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: [USELESS] LAME 3.97 (Read 8983 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

[USELESS] LAME 3.97

Hi,

I follow discussion in this forum for long time now, and today i have finally decided to subscibe as a member    First, i introduce myself : i'm a 19 years old computer students in France near from Paris.

Have you heard about Lame 3.97 ?

Lame 3.97

I will probably start testing it this week ...

++

[USELESS] LAME 3.97

Reply #1 –
Lame? No, haven't heard of that one. Is it some sort of cracking tool? We don't really deal with that sort of thing on this site.

[USELESS] LAME 3.97

Reply #3 –
Quote
Lame? No, haven't heard of that one. Is it some sort of cracking tool? We don't really deal with that sort of thing on this site.

geez... man, it's TEH TOOL for >insert your favorite kitchen-sink-task<

seriously, I think it's more than a litlle suspicious that some nice soul have (final?) 3.97 ready and shares it via that kind of url... lokks like malware to me...
(c'est mal, eh?)
Nothing but a Heartache - Since I found my Baby ;)

[USELESS] LAME 3.97

Reply #4 –
This thread belongs in the bitbucket.
flac > schiit modi > schiit magni > hd650

[USELESS] LAME 3.97

Reply #5 –
Quote
This thread belongs in the bitbucket.

either that, or at least it should be moved away from the listening tests section.
Nothing but a Heartache - Since I found my Baby ;)

[USELESS] LAME 3.97

Reply #6 –
Quote
Have you heard about Lame 3.97 ?

I wonder if it is better than blade? 

[USELESS] LAME 3.97

Reply #7 –
Quote
Quote
Have you heard about Lame 3.97 ?

I wonder if it is better than blade? 

now come on... how can a tool of war possibly can be compared to an audio codec?
tse tse...
Nothing but a Heartache - Since I found my Baby ;)

[USELESS] LAME 3.97

Reply #8 –
 Blade is the worse codec i have ever seen 
I'm searching a test CD's which was free in france : it's a CD given with a magazine "Nouvelle Revue Du Son" No12.
It's very interessant because it's a recording of misc ambiences like shops, street ... and there is type sentences which was audible only with a good enconding because they are mixed with the ambient noise.  I think this is good samples type for testing audio codec.

My Actual Audiocodec Preferences :

Lossless :
FLAC

192 k :
MPC
Vorbis
AAC
MP3PRO

[USELESS] LAME 3.97

Reply #9 –
Quote
My Actual Audiocodec Preferences :

Lossless :
FLAC

192 k :
MPC
Vorbis
AAC
MP3PRO

Good choice for lossless.  MP3PRO is meant for less than 100kbit/s, it should not be used at 192kbit/s, for transparent MP3 LAME --preset standard is a much better choice.  What do you mean by 192kbit/s MPC?  --quality 6?  Personally I think that 6 is overkill, I would go with 5; but its your choice .  I hope you mean Vorbis -q7 and not CBR 192, as Vorbis should really only be used in VBR mode.  You mean iTunes AAC at 192kbit/s, right?  There are a lot of different AAC encoders out there, remember.
gentoo ~amd64 + layman | ncmpcpp/mpd | wavpack + vorbis + lame

[USELESS] LAME 3.97

Reply #10 –
Yeah

I forgot to give some precision :

I use Vorbis 1.1.0 at 192 kb/s VBR
        Lame 3,96 at 192 kb/s ABS -q 0 JS or S
        Nero 6.1.3.4 AAC Encoder HE 192 kb/s

I agree with you, MP3PRO is Very Good for Internet Encoding 96kb/s RuLeZ 

For Lossless encoding i use FLAC with --best

[USELESS] LAME 3.97

Reply #11 –
Quote
Nero 6.1.3.4 AAC Encoder HE 192 kb/s

Isn't HE-AAC for low bitrates?
Life is Real...
(But not in audio :) )

[USELESS] LAME 3.97

Reply #12 –
>>Isn't HE-AAC for low bitrates?
For bitrates < 96Kbit
BTW, anyway, Nero will not use SBR (even if you select it) for 192Kbit

[USELESS] LAME 3.97

Reply #13 –
Quote
Isn't HE-AAC for low bitrates?

Yup, and Nero won't actually let you use HE-AAC for anything higher than ~100kbit/s.  However it doesn't stop you from changing to HE-AAC in the settings, so even though Jam thinks he is getting HE-AAC he is actually encoding in LC-AAC.
gentoo ~amd64 + layman | ncmpcpp/mpd | wavpack + vorbis + lame

[USELESS] LAME 3.97

Reply #14 –
I didn't found a topic about HE and LC difference and i didn't ear the difference    But, i think 192 kb/s i s a "low bitrate" for AAC dur to his ability to go to 448 kb/s and more.

[USELESS] LAME 3.97

Reply #15 –
Quote
I didn't found a topic about HE and LC difference and i didn't ear the difference    But, i think 192 kb/s i s a "low bitrate" for AAC dur to his ability to go to 448 kb/s and more.

Nope, if you test it out you will find that HE-AAC sounds pretty sweet at 24kbit/s (comparatively).  So 192 is quite a high bitrate.  448kbit/s is just plain wasteful.  Besides, there is no upper limit, AFAIK, for MPC and Vorbis, so by your logic 400kbit/s would be a low bitrate for either of them as they can reach bitrates in excess of 1000kbit/s.

edit: comparatively
gentoo ~amd64 + layman | ncmpcpp/mpd | wavpack + vorbis + lame

[USELESS] LAME 3.97

Reply #16 –
>>But, i think 192 kb/s i s a "low bitrate" for AAC dur to his ability to go to 448 kb/s and more.
Heh, man, I don't want to be weird  but it is better to operate terms in their common meaning
Low bitrate usually means that it is less than 128 Kbit (or 160Kbit) that usually is a border of transparency for the regular hearing (as mine  )...

[USELESS] LAME 3.97

Reply #17 –
Yes, of course. But now with HDCD and the democratisation of ocean-size hard disk i encode in that terms : For internet streaming : 64kb/s MP3PRO
                                      download : 160 kb/s VBR Ogg
                                      mp3 portable players : 192 kb/s MP3 ABR
                                      be compatible with certain DVD players : AAC 256 kb/s
                                      all days listening : MPC
                                      album that i like (for exemple Sting or Pink Floyd) and in order to take less space than wave i use FLAC --best

I think we are far from the original topic, but it is interessant to compare point of view and archiving strategy of differents guys to optimize his own record/ripping archiving 

[USELESS] LAME 3.97

Reply #18 –
Quote
mp3 portable players : 192 kb/s MP3 ABR

Why not --preset standard?  It would yield a similar bitrate but would likely be transparent in substantially more cases.
gentoo ~amd64 + layman | ncmpcpp/mpd | wavpack + vorbis + lame

[USELESS] LAME 3.97

Reply #19 –
Quote
now come on... how can a tool of war possibly can be compared to an audio codec?
tse tse...


In french "lame" means "blade".

Regarding 3.97, I am sure it has not been released.
 

[USELESS] LAME 3.97

Reply #20 –
Quote
In french "lame" means "blade".

Regarding 3.97, I am sure it has not been released.


Hi,

Ok. But version 3.97 Alpha is an official version or a stupid fake ?   

[USELESS] LAME 3.97

Reply #22 –
Hi,

I know but is this an alpha from Lame developper or a fake ?

[USELESS] LAME 3.97

Reply #23 –
Quote
I know but is this an alpha from Lame developper or a fake ?

I do not know and I do not care, as users should not use alpha versions. So anyway, DO NOT USE IT.

[USELESS] LAME 3.97

Reply #24 –
OK I use it just for my own test purpose ... Thx