereo settings and have found no difference in size or quality. 

I'm sure someone has done much more extensive testing than myself, but i really don't see any reason to replace the existing lame_.dll(3.92) file that comes with CDEX if your going to encode at a CBR.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: TakuSkan on 2003-12-07 23:21:57
[/QUOTE]
  i have tested both the 3.90.3 vs. the 3.92 for file size and quality with 192kps CBR/stereo settings and have found no difference in size or quality. 
[/QUOTE]

Okay great...  I'll do a little testing myself.  I've been using 3.92 by default for some time, and never thought about whether or not 3.90.3 may be better for anything over 3.92.

Shel
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: magic75 on 2003-12-08 09:22:35
Quote from: chronicking,Dec 6 2003, 02:11 PM
  i have tested both the 3.90.3 vs. the 3.92 for file size and quality with 192kps CBR/stereo settings and have found no difference in size or quality. 

Well since you are using CBR you can't get any difference in size.
Quote
I'm sure someone has done much more extensive testing than myself

You are absolutely right. The guys in this forum has tested and tuned 3.90.3 to death. The later versions has in no way been tested as thoroughly as 3.90.3. The reason for this is that the changes hasn't been that significant. So thereason for recommending and chosing 3.90.3 over later versions is simply that its a safer choice due to more more thourough testing.
[/QUOTE]I'm sure someone has done much more extensive testing than myself, but i really don't see any reason to replace the existing lame_.dll(3.92) file that comes with CDEX if your going to encode at a CBR.
Quote

You are probably absolutely right.

About speed, I don't think there has been any significant changes in the source code that affect speed, but there can of course be different compiles out there that differ in speed. If you use john33's compiles from rarewares, I don't think there should be any significant speed difference between 3.90.3 and 3.93.1.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: Gabriel on 2003-12-08 09:49:54
Quote
About speed, I don't think there has been any significant changes in the source code that affect speed, but there can of course be different compiles out there that differ in speed. If you use john33's compiles from rarewares, I don't think there should be any significant speed difference between 3.90.3 and 3.93.1.

3.93.1 should be faster than 3.90.3 due to optimizations in the log computations.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: magic75 on 2003-12-08 16:52:08
I stand corrected
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: TakuSkan on 2003-12-09 23:47:29
Quote
Quote
About speed, I don't think there has been any significant changes in the source code that affect speed, but there can of course be different compiles out there that differ in speed. If you use john33's compiles from rarewares, I don't think there should be any significant speed difference between 3.90.3 and 3.93.1.

3.93.1 should be faster than 3.90.3 due to optimizations in the log computations.

You know... I have no idea which compiles I've downloaded in the past year.  The 'about' file in the LAME v3.92 zip archive I have credits Mitiok for the compile.  How would encoding speed and file size of this compare to other compiles?

It seems there is no centralized webpage or Hydrogen forum thread where all the various LAME compiles, and details about each are posted for review and download. Or have I missed it?

Shel
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: magic75 on 2003-12-10 08:39:53
Quote
It seems there is no centralized webpage or Hydrogen forum thread where all the various LAME compiles, and details about each are posted for review and download. Or have I missed it?

No I am pretty sure there is no such. HA is primarily quality oriented so that is the reason for no such thread. I don't think the speed differs that much between compiles, which is probably the reason why noone has the interest of doing such comparisons. If one really needs speed over quality, Gogo or fastenc would be better alternatives.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: CRasch on 2003-12-11 11:44:52
Quote
  i have tested both the 3.90.3 vs. the 3.92 for file size and quality with 192kps CBR/stereo settings and have found no difference in size or quality.

Hello!  , You will not see a file size difference in compressing 3.90.3 and 3.92 or even 3.93.1 using 192 CRB. Maybe a diffrence in quality but not size sinse your using the same CRB. Even then it might be a difference size if they change the ID tags in the diffrent versions.

Now if you were using VRB then you will see a diffrence in size.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: TakuSkan on 2003-12-11 19:56:03
Quote
Quote

  i have tested both the 3.90.3 vs. the 3.92 for file size and quality with 192kps CBR/stereo settings and have found no difference in size or quality.

Now if you were using VRB then you will see a diffrence in size.

You mean VBR, right?  Depending on what the MP3s are going to be used for, I encode everything with the VBR set in the two preset commands I use, '--alt-preset standard' and '--alt-preset 128'

So if there is in fact a difference between the size of the files created with the different versions of LAME, I should see it.  I just haven't had the time in the past week or so to run a few tests.  That seems to obvious way to answer the question.

Thanks,

Shel
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: n68 on 2003-12-11 20:18:28
gday..

Quote
You mean VBR, right?

naah.. VRB. is right.. (virtual raving bits.)


Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: deeswift on 2004-01-12 09:03:44
Quote
It seems there is no centralized webpage or Hydrogen forum thread where all the various LAME compiles, and details about each are posted for review and download. Or have I missed it?


I was wondering the exact same thing as I stumbled upon your post...

OK, I also think things could be simpler for the 'layman'. It's been mentioned that there is no such need for a thread like the one you talked about, but I disagree. I often point people in the general direction of HA forums and they have no idea where to start, plus they're too scared to post questions!! A single thread where everything is explained in a simple manner for newbies to LAME, EAC, etc would be very welcome, I think. I'm happy with what I'm using for mp3 -- the latest EAC pb4, LAME 3.90.3 modified, RazorLame 1.1.5 -- and I trust the golden eared guys here 100%, but it took me a while to work everything out, like several weeks. If people could get into using LAME and EAC more easily then it'd be better all round for everyone. The way to educate people isn't to bombard them with command lines, technical details and such. I wish I could have come here and have been told "you need this encoder, this ripper, this setting for ultimate quality to size ratio, etc" and kept everything simple. Now, I know a fair bit of knowledge to get me through (but nothing compared some of the people here), and I'm glad I learned, but it could have just been so much simpler!

Maybe I'm talking crap, but I think a little more simplification is a good idea. I'm sure many newbies will agree.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: RyanVM on 2004-01-12 09:26:22
So umm, yeah, when do we start putting 3.95 through the wringer to allow it to overtake 3.90.3 as the recommended build?
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: sony666 on 2004-01-12 09:35:19
Quote
So umm, yeah, when do we start putting 3.95 through the wringer to allow it to overtake 3.90.3 as the recommended build?

you can make the start, here and now, with ABX results for known test samples.

if you simply want others to do that long and tedious work, don't say "we" please
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: AstralStorm on 2004-01-12 16:49:10
Incoming 128 kbps  MP3 test (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/show.php/showtopic/16270) will help in this matter.

I'll be doing some testing with GPSYCHO samples in the following three weeks. (ABC/HR)
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: RyanVM on 2004-01-12 22:55:34
I'm willing to do my part. Where do I sign up?
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: sony666 on 2004-01-13 00:03:21

sorry for being harsh, but I got the impresion many people asking for a complete preset standard verification don't know what that means.
With one of the most difficult mp3 testsamples imho (fatboy), I am only able to hear artifacts up to 128 or maybe 160k lame CBR. VBR is totally hopeless for me even for that sample.
Anyone who can ABX any sample at aps has my highest respect
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: RyanVM on 2004-01-13 07:05:53
It's OK, I've been around HA to see plenty of those people in my time. And quite frankly, it's about time I start contributing back to this community which has given me so much
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: AtaqueEG on 2004-01-13 07:15:56
Quote
I'm willing to do my part. Where do I sign up?

Get one of the know problem samples from ff123's page.
Grab a copy of LAME 3.95.
Grab some ABX program.
Grab a pair of headphones.

Be sure to post back results.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: RyanVM on 2004-01-13 07:31:30
what decoder should I use to decode the samples? I've got 3.90.3 and 3.95.1 aps encodes now

BTW - my current plans are to do applaud.wav, castanets.wav, fatboy.wav, ftb_samp.wav, iron.wav, main_theme.wav, pipes.wav, and velvet.wav

Are there any here I shouldn't bother with/one's I should be doing that I'm not?
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: AtaqueEG on 2004-01-13 07:37:59
I would suggest foobar2000's decoder because it makes it a little easier to apply ReplayGain to files, which is an absolute must when trying to ABX, as clipping can trick you for "artifacts".

Load all your files in foobar2000, then click PLAYLIST-->SELECTION-->SELECT ALL
Right-click on the playlist, select REPLAYGAIN-->Scan per-file track gain.
Then CONVERT-->Settings-->Check "use replaygain" (output should be WAV undithered)
Then CONVERT-->Run conversion.

Ready for ABX
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: RyanVM on 2004-01-13 07:40:41
I was just going to use FB2K's built in ABX component (it's also setup to replaygain automatically )

Time for fun
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: AtaqueEG on 2004-01-13 07:41:37
Quote
what decoder should I use to decode the samples? I've got 3.90.3 and 3.95.1 aps encodes now

Trying to ABX -aps right away if you haven't done any ABX'ing before can be EXTREMELY difficult, then frustrate you and/or provide useless results.

I would suggest trying to ABX 128CBR to "train" yourself on artifacts, then maybe increasing to 160 and THEN to -aps.

Quote
Are there any here I shouldn't bother with/one's I should be doing that I'm not?

Some piece of music you are particularly familiar with.
It would make things easier.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: RyanVM on 2004-01-13 07:47:29
I'm getting the following error when trying to replaygain:
file info update failure on pipes3951.wav

and similar for all files I'm trying to replaygain
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: sony666 on 2004-01-13 09:52:11
fatboy and velvet are excellent starter samples, I am at that stage now also
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: postul8or on 2004-01-15 04:48:54
Hmm the mass renamer in Foobar wasn't immediately obvious how to use.  Guess I'll call it a night and fight that battle another day.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: Societal Eclipse on 2004-01-17 05:41:05
Quote
I'm getting the following error when trying to replaygain:
file info update failure on pipes3951.wav

and similar for all files I'm trying to replaygain

I don't think foobar will put replaygain tags on wavs.  There used to be an option to allow it but this was labeled as not recommended.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: Hammer0id on 2004-01-27 11:04:40
Anyone with experiences in compiling lame with the latest Intel ICL 8.0 C++ Compiler?
Would be nice if someone could compile this version (or the 3.95.1)

Quote
LAME 3.96alpha1 bundle 2004-01-15
includes lame.exe, lame_enc.dll and lameACM.acm - ICL7.1 compile - By John33
http://rarewares.hydrogenaudio.org/files/lame3.96a1.zip (http://rarewares.hydrogenaudio.org/files/lame3.96a1.zip)


with ICL 8.0. Then I would be able to do some speed comparing.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: nebob on 2004-01-31 19:59:57
Here (http://s90209013.onlinehome.us/lame-3.95.1-ic8.0.041-i386.exe) you are.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: mantra on 2004-02-03 17:22:27
i'm looking for the lame update for wavlab 4
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: MugFunky on 2004-03-07 18:02:28
a question that i'm not sure has been answered...

is it possible to configure the ACM version of lame to encode in --alt-presets?

there's an XML file but no instructions on how to tweak it (i haven't looked exhaustively through the html, but i don't remember reading it anywhere in them)
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: n68 on 2004-03-07 18:37:08
Quote
i'm looking for the lame update for wavlab 4

gday...


it should be so simple to copy your desired lame_enc
to your wavelab dir..
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: leif on 2004-03-11 00:16:56
Can someone point me to an explanation of how presets work with lame_enc.dll?

Are there the same version issues for using presets with lame_enc.dll as with lame.exe (ie. alt-presets are only recommended for version 3.90.3)?

I record fm radio and encode on the fly using the lame_enc.dll. I can't find a recorder that uses lame.exe and Hard Disk Ogg is the only recorder I've found with support for dll presets.

I've noticed that the dll from lame 3.95.1 seems to use less CPU than the dll from 3.90.3 when I'm recording, so the 3.95.1 version is a better choice if I can understand it works with presets.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: magic75 on 2004-03-11 08:59:33
Well, 3.95 is faster than 3.90 so that observation is fully correct. Using presets with the 3.90 dll is difficult, you may need a special build for that. Don't really know much about that, but the nice thing with 3.95 is that the presets have been set so that they are used by default. For instance you can access the VBR presets with the -V option. Do a search and you will find the info.

There isn't really any "issues" with using the presets with other versions than 3.90.3. But as far as we know (yet) 3.90.3 is the recommended/best version. If you for some reason need to use another version, the presets are still the way to go.

BTW, have you tried dbpoweramp? It uses the dll and it can access the presets from what I can see. Don't know how it works though.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: john33 on 2004-03-11 09:13:56
The lame_enc.dll included in the standard 3.90.3 download at Rarewares supports all the usual presets, including the medium presets. The only issue is whether the application that uses the dll also allows use of them.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: leif on 2004-03-12 05:32:55
thanks all, Hard Disk Ogg is the only recorder I've found with a good range of presets and the author says it works well with the 3.95.1 dll - on the Pentium 111-600 I use for recording the 3.95.1 dll also uses less than 50% CPU compared to over 80% with 3.90.1 dll with the standard preset (100% with extreme).

So I guess I'll record with 3.95.1 but use the recommended 3.90.3 lame.exe with alt-preset standard for other encoding ... I assume there's no problem putting both the 3.95.1 dll and the 3.90.3 exe together in the system32 directory (hope that's not a dumb question)
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: OCedHrt on 2004-06-24 23:16:09
Quote
I'm getting the following error when trying to replaygain:
file info update failure on pipes3951.wav

and similar for all files I'm trying to replaygain

A bit late now, but even if it gives you the error the replay gain is still in effect at least for that foobar session. I can run replay-gain on a cd and then convert it to mp3 and have the replay gain in effect. Obviously it can't update the cd.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: rjamorim on 2004-08-13 01:24:25
Hello.

I would like to ask that the link at the first post in this thread be replaced with this one:
http://www.rarewares.org/dancer/dancer.php?f=1 (http://www.rarewares.org/dancer/dancer.php?f=1)

That will help load the balance evenly among RareWares' mirrors.

Thank-you.

Regards;

Roberto.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: Peter on 2004-08-13 01:46:54
Done.
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: Garf on 2004-09-25 12:09:28
Given that one of the other sticky threads lists 3.96.1 as recommended for low to mid bitrate VBR, which is important for many people, I fail to understand why this thread has no 3.96.1 compile in the first post.

(And yes, I was too lazy to read the entire discussion, it just makes no sense to me)
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: shafff on 2005-10-05 19:06:59
Encspot says that 3.97 -V0 encoded file has 58% ss (joint stereo) blocks, when the same file, but 3.96 ape encoded, has 73%
3.97 -V2 and -V1 gives only 7%-10% ss blocks on that file (Madonna - Secret).

Is it OK?
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: beto on 2005-10-05 19:16:33
Yes, if you don't hear any obvious problem with the samples. And i think that ss stands for stereo frames rather than joint stereo, but I believe that should be confirmed by someone else that's more used to encspot than me...
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: shafff on 2005-10-05 19:54:20
joint stereo = ss + ms

actually i cant hear any difference on my PC even between 160 and 192
Title: List of recommended LAME compiles
Post by: echo on 2006-06-09 23:34:44
The recommended compile at http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Lame_Compiles (http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Lame_Compiles) is currently lame 3.97b2, but the linux compile from the same page identifies itself as lame 3.97b1. Is there any 3.97b2 linux compile available? I didn't find anything on the rarewares page either.