Skip to main content

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Encode entire collection: LAME 3.95.1 or 3.96? (Read 5887 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Encode entire collection: LAME 3.95.1 or 3.96?

Hi,

I'm about to encode my substantial collection of CDs into a digital format, and for portability reasons, I've chosen to use MP3, and LAME seems like the best of the encoders out there.

There was a thread earlier on about some potential problems[1] with LAME 3.96, so I'm wondering if 3.95.1 is a better alternative?

Did the issues with 3.96 ever get adressed and/or resolved (if required)?

Also, some people seem to swear by the 3.90.3 version. What gives?


Thanks in advance.

[1] http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....11&#entry202211

Encode entire collection: LAME 3.95.1 or 3.96?

Reply #1
Quote
Did the issues with 3.96 ever get adressed and/or resolved (if required)?
[1] http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....11&#entry202211
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=228502"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Ummm, what issues?

3.90.3 is the officially recommended encoder. However, 3.96 is probably just as good, and probably better at the lower bitrates. The tests comparing these two were inconclusive

Edit: from the same thread you linked:

I agree with Gabriel, who is to say that Lame 3.96 may break one sample, but fix 25 other samples? Unless it is tested more, you can't judge
flac>fb2k>kernel streaming>audiophile 2496>magni>dt990 pro

Encode entire collection: LAME 3.95.1 or 3.96?

Reply #2
3.90.3 is the 'officially' recommended LAME version: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=478

3.96 should be ok to use but it is not as thouroughly tested.  It is faster though.
"You can fight without ever winning, but never win without a fight."  Neil Peart  'Resist'

Encode entire collection: LAME 3.95.1 or 3.96?

Reply #3
Quote
3.96 should be ok to use but it is not as thouroughly tested. It is faster though.

3.96.1 is the version to use. It is same as 3.96 but with known bugs fixed.

Encode entire collection: LAME 3.95.1 or 3.96?

Reply #4
Do you have a link for 3.96.1? I can't see anywhere something between 3.96 "final" and 3.97 "alpha".

Encode entire collection: LAME 3.95.1 or 3.96?

Reply #5
3.96.1 will soon be released

Encode entire collection: LAME 3.95.1 or 3.96?

Reply #6
What are the changes? I suppose it'll fix the bug occuring with the "vbr-new" (IIRC) mode corrupting sometimes the output file. Other changes? Something in quality area?


Encode entire collection: LAME 3.95.1 or 3.96?

Reply #8
3.90.3 is the officially recommended encoder. However, 3.96 is probably just as good, and probably better at the lower bitrates. The tests comparing these two were inconclusive


is the 3.90.3 version the same that i can find http://www.rarewares.org/mp3.html ?

Encode entire collection: LAME 3.95.1 or 3.96?

Reply #9
Quote
Current Lame History

(always go to lame-cvs @ sourceforge, navigate to [cvs] / lame / lame / doc / html / history.html and  choose 'download' at last revision)
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


That's strange,
I have always used [a href="http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/*checkout*/lame/lame/doc/html/history.html?rev=HEAD]this[/url] link to view the  lame dev changelog.
Quote
LAME 3.97 alpha (CVS)
Robert Hegemann:
Fixed a rare bug in vbr-new (could lead to crashes or data corruption)
Gabriel Bouvigne:
Changed FLOAT8 to FLOAT
restored use of padding when not using bit reservoir

It's not the same as yours, which one is correct then ?
Quote
LAME 3.96.1    July 25 2004
Robert Hegemann:
fixed a crash in new vbr mode
Gabriel Bouvigne:
some fixes in ACM codec
fixed block size selection for mid and side channels

Is the current 3.96 compile on Rarewares 3.96 or 3.96.1 then ?
[edit:] The 3.96 compile on Rarewares is dated 2004-04, so it's the old version

Encode entire collection: LAME 3.95.1 or 3.96?

Reply #10
3.96.1 has been released, and the current development version is 3.97

Encode entire collection: LAME 3.95.1 or 3.96?

Reply #11
Quote
3.96.1 has been released, and the current development version is 3.97
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=229057"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I can't find a compiled 3.96.1 Windows binary in any of the usual places. Everything is labled 3.96, and looks to be from 4/2004.
flac>fb2k>kernel streaming>audiophile 2496>magni>dt990 pro

Encode entire collection: LAME 3.95.1 or 3.96?

Reply #12
Quote
Quote
3.96.1 has been released, and the current development version is 3.97
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=229057"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I can't find a compiled 3.96.1 Windows binary in any of the usual places. Everything is labled 3.96, and looks to be from 4/2004.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=229067"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Just posted now at Rarewares.

Encode entire collection: LAME 3.95.1 or 3.96?

Reply #13
Thank you John
flac>fb2k>kernel streaming>audiophile 2496>magni>dt990 pro

Encode entire collection: LAME 3.95.1 or 3.96?

Reply #14
Quote
3.96.1 has been released, and the current development version is 3.97
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Why is this Bugfixrelease a silentupdate?
- No announcement in "Validated News"
- No update at [a href="http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/*checkout*/lame/lame/doc/html/history.html?rev=HEAD]http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/*che...y.html?rev=HEAD[/url]
- Windows binarys only on rarewares
.halverhahn

Encode entire collection: LAME 3.95.1 or 3.96?

Reply #15
Quote
Why is this Bugfixrelease a silentupdate?
- No announcement in "Validated News"
- No update at http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/*che...y.html?rev=HEAD
- Windows binarys only on rarewares
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=229331"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


It's just a question of time...

Encode entire collection: LAME 3.95.1 or 3.96?

Reply #16
Quote
Quote

Why is this Bugfixrelease a silentupdate?
- No announcement in "Validated News"
- No update at http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/*che...y.html?rev=HEAD
- Windows binarys only on rarewares
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=229331"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


It's just a question of time...
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=229334"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Sorry if you feel I'm pushing you. 
.halverhahn

 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2021