Skip to main content

Topic: Lame 3.100 has been released (Read 9257 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • madmax
  • [*]
Re: Lame 3.100 has been released
Reply #25
Here too, much faster: http://tmkk.undo.jp/lame/index_e.html

with this patch applied, i get an error when i try compile x86


./configure  --host=i686-w64-mingw32 --enable-shared --enable-static
and then "make -j2" leads to a
Quote
gain_analysis.c: In Funktion »filterYule«:
gain_analysis.c:216:5: error: impossible constraint in 'asm'
     __asm__ __volatile__ (
     ^
  • Last Edit: 20 October, 2017, 01:20:47 PM by madmax

  • eahm
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Lame 3.100 has been released
Reply #26
From the RareWares 64bit build:




  • john33
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
Re: Lame 3.100 has been released
Reply #27
OK, thanks, I'll sort it out.
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
My compiles and utilities are at http://www.rarewares.org/

  • eahm
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Lame 3.100 has been released
Reply #28
john33, perfect thanks, let me know when and I'll test right away.

  • polemon
  • [*][*][*][*]
Re: Lame 3.100 has been released
Reply #29
Do we have listening tests yet?

  • john33
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
Re: Lame 3.100 has been released
Reply #30
Corrected compiles uploaded. 32 bit and 64 bit versions tested on system without the Intel libraries present and load and work fine. 'More haste, less speed' called for, methinks! ;)
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
My compiles and utilities are at http://www.rarewares.org/

  • eahm
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Lame 3.100 has been released
Reply #31
Very good and almost as fast as tmkk (~55x vs ~60x), will test more tomorrow.

I don’t know how he compiled, is there any reason we shouldn’t use tmkk?

  • Case
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer (Donating)
Re: Lame 3.100 has been released
Reply #32
tmkk's binaries aren't just a different compile. They use replacement functions that are faster but also produce different results.

  • john33
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
Re: Lame 3.100 has been released
Reply #33
Sorry for the absence of compiles on Rarewares, but I have been away from home for the last 2 weeks and I don't return until the end of this week. I will post compiles as soon as I'm able. :)

Thanks John! Can you update the libmp3lame (x86 and x64) compiles too? I might be the only one using them, but I do use them!
Could you kindly check these compiles to see if they are OK before I post the links at Rarewares? TIA. :)

libmp3lame-3.100x86.zip

libmp3lame-3.100x64.zip
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
My compiles and utilities are at http://www.rarewares.org/

  • sanskrit44
  • [*][*]
Re: Lame 3.100 has been released
Reply #34
@john33: thank you for the updated flac and lame versions at rarewares. will there also be a latest ogg lancer build as well?

  • d4k0
  • [*]
Re: Lame 3.100 has been released
Reply #35
I see "LAME3.100".

I get additional special characters depending on the encoding mode. With CBR the encoder is said to be "LAME3.100Í" and when using VBR it says "LAME3.100Ý". With Lame 3.99.5 I don't have this "problem". I tested all encoders from this thread. Can someone confirm this?

  • john33
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
Re: Lame 3.100 has been released
Reply #36
@john33: thank you for the updated flac and lame versions at rarewares. will there also be a latest ogg lancer build as well?
You're welcome. :) I may get round to the Lancer builds, but I don't believe the code's been updated in a long while, so I'm not sure there will be any benefit.
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
My compiles and utilities are at http://www.rarewares.org/

  • [JAZ]
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Lame 3.100 has been released
Reply #37
d4k0: That's an innerent problem of old programs assuming that the tag was going to be 8 characters always. The problem is that LAME3.100 is now 9 characters, and in C, the strings are terminated will a null character (code 0). Due to this discrepancy, now the string is not being terminated at the correct position with programs that didn't get around this possibility.

  • soundping
  • [*][*]
Re: Lame 3.100 has been released
Reply #38
I've not had any problems with this build.
https://github.com/Chocobo1/lame_win32-build/releases

  • sanskrit44
  • [*][*]
Re: Lame 3.100 has been released
Reply #39
@john33: thank you for the updated flac and lame versions at rarewares. will there also be a latest ogg lancer build as well?
You're welcome. :) I may get round to the Lancer builds, but I don't believe the code's been updated in a long while, so I'm not sure there will be any benefit.
hm, i think there have been some minor changes (not qualitywise though) to ogg lancer indeed. anyway, after flac & lame it would be great to see a lancer update, too :)

  • bennetng
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Lame 3.100 has been released
Reply #40
I don’t know how he compiled, is there any reason we shouldn’t use tmkk?
All builds sometimes create different files, even the x86 and x64 version from the same bundle. From the null test results I am unable to tell which particular build has more differences than the others, plus I can't ABX them. Therefore I am going to use tmkk's version for the speed.

I learnt about the term "non-deterministic" in x264 but I think the situation is a bit different, since individual lame.exe always create identical mp3 files.

I wonder will the same lame.exe create different mp3 files when using different processors, like Intel vs AMD? Who wants to try?

Among the attached files, Rarewares-x86.mp3 is the only file which is different from others. However, if the original audio files are longer, all files are more likely to be different.


  • eahm
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Lame 3.100 has been released
Reply #41
Confirm Rarewares-x86.mp3 is the only different one with bit-compare.

  • saratoga
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Lame 3.100 has been released
Reply #42
I don’t know how he compiled, is there any reason we shouldn’t use tmkk?
All builds sometimes create different files, even the x86 and x64 version from the same bundle. From the null test results I am unable to tell which particular build has more differences than the others, plus I can't ABX them. Therefore I am going to use tmkk's version for the speed.

I learnt about the term "non-deterministic" in x264 but I think the situation is a bit different, since individual lame.exe always create identical mp3 files.

I wonder will the same lame.exe create different mp3 files when using different processors, like Intel vs AMD? Who wants to try?


It's been discussed in detail before, but basically floating point numbers have rounding error, so each of the many ways you can compile a mathematical operation may give slightly different results due to how the numbers round. If you need deterministic output, you're probably looking for a lossless codec.

  • madmax
  • [*]
Re: Lame 3.100 has been released
Reply #43
Here too, much faster: http://tmkk.undo.jp/lame/index_e.html

with this patch applied, i get an error when i try compile x86


./configure  --host=i686-w64-mingw32 --enable-shared --enable-static
and then "make -j2" leads to a
Quote
gain_analysis.c: In Funktion »filterYule«:
gain_analysis.c:216:5: error: impossible constraint in 'asm'
     __asm__ __volatile__ (
     ^
sorry i was wrong, it does work, i simply made a silly mistake. :(

  • Pepzhez
  • [*][*][*][*]
Re: Lame 3.100 has been released
Reply #44
tmkk's binaries aren't just a different compile. They use replacement functions that are faster but also produce different results.

"Different results" as in different from all other builds, or ... ? What exactly are the replacement functions in question? Maybe I am just dense, but this thread has taken a turn toward the confusing. Or rather, I am confused! So which is the better choice? The tmkk Windows build or the flac-1.3.2-git-20171020-x64 build available at Rarewares? I am just trying to follow all of this and am obviously failing.

  • kode54
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Re: Lame 3.100 has been released
Reply #45
You're even more confused than you think. LAME != FLAC. One's an MP3 encoder, lossy by definition, the other one's a lossless codec.

  • Pepzhez
  • [*][*][*][*]
Re: Lame 3.100 has been released
Reply #46
You're even more confused than you think. LAME != FLAC. One's an MP3 encoder, lossy by definition, the other one's a lossless codec.

Aren't i an idiot?! Shows you what two hours of sleep will do! I meant to say the rarewares lame3.100-64 or the tmkk build.

Sorry about that!

  • saratoga
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Lame 3.100 has been released
Reply #47
Unless you need to encode a lot of music very quickly I would use the standard lame builds.  The difference in speed is not that compelling on modern hardware.

  • mpuzirew
  • [*]
Re: Lame 3.100 has been released
Reply #48
Aren't i an idiot?! Shows you what two hours of sleep will do!
It is not difficult to sleep 2 hours a day. It's difficult not to sleep the other 22 hours :))

Re: Lame 3.100 has been released
Reply #49
Nice one! Thanks a lot for all your hard work on rarewares, @john33

Edit: added work (oh, my!)
Listen to the music, not the media.