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: Lame 3.97 beta 1 released (Read 100603 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Lame 3.97 beta 1 released

Reply #25 –
Quote
What about this issue?
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....topic=37003&hl=
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=326432"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

There will always been samples that certain encoders or encoder switches will not be able to cope with in comparison to other encoders or similar switches.  Whilst it is an interesting sample and one that should be looked at, there seems to have been more positive feedback on --vbr-new than negative.

Lame 3.97 beta 1 released

Reply #26 –
I believe this issue can be corrected.
Infrasonic Quartet + Sennheiser HD650 + Microlab Solo 2 mk3. 

Lame 3.97 beta 1 released

Reply #27 –
when using --vbr-new the -q switch produces exact same results, no matter if i use q0,q1,q2,q3 or q4. is that intended?

-andy-

Lame 3.97 beta 1 released

Reply #28 –
Should we start thinking about doing large-scale sample/regression testing of 3.97 --vbr-new against 3.90.3, towards making it the recommended encoder? I'm a little leery of just calling it done just yet, given the extremely high standard of testing that is previously established.

Lame 3.97 beta 1 released

Reply #30 –
I had a serious issue with the lame ACM from the 3.97b1 compile from RareWares. After installing it EAC, the software with my Bluethoot device and some other programs could no longer be opened. I got "Access violation" messages and such. When reverting to the 3.96.1 Lame ACM, all those issues was resolved. (Using XP sp2, BTW.)
"ONLY THOSE WHO ATTEMPT THE IMPOSSIBLE WILL ACHIEVE THE ABSURD"
        - Oceania Association of Autonomous Astronauts

Lame 3.97 beta 1 released

Reply #31 –
I had the same issue with lameACM. EAC won't start but i got an error message with an "access violation".
But i deinstalled lameACM because i don't need it anymore 
I only used lameACM for filmsoundtrack in the past, but i changed to mp4 or mkv and use other audioformats instead of lame now.
The main-thing is that the lame.exe works great and gives excellent results.

But i have another question:
I didn't followed the hole development of 3.97alphas.
Now i wanted to test all the properties of lame397b1 like i did with 3.96.1.
In 3.96.1 there were ATH-Settings available. Now in the 3.97b1 it doesn't take any effect, when playing with this settings. Are they removed?

Lame 3.97 beta 1 released

Reply #32 –
Regarding the ACM interface:
Source code did not changed between a12 and beta, but some people are reporting crashes with beta while a12 was working.
Some of those people downloaded the binaries from Rarewares, so the question is:
Is the compiled beta ACM available on Rarewares using the same compiler switches are the previously available a12?

Lame 3.97 beta 1 released

Reply #33 –
Is it possible, that there will be a Mac-Version of this beta?
Would be very nice 
I've found a Mac-Version of alpha11, very comfortable in combination with iTunes and Synergy (automatic coversearch).

Lame 3.97 beta 1 released

Reply #34 –
Quote
Regarding the ACM interface:
Source code did not changed between a12 and beta, but some people are reporting crashes with beta while a12 was working.
Some of those people downloaded the binaries from Rarewares, so the question is:
Is the compiled beta ACM available on Rarewares using the same compiler switches are the previously available a12?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=326834"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hmmm, I don't know what happened with the previous build, but I've rebuilt the ACM and I think it's OK now. I've uploaded again to Rarewares and added a note to the narrative indicating that it's only the ACM that's changed.

Lame 3.97 beta 1 released

Reply #35 –
Hey john33, may I suggest making a fresh version of LamedropXPd based on you-know-what?
Infrasonic Quartet + Sennheiser HD650 + Microlab Solo 2 mk3. 

Lame 3.97 beta 1 released

Reply #36 –
You may, indeed!!  I'll get right on it.
 

Lame 3.97 beta 1 released

Reply #37 –
Thanks a lot john33, now i can finally show my friends, who can't be bothered with commandline settings, how good the new lame 3.97 is

Lame 3.97 beta 1 released

Reply #38 –
Quote
Hey john33, may I suggest making a fresh version of LamedropXPd based on you-know-what?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=327315"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Now available at Rarewares. The version I've posted is the one with the revised encoder dialogue interface.

Lame 3.97 beta 1 released

Reply #39 –
Quote
Is it possible, that there will be a Mac-Version of this beta?
Would be very nice 
I've found a Mac-Version of alpha11, very comfortable in combination with iTunes and Synergy (automatic coversearch).
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=326851"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The Developer Tools come free with Mac OS X, and can also be downloaded (http://connect.apple.com), and you only need to type 3 simple lines in the Terminal to build and install LAME. A quick reference to this is available with the iTunes-LAME software. It's even easier now with the beta, because there's a source code file download on LAME's sourceforge page, instead of just pulling from cvs.

Lame 3.97 beta 1 released

Reply #40 –
Quote
Quote
Hey john33, may I suggest making a fresh version of LamedropXPd based on you-know-what?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=327315"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Now available at Rarewares. The version I've posted is the one with the revised encoder dialogue interface.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=327329"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I'm not sure I understand the scale of 10-100 for the encoder dialogue, how does it correctly correspond to the new presets, such as -V0.  Also, please explain what the encoding engine quality does.  Thanks for the update to LameDrop, always handy.

Lame 3.97 beta 1 released

Reply #41 –
Quote
Quote
Hey john33, may I suggest making a fresh version of LamedropXPd based on you-know-what?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=327315"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Now available at Rarewares. The version I've posted is the one with the revised encoder dialogue interface.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=327329"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

After encoding using the newly posted LameDrop for 3.97b1, encspot & audio identifier show the lame version as 3.96r.  Not sure what causes this, when I encode using speeks front end I get the proper version tag for 3.97b1.

Lame 3.97 beta 1 released

Reply #42 –
Quote
Quote
Quote
Hey john33, may I suggest making a fresh version of LamedropXPd based on you-know-what?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=327315"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Now available at Rarewares. The version I've posted is the one with the revised encoder dialogue interface.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=327329"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

After encoding using the newly posted LameDrop for 3.97b1, encspot & audio identifier show the lame version as 3.96r.  Not sure what causes this, when I encode using speeks front end I get the proper version tag for 3.97b1.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=327357"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hmmm, I don't quite know how that happened, but I've recompiled and uploaded again and it now reads '3.97b', as it should. Thanks for reporting this, BTW.

Lame 3.97 beta 1 released

Reply #43 –
Quote
I'm not sure I understand the scale of 10-100 for the encoder dialogue, how does it correctly correspond to the new presets, such as -V0. Also, please explain what the encoding engine quality does.

http://lame.sourceforge.net/lame_ui_example.html

Lame 3.97 beta 1 released

Reply #44 –
Just curious as to why EncSpot report lowpass filter at 18600 for -v 2 --vbr-new?

Lame 3.97 beta 1 released

Reply #45 –
Quote
Just curious as to why EncSpot report lowpass filter at 18600 for -v 2 --vbr-new?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=327469"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This is because for -V 2, the old -preset standard, the vbr quality is set to 2 and this in turn sets a lowpass of 18600. It has been this way for some time.

Lame 3.97 beta 1 released

Reply #46 –
OK. Thank you john!

Lame 3.97 beta 1 released

Reply #47 –
Yay, thanks John!
Infrasonic Quartet + Sennheiser HD650 + Microlab Solo 2 mk3. 

Lame 3.97 beta 1 released

Reply #48 –
By the way, bitrate corresponding table is a bit, well, misleading in LamedropXPd v.2: while quality 70 is a perfect 176 kbps, quality 60 is more like 144 (150 kbps, to be more precise) and 40 is almost perfect 128 kbps. That is because of -Y switch that gives a massive boost to bitrate starting with -V3, so the progression is non-linear here.
Well, it's not a bug, nor a serious issue… just a minor note.
Infrasonic Quartet + Sennheiser HD650 + Microlab Solo 2 mk3. 

Lame 3.97 beta 1 released

Reply #49 –
Quote
By the way, bitrate corresponding table is a bit, well, misleading in LamedropXPd v.2: while quality 70 is a perfect 176 kbps, quality 60 is more like 144 (150 kbps, to be more precise) and 40 is almost perfect 128 kbps. That is because of -Y switch that gives a massive boost to bitrate starting with -V3, so the progression is non-linear here.
Well, it's not a bug, nor a serious issue… just a minor note.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=327588"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Always a difficult one, this, as it does very much depend upon the material used. However, if one can generalise, I think that it should be revised as follows:
Code: [Select]
Quality Setting                   Indicated Bitrate
  10  (V9)                                   64
  20  (V8)                                   92
  30  (V7)                                  112
  40  (V6)                                  128
  50  (V5)                                  140
  60  (V4)                                  160
  70  (V3)                                  176
  80  (V2)                                  200
  90  (V1)                                  224
  100 (V0)                                  240

Anyone else have a view on this?