Hello,
I was wondering why the rarewares "LAME 3.99.5 using libsndfile 1.0.25 (http://www.rarewares.org/mp3-lame-bundle.php)" x86 and x64 compiles give different results (mp3) with the same source file (flac) and options. The difference is very settle (4 bytes) but the audio stream is different when bit-compared with foobar2000.
Shouldn't the audio stream stay the same?
Maybe john33 could check on that?
Edit: The title got truncated. It should have been -> different results with rarewares "LAME 3.99.5 using libsndfile 1.0.25" x86 and x64 compiles
Binaries compiled with different settings/optimisations/
etc. may produce insignificantly differing bitstreams. This is a non-issue in reality. Also, it has been discussed numerous times before, so you might prefer to search for historical instances rather than waiting for people to repeat themselves.
Also, why was this in General Audio?
Edit: The title got truncated.
Fixed. There’s a limit of 70 characters, fewer if HTML-unfriendly symbols are involved.
(http://i50.tinypic.com/20sg7n.png)
@db1989
Sorry that I did not realize that it is a non issue. I'm not a "professional".
My initial search didn't give any satisfying result. Thats why I asked.
A link to one of this numerous threads would have sufficed. Instead I get a rather annoyed answer and I get the feeling I have to justify my question.
Anyway thanks for moving the thread in the right topic and correcting the title.
@eahm
I compared the results of the x64 and x86 "libsndfile" builds
A link to one of this numerous threads would have sufficed. Instead I get a rather annoyed answer and I get the feeling I have to justify my question.
Search better? If you want to know about differences between lame compiles, searching for 'lame compile differences' turns up quite a lot of threads. Here is one of them, which i'm picking just because it is my post explaining it:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....st&p=784395 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=93308&view=findpost&p=784395)
Thanks for the objective part of the answer and the link.
I just selected all four, foobar2000 divided the two.
Tested again:
(http://i46.tinypic.com/15xoak3.png)
(http://i48.tinypic.com/ir002s.png)
@db1989
Sorry that I did not realize that it is a non issue. I'm not a "professional".
My initial search didn't give any satisfying result. Thats why I asked.
A link to one of this numerous threads would have sufficed. Instead I get a rather annoyed answer and I get the feeling I have to justify my question.
Anyway thanks for moving the thread in the right topic and correcting the title.
I didn’t mean to sound annoyed or imply that you had to explain yourself, but I thought it was something quite easy to find with search; YMMV. And you’re welcome for the rename/move, of course.
I didn’t mean to sound annoyed or imply that you had to explain yourself, but I thought it was something quite easy to find with search; YMMV. And you’re welcome for the rename/move, of course.
All right Thanks for clarification.
(http://i46.tinypic.com/15xoak3.png)
Is that 0.022 relative to 1? If so, it's larger than the difference one would usually expect between 64-bit vs. 32-bit compiles (e.g 1 LSB at 16-bit is 0.00003).