Hydrogenaudio Forums

Lossy Audio Compression => MP3 => MP3 - Tech => Topic started by: Madrigal on 05 May, 2005, 10:21:32 PM

Title: LAME 3.97 Stable
Post by: Madrigal on 05 May, 2005, 10:21:32 PM
I'm posting this simply because activity seems to have ground to a halt at alpha 10.

Is there any active development currently going on?
Is there any meaningful testing/tuning currently under way?
Are we at all likely to see a stable release of 3.97 anytime soon?

Please revive my hopes if at all possible.

Regards,
Madrigal
Title: LAME 3.97 Stable
Post by: Danimal on 05 May, 2005, 10:28:59 PM
Quote
I'm posting this simply because activity seems to have ground to a halt at alpha 10.

Is there any active development currently going on?
Is there any meaningful testing/tuning currently under way?
Are we at all likely to see a stable release of 3.97 anytime soon?

Please revive my hopes if at all possible.

Regards,
Madrigal
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=295560"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Alpha 10 was posted what, six weeks ago?
Title: LAME 3.97 Stable
Post by: rjamorim on 05 May, 2005, 10:54:04 PM
The best way to measure the development progress is looking at the CVS checkins mailing list

http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_id=33168 (http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_id=33168)

As you can notice, Takehiro is working furiously in what is to become Lame 4.


There are checkins by me too, but I only take care of the web pages really (my biggest recent contribution was cleaning the links page throughly, removing dead links and updating existing ones, as well as making the WYSIWYG-generated code more usable).
Title: LAME 3.97 Stable
Post by: Gen912 on 05 May, 2005, 11:44:03 PM
Quote
Alpha 10 was posted what, six weeks ago?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=295561")


Fair enough, but how come there isn't a stable release of 3.97 yet, the latest being 3.97a10, when there are allready several alphas around the web from the 4.0 version?

Alpha version Lame 4.0a10
[a href="http://mitiok.free.fr/lame-4.0a10.zip]http://mitiok.free.fr/lame-4.0a10.zip[/url]

Alpha version Lame 4.0a14
http://www.rarewares.org/files/mp3/lame4.0a14.zip (http://www.rarewares.org/files/mp3/lame4.0a14.zip)

This is a serious question, since I don't really know how the developement of open source projects works.

NB:
Alpha versions are test versions only. They are recommended for test purposes only, see thread:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=28125 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=28125)
Title: LAME 3.97 Stable
Post by: DigitalDictator on 06 May, 2005, 03:49:35 AM
Quote
Fair enough, but how come there isn't a stable release of 3.97 yet, the latest being 3.97a10, when there are allready several alphas around the web from the 4.0 version?
Because they're not done with it yet. Neither is version 4 finished. Hence the alphas.
Title: LAME 3.97 Stable
Post by: Sunhillow on 06 May, 2005, 04:40:43 AM
I think this is because even LAME developers have something like a real life which is more important than typing and modifying C++ code
Title: LAME 3.97 Stable
Post by: ezra2323 on 06 May, 2005, 08:04:41 AM
Quote
I think this is because even LAME developers have something like a real life which is more important than typing and modifying C++ code


How dare they!

It's a good sign that so many are so interested in 3.97. It should be well received and we all look forward to it.
Title: LAME 3.97 Stable
Post by: ShowsOn on 06 May, 2005, 08:30:25 AM
I'm wondering when 4.0 comes out will that be tuned to the same degree as 3.96.1 and 3.97?

Or will tuning LAME 4 require a new effort (listening tests etc) because the code will be changed so much, removing a lot of limitations but altering the basic characteristic of the encoder?

In other words, will there be an on going comparison between 4.0 and the 3.9x branch, that will ultimately only be resolved say with a series of 4.x releases?
Title: LAME 3.97 Stable
Post by: Lyx on 06 May, 2005, 10:44:07 AM
Quote
In other words, will there be an on going comparison between 4.0 and the 3.9x branch, that will ultimately only be resolved say with a series of 4.x releases?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=295643"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That seems very probable to me. Of course, there is the possibility, that the initial 4.0 performs so well that this will be resolved soon. From what i have read, the changes in 4.0 are very significant, so comparisions will probable happen. What seems most probable to me, is that 3.97 will become the "stable" variant while work is being done on 4.0 becoming "the next big thing". Someone more involved in lame may be able to clarify this.

- Lyx
Title: LAME 3.97 Stable
Post by: rjamorim on 06 May, 2005, 11:05:41 AM
Quote
I'm wondering when 4.0 comes out will that be tuned to the same degree as 3.96.1 and 3.97?

Or will tuning LAME 4 require a new effort (listening tests etc) because the code will be changed so much, removing a lot of limitations but altering the basic characteristic of the encoder?

In other words, will there be an on going comparison between 4.0 and the 3.9x branch, that will ultimately only be resolved say with a series of 4.x releases?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=295643"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


From what I read at lame-dev, it seems Lame 4 won't have the same quality as 3.9x series at launch time. But it'll be waaay faster (faster than 3.96.1 even) and much easier to tune. So while it won't have the same quality, quality is expected to progress quite quickly.
Title: LAME 3.97 Stable
Post by: jaybeee on 06 May, 2005, 11:31:00 AM
Quote
From what I read at lame-dev, it seems Lame 4 won't have the same quality as 3.9x series at launch time. But it'll be waaay faster (faster than 3.96.1 even) and much easier to tune. So while it won't have the same quality, quality is expected to progress quite quickly.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=295675")

[a href="http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=29575&view=findpost&p=263440]Gabriel's post[/url] confirms that.  I'm sure Gabriel would say the same thing now??
Title: LAME 3.97 Stable
Post by: Never_Again on 06 May, 2005, 01:04:49 PM
Quote
There are checkins by me too, but I only take care of the web pages really (my biggest recent contribution was cleaning the links page throughly, removing dead links and updating existing ones, as well as making the WYSIWYG-generated code more usable).
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=295564"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The daily grind is hard work too. Your toils are appreciated RJ.
Title: LAME 3.97 Stable
Post by: LordofStars on 06 May, 2005, 02:42:10 PM
I don't really want to be a troll, but what is the reason for not contributing to an .mp4 encoder?
Title: LAME 3.97 Stable
Post by: beto on 06 May, 2005, 02:56:30 PM
I assume you mean AAC.

There are lots of people working in AAC at Nero and Apple. I don't understand your question.
Title: LAME 3.97 Stable
Post by: guruboolez on 06 May, 2005, 03:04:34 PM
Quote
I don't really want to be a troll, but what is the reason for not contributing to an .mp4 encoder?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=295709"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Probably because mp3 is much more popular than aac. LAME is currently more useful than faac.
Title: LAME 3.97 Stable
Post by: Gen912 on 06 May, 2005, 11:05:00 PM
Quote
Quote
Fair enough, but how come there isn't a stable release of 3.97 yet, the latest being 3.97a10, when there are allready several alphas around the web from the 4.0 version?
Because they're not done with it yet. Neither is version 4 finished. Hence the alphas.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=295586"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Nooo?!? Serious?? Ya think?? 

Ok, let me rephrase my question:

Why is there work being done on  a 4.x version (hence the alphas...  ), when there isn't a stable/final release of 3.97 yet?
Does this have to do with different teams of developers?
Title: LAME 3.97 Stable
Post by: rjamorim on 06 May, 2005, 11:17:54 PM
Quote
Ok, let me rephrase my question:

Why is there work being done on  a 4.x version (hence the alphas...  ), when there isn't a stable/final release of 3.97 yet?
Does this have to do with different teams of developers?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=295789"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


To make things simple: Takehiro works on 4.0, Gabriel and Robert work on 3.x

So, yeah, you could consider them "different teams"
Title: LAME 3.97 Stable
Post by: Gen912 on 07 May, 2005, 01:14:48 AM
Quote
Quote
Ok, let me rephrase my question:

Why is there work being done on  a 4.x version (hence the alphas...  ), when there isn't a stable/final release of 3.97 yet?
Does this have to do with different teams of developers?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=295789"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


To make things simple: Takehiro works on 4.0, Gabriel and Robert work on 3.x

So, yeah, you could consider them "different teams"
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=295790"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Maybe I'm getting on your nerves now (don't mean to) but, why isn't Takehiro working on 3.97 together with Gabriel and Robert?
Or vice versa...., why not drop further developement of 3.97 and concentrate all efforts on 4.x?
Title: LAME 3.97 Stable
Post by: JeanLuc on 07 May, 2005, 03:16:51 AM
I guess one part of the long 3.97 alpha story is that the developers want to present a version that is accepted as the new 'recommended build' by everyone ... to succeed in that, 3.97 has to be 'better' than 3.90.3 in every aspect (encoding speed, filesize, preset transparency) which does need a lot of testing and fine-tuning (hence the large number of alphas). Maybe 3.97 will even be the last 3.x version.

Given the fact that 4.x is based on totally re-written code IIRC, we can expect 3.97 final to stick around a long time before there is a useable 4.x build to reliably encode your music with ... so personally I don't care if the developers take the time needed to present a flawless build.
Title: LAME 3.97 Stable
Post by: Danimal on 07 May, 2005, 09:50:28 AM
Quote
Quote
Quote
Ok, let me rephrase my question:

Why is there work being done on  a 4.x version (hence the alphas...  ), when there isn't a stable/final release of 3.97 yet?
Does this have to do with different teams of developers?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=295789"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


To make things simple: Takehiro works on 4.0, Gabriel and Robert work on 3.x

So, yeah, you could consider them "different teams"
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=295790"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Maybe I'm getting on your nerves now (don't mean to) but, why isn't Takehiro working on 3.97 together with Gabriel and Robert?
Or vice versa...., why not drop further developement of 3.97 and concentrate all efforts on 4.x?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=295798"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Personally, I assume that the LAME devs are rational people and there are good reasons for why they are doing what they are doing, especially when the question you are asking has already been answered in the thread that is linked to by an earlier post in this one. 

As I understand it, 4.0 is a major rewrite of the LAME code and if they waited until the 3.9x was completely done, there would be a very long wait for 4.0.  At the same time, 3.9x has not been taken as far as it can go, and that is what the remaining tuning on 3.97 seeks to accomplish.  That way 3.97 can ultimately stand as a benchmark against which 4.0 can be measured.
Title: LAME 3.97 Stable
Post by: Madrigal on 07 May, 2005, 02:55:24 PM
I've just finished looking over this thread, and I'm not really sure if any of the original 3 questions has been answered or not.

Oh well ... (sigh) ...  I guess I'm just too impatient.

Regards,
Madrigal
Title: LAME 3.97 Stable
Post by: rjamorim on 07 May, 2005, 03:23:30 PM
Quote
and I'm not really sure if any of the original 3 questions has been answered or not.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=295890"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Sigh...

Quote
Is there any active development currently going on?


I told you to look at CVS activity. Development on Lame 4 is progressing very fast. Not as much on Lame 3.

Quote
Is there any meaningful testing/tuning currently under way?


None that I know of.

Quote
Are we at all likely to see a stable release of 3.97 anytime soon?[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=295560"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


It's ready when it's ready.
Title: LAME 3.97 Stable
Post by: alfa156 on 07 May, 2005, 04:56:03 PM
when should we expect LAME 4.0? Any quality differences besides the speed? When should we expect the LAME 3.97? And when should we expect HO.org to update their recommended encoder?

Thank you
Title: LAME 3.97 Stable
Post by: Sunhillow on 07 May, 2005, 05:06:58 PM
As always in the long history of LAME, no release date is to be expected. Just be happy when the time has come
Title: LAME 3.97 Stable
Post by: alfa156 on 07 May, 2005, 05:10:14 PM
Quote
As always in the long history of LAME, no release date is to be expected. Just be happy when the time has come
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=295906"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


i know....but not even a rough guess? weeks? month(s)? year(s)?
Title: LAME 3.97 Stable
Post by: ChiGung on 07 May, 2005, 05:24:40 PM
fwiw, this IChing looks auspicious...
Quote
The answer to the question, "should i expect lame 397 before august" is:

May 7, 105
19. Lin - Approach
          -- --
          -- --     above     K'un   The Receptive, Earth
          -- --
          -- --
          -----     below     Tui    The Joyous, Lake
          -----

     The Judgement
          Approach has supreme success.
          Perseverance furthers.
          When the eighth month comes,
          There will be misfortune.

     The Image
          The earth above the lake:
          The image of Approach.
          Thus the superior man is inexhaustible
          In his will to teach,
          And without limits
          In his tolerance and protection of the people.

     Changing Lines
          Changing yang at the bottom means:
          Joint approach. Perseverance brings good fortune.

          Changing yang in the second place means:
          Joint approach. Good fortune. Everything furthers.

          Changing yin in the third place means:
          Comfortable approach. Nothing that would further.
          If one is induced to grieve over it, One becomes free of blame.

          Changing yin in the fourth place means:
          Complete approach. No blame.

          Changing yin in the fifth place means:
          Wise approach. This is right for a great prince.Good fortune.

          Changing yin at the top means:
          Greathearted approach.
          Good fortune. No blame.
Title: LAME 3.97 Stable
Post by: music_man_mpc on 07 May, 2005, 06:17:55 PM
Quote
when should we expect LAME 4.0?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=295905"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Probably anytime between a month or two from now and next year.  Beta testing should be coming along *fairly soon*, but I'm not sure exactly how long *fairly soon* is and I have absolutely no idea how long it will be in beta stage before we see a stable release.
Quote
Any quality differences besides the speed?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=295905"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes, the quality will be initially worse than recent 3.9X releases but LAME 4.0 should be capable of better quality than 3.9X in the long run.  However it will probably need to be tuned considerably first I don't think anyone could reasonably estimate how long said tuning will take.
Quote
When should we expect the LAME 3.97?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=295905"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Also *fairly soon.*  It could be released tomorrow, it could take another month or two.  Your guess is as good as anyone's at this point.
Quote
And when should we expect HO.org to update their recommended encoder?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=295905"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

As soon as 3.97 stable is released, this has been stated a number of times.
Title: LAME 3.97 Stable
Post by: Busemann on 07 May, 2005, 06:58:49 PM
Quote
As soon as 3.97 stable is released, this has been stated a number of times.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=295914"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I might have missed the obvious, but why will 3.97 be recommended without any testing, while 3.96.1 which went through lots of thorough testing still isn't?
Title: LAME 3.97 Stable
Post by: guruboolez on 07 May, 2005, 07:08:49 PM
I've counted the number of ABX tests I performed during january-march for 3.97 alphas : ~800. It corresponds to more than 10.000 ABX trials. Just look on the MP3-TECH forum.
Other people also posted positive tests for 3.97 alphas.
Title: LAME 3.97 Stable
Post by: Gen912 on 07 May, 2005, 10:22:08 PM
Quote
...especially when the question you are asking has already been answered in the thread that is linked to by an earlier post in this one.
Quote

Gabriel's post (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=29575&view=findpost&p=263440) confirms that.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=295679"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=295849"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Ok, sorry. I must admit that I didn't read the post Jaybeee linked to before answering rjamorim.

Gabriels post he linked to, plus post #19 by Jean Luc and your post #20 answer my question below.


Quote
Quote

Quote

Ok, let me rephrase my question:
Why is there work being done on  a 4.x version, when there isn't a stable/final release of 3.97 yet?
Does this have to do with different teams of developers?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=295789"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

To make things simple: Takehiro works on 4.0, Gabriel and Robert work on 3.x
So, yeah, you could consider them "different teams"
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=295790"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

...why isn't Takehiro working on 3.97 together with Gabriel and Robert?
Or vice versa...., why not drop further developement of 3.97 and concentrate all efforts on 4.x?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=295798"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


In conclusion; I'm not in a hurry for a new version. I prefer developers taking their time to deliver quality than them getting rushed into delivering something nobody's really happy with.

Succes wished to the developers.
Title: LAME 3.97 Stable
Post by: schonenberg on 08 May, 2005, 12:20:16 AM
Quote
Maybe I'm getting on your nerves now (don't mean to) but, why isn't Takehiro working on 3.97 together with Gabriel and Robert?
Or vice versa...., why not drop further developement of 3.97 and concentrate all efforts on 4.x?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=295798")


Why not read takehiro's posts:
[a href="http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?act=Search&CODE=getalluser&mid=2067]http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....lluser&mid=2067[/url]

read the LAME4 TODO:
http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/lame...07-experimental (http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/lame/lame/TODO?sortby=date&only_with_tag=takehiro-2002_05_07-experimental)
Title: LAME 3.97 Stable
Post by: ShowsOn on 08 May, 2005, 03:20:51 AM
I read part of the LAME4 Todo list, one of the points states this:

"90.
Use intensity stereo. This is a must-have for low bitrates, but if the
algorythm is very good it could also be used in every case."

Does that mean that a high quality VBR file (say -V 2) could use intensity stereo on low bitrate frames, in order improve the quality of those frames to keep the bit rate even lower?

The last to-do list item is to make LAME as fast as fast as FASTENC, exactly how fast is FASTENC compared with the LAME4 alphas?

How does the quality of FASTENC compare with 3.9x and 4 alpha?
Title: LAME 3.97 Stable
Post by: alfa156 on 08 May, 2005, 03:52:38 AM
Quote
Quote
As soon as 3.97 stable is released, this has been stated a number of times.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=295914"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I might have missed the obvious, but why will 3.97 be recommended without any testing, while 3.96.1 which went through lots of thorough testing still isn't?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=295922"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


quality tests included of course...
Title: LAME 3.97 Stable
Post by: ChiGung on 08 May, 2005, 10:02:48 AM
Quote
I've counted the number of ABX tests I performed during january-march for 3.97 alphas : ~800. It corresponds to more than 10.000 ABX trials. Just look on the MP3-TECH forum.
Other people also posted positive tests for 3.97 alphas.

That is quite amazing - you deserve honours for that.
I was thinking the only way to get that volume of testing done, would
be to make an applet of the java abcx'er and collect surf-by responses.
To think that much testing has been done, just recently, by one person..

'more power to your elbow' guruboolez
Title: LAME 3.97 Stable
Post by: Gabriel on 08 May, 2005, 11:55:40 AM
Some things can grab a lot of time, like job or moving to a new apartment. Some things can be problematic for developement, like DSL connection not yet restored due to recent moving...
Title: LAME 3.97 Stable
Post by: rjamorim on 08 May, 2005, 12:32:34 PM
Quote
"90.
Use intensity stereo. This is a must-have for low bitrates, but if the
algorythm is very good it could also be used in every case."

Does that mean that a high quality VBR file (say -V 2) could use intensity stereo on low bitrate frames, in order improve the quality of those frames to keep the bit rate even lower?


It means a high quality VBR file could use intensity stereo in ALL frames.

Quote
The last to-do list item is to make LAME as fast as fast as FASTENC, exactly how fast is FASTENC compared with the LAME4 alphas?

How does the quality of FASTENC compare with 3.9x and 4 alpha?[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=296002"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


It's nothing but a disservice to start doing these comparisions now, while 4 is barely past alpha stage.
Title: LAME 3.97 Stable
Post by: Madrigal on 08 May, 2005, 02:02:17 PM
Quote
Some things can grab a lot of time, like job or moving to a new apartment. Some things can be problematic for developement, like DSL connection not yet restored due to recent moving...
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=296077"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
For the record, Gabriel, by starting this thread I certainly didn't mean to criticise or complain about your efforts. I realize you have a life away from LAME, and that development is a big, time-consuming, and sometimes apparently thankless job. I had no idea you were in the middle of a move -- had I known, I would probably not have started this thread.

Thank you from the bottom of my heart for your labor of love, and all the hours of audio pleasure it has given me. I look forward to the day when we can all celebrate the release of a stable 3.97.

Once again, many thanks.

Regards,
Madrigal
Title: LAME 3.97 Stable
Post by: callmeace on 09 May, 2005, 07:06:41 PM
Quote
........Thank you from the bottom of my heart for your labor of love, and all the hours of audio pleasure it has given me......


That goes for me too Gabriel and all others that have put a lot of time and effort into the development of LAME. I've used it quite a bit directly - and I know LAME has been implememnted in other software which I have used also. I certainly appreciate it 
Title: LAME 3.97 Stable
Post by: IgorC on 09 May, 2005, 08:33:01 PM
3.90 3.96 3.97 4.xx 
I´m not trying to say that LAME is dead. However is there really big difference between 3.90 and 3.97 or 4.00? May be here some optimization, tuning , etc. , rebuliding algoritms. But when I try to go a bit less bitrate  VBR 121 kbit/s of 3.96 or
3.97 is getting worse(or in the best case the quality is igual) than 128 kbits 3.90. 
So gain is small 128/121 = 1,057..... (5-6% for 4-5 years of LAME´s develompent) (for me 3.90.3 is still best)
As I understand future new versions of LAME will provide more stability, optimization,speed, tuning etc, but quality gain will be smallest. However there is cense to keep development of LAME , since MP3 is very popular audiocodec and wisely supported
Title: LAME 3.97 Stable
Post by: beto on 09 May, 2005, 09:39:04 PM
I really think you are trolling, but I'll give you another chance.

LAME 3.97 (3.96.1) is faster than the 3.90 branch. Recently guruboolez made several ABX tests (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=30547&hl=) and it was decided that 3.97, once stable, will be the new recommended version. There were improvements qualitywise (or, better saying there were no significant regressions).

As for LAME4 it is expected to be faster than the 3.9X series, but with lower quality in a first moment. This will be reverted when proper tuning is done.

Next time do some ABX testing before posting claims about quality like you did.
Title: LAME 3.97 Stable
Post by: ShowsOn on 09 May, 2005, 09:54:10 PM
Quote
It's nothing but a disservice to start doing these comparisions now, while 4 is barely past alpha stage

I wasn't expecting a detailed comparison, just a rough idea if that last goal on the todo list is close, or still a long way off.

Each stable version of LAME seems to be getting faster, where as FASTENC is a stationary a  target. I've never used FASTENC so I have no idea exactly how fast it is.


What is the benefit of using intensity stereo on all frames? Is there somewhere that I can read more about the advantages of intensity stereo?
Title: LAME 3.97 Stable
Post by: westgroveg on 09 May, 2005, 09:56:30 PM
4.0 is a complete re-write of the LAME code & because they have the 3.x code to look at for mistakes & possible improvements I don't see why anyone would think 4.0 will produce lower quality audio than 3.x. I think 4.0 will be a HUGE improvement over yearly versions of LAME & make development & tweaks much easier.
Title: LAME 3.97 Stable
Post by: beto on 09 May, 2005, 10:09:27 PM
Quote
4.0 is a complete re-write of the LAME code & because they have the 3.x code to look at for mistakes & possible improvements I don't see why anyone would think 4.0 will produce lower quality audio than 3.x. I think 4.0 will be a HUGE improvement over yearly versions of LAME & make development & tweaks much easier.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=296453")


I guess you misread my post. Of course it will be an improvement. But the fact of it being a complete rewrite of the code is likely to introduce new bugs IN A FIRST MOMENT.
You can read [a href="http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=29575&view=findpost&p=257995]here[/url] to see that the main goal at this moment is not quality but remove obstacles on tweaking.
Title: LAME 3.97 Stable
Post by: IgorC on 09 May, 2005, 10:09:58 PM
Quote
I really think you are trolling, but I'll give you another chance.

LAME 3.97 (3.96.1) is faster than the 3.90 branch. Recently guruboolez made several ABX tests (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=30547&hl=) and it was decided that 3.97, once stable, will be the new recommended version. There were improvements qualitywise (or, better saying there were no significant regressions).

As for LAME4 it is expected to be faster than the 3.9X series, but with lower quality in a first moment. This will be reverted when proper tuning is done.

Next time do some ABX testing before posting claims about quality like you did.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=296450"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I don´t care about speed. 3.90.3 is still best for my ears. 3.96 seems to cut a bit much high freq. Sometimes I´ve tested 3.97  alpha 5 .... 10 , I liked alpha 5 and 6.
It´s not about professional comparison or anything like that (not a numeric test).
Just IMHO, not your  . Here you can´t say me how to listen.
Title: LAME 3.97 Stable
Post by: Danimal on 09 May, 2005, 11:43:44 PM
Quote
Quote
I really think you are trolling, but I'll give you another chance.

LAME 3.97 (3.96.1) is faster than the 3.90 branch. Recently guruboolez made several ABX tests (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=30547&hl=) and it was decided that 3.97, once stable, will be the new recommended version. There were improvements qualitywise (or, better saying there were no significant regressions).

As for LAME4 it is expected to be faster than the 3.9X series, but with lower quality in a first moment. This will be reverted when proper tuning is done.

Next time do some ABX testing before posting claims about quality like you did.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=296450"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I don´t care about speed. 3.90.3 is still best for my ears. 3.96 seems to cut a bit much high freq. Sometimes I´ve tested 3.97  alpha 5 .... 10 , I liked alpha 5 and 6.
It´s not about professional comparison or anything like that (not a numeric test).
Just IMHO, not your  . Here you can´t say me how to listen.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=296456"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


He may not be able to tell you how to listen but the terms of service are quite specific as to what is required when you are talking here about what you claim you're hearing.  Click on terms of service at the top and look at no. 8.

If 3.96 "Seems to cut a bit much high freq." as you claim, then you ought to be able to pick that out when doing a double blind test and post your abx results here.  If you can't, then you are talking about placebo effect (you think that 3.96 cuts a bit too much high freq. because you either expect it to, or for any reason want it to).  If you can identify this problem in a double blind test then you have found something that would be of value for the LAME devs to hear more about.  If not, well the internet is full of places where uninformed speculation and opinions are the norm and welcomed with open arms.  This particular forum isn't one of them.

The entire reason HA was started was that the leader of another forum had developed his own set of mp3 tunings and refused to stop recommending them even after the alt presets were shown to be better.
Title: LAME 3.97 Stable
Post by: ChiGung on 10 May, 2005, 12:10:38 AM
Quote
If 3.96 "Seems to cut a bit much high freq." as you claim, then you ought to be able to pick that out when doing a double blind test and post your abx results here.

Agreed hes talking nonsense, just doesnt realise yet, that doesnt go down well here

About 397s release - I think it should be held back until 4.xx release. That way we can be sure to get the most tweaks Gabriel has left in him for it, and there will be a clear recommended version for 4xx to work towards.
Release 4xx after and lots of mistaken people will be 'upgrading' to it. -embrace their confusion release 4xx first 
Title: LAME 3.97 Stable
Post by: music_man_mpc on 10 May, 2005, 05:25:20 AM
Quote
Release 4xx after and lots of mistaken people will be 'upgrading' to it. -embrace their confusion release 4xx first 
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=296470"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This sounds like a good point to me, I wonder how much longer LAME4 stable will take then LAME 3.97?  Certainly if they're releases are less then a month apart this may well be worth looking into for the developers but I don't think 3.97 should be held back for any undue amount of time just for the sake of n00b confusion.
Title: LAME 3.97 Stable
Post by: Madrigal on 10 May, 2005, 10:57:41 AM
Quote
About 397s release - I think it should be held back until 4.xx release. That way we can be sure to get the most tweaks Gabriel has left in him for it, and there will be a clear recommended version for 4xx to work towards.
If I understand it correctly, the release of 3.97 has already been held back significantly, in order to yield a "clear recommended version" -- to that end, all needed tweaks will certainly be applied beforehand.

But to hold back 3.97 until 4.xx is ready for release seems just plain silly to me. 3.97 is slated to have a significant role in the ongoing saga of LAME, before the release of 4.xx, and the former should be released as soon as humanly possible so that we can all enjoy the benefits of it.

EDIT: @music_man_mpc -- Amen. 3.97 should NOT be held back for any undue amount of time, just for the sake of n00b confusion.

Regards,
Madrigal
Title: LAME 3.97 Stable
Post by: IgorC on 10 May, 2005, 12:56:03 PM
I´m not tending to troll. I read here  http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....topic=30547&hl= (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=30547&hl=). I  analyzed the results of 3.90 , 3.96, 3.97alpha 5
There wasn´t  single result  which has shown  wich is the best version. Also there are differnet settings play with it(q0, ABR,VBR etc even MP3gain) and different points of view how to test.
I´ll try to do some ABX test this week with a lot of samples not for  change somebody ´s opinion , but maybe mine own.

Where is 397alpha5? On rarewares there´s only last alpha10.
Title: LAME 3.97 Stable
Post by: Madrigal on 10 May, 2005, 01:07:10 PM
If you're not intending to troll, then you seem to be doing a pretty good job of it without intending to.

Have a nice day.

Regards,
Madrigal
Title: LAME 3.97 Stable
Post by: john33 on 10 May, 2005, 01:29:17 PM
I can provide a link to an alpha 5 bundle, but I see little point in testing that when we are already at alpha 10.
Title: LAME 3.97 Stable
Post by: IgorC on 10 May, 2005, 01:42:29 PM
Just noticed that 397 alpha10 CBR q0 mode isn´t finish yet, but  presets work fine.
So there is no need of alpha5.
Title: LAME 3.97 Stable
Post by: ChiGung on 10 May, 2005, 01:52:18 PM
Quote
If I understand it correctly, the release of 3.97 has already been held back significantly, in order to yield a "clear recommended version" -- to that end, all needed tweaks will certainly be applied beforehand.

I cant see any significant holding back so far -Its just been a month or so since Gabriel got alpha10 tested and it does seem to be working well - but he mentioned he might have more ideas to try.

[span style='font-size:7pt;line-height:100%']edit: less was more[/span]
Title: LAME 3.97 Stable
Post by: kwanbis on 10 May, 2005, 01:54:13 PM
Quote
But to hold back 3.97 until 4.xx is ready for release seems just plain silly to me. 3.97 is slated to have a significant role in the ongoing saga of LAME, before the release of 4.xx, and the former should be released as soon as humanly possible so that we can all enjoy the benefits of it.

4.0, could use some kind of "PREVIEW EDITION" version tag, instead of 4.0 , when realeased, so we can all help fine tune, and then, be a 4.0, when ready:

4.0 alpha -> 4.0 beta -> 4.0 PREVIEW -> 4.0 FINAL (when stabilized)
Title: LAME 3.97 Stable
Post by: Madrigal on 10 May, 2005, 02:18:59 PM
Quote
4.0, could use some kind of "PREVIEW EDITION" version tag, instead of 4.0 , when realeased, so we can all help fine tune[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=296622"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I thought that was what beta level was for.

Regards,
Madrigal
Title: LAME 3.97 Stable
Post by: rjamorim on 10 May, 2005, 02:30:00 PM
Quote
Quote
4.0, could use some kind of "PREVIEW EDITION" version tag, instead of 4.0 , when realeased, so we can all help fine tune[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=296622"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I thought that was what beta level was for.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=296631"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


That's the idea.
Title: LAME 3.97 Stable
Post by: kwanbis on 10 May, 2005, 03:42:24 PM
but according to the posts here, 4.0 would be released with less quality than 3.97 ... i think 4.0 "searching for quality version" should be released, or have a long beta period.
Title: LAME 3.97 Stable
Post by: rjamorim on 10 May, 2005, 06:53:04 PM
Quote
but according to the posts here, 4.0 would be released with less quality than 3.97 ... i think 4.0 "searching for quality version" should be released, or have a long beta period.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=296649"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


That will solely make people stick to 3.97 and largely ignore 4.0
Title: LAME 3.97 Stable
Post by: kwanbis on 10 May, 2005, 10:20:42 PM
well, we actually want non geeks like us to actually ignore it
Title: LAME 3.97 Stable
Post by: westgroveg on 10 May, 2005, 10:31:17 PM
I think you guys should leave the release dates & version naming up to the developers (the people who actually do the work).

I can see why they usually don't visit the forums  .

Has anyone even done any (significant) testing with 3.9x & the 4.o alphas???
Title: LAME 3.97 Stable
Post by: rjamorim on 10 May, 2005, 10:39:36 PM
Quote
well, we actually want non geeks like us to actually ignore it
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=296719"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


We? WE? Who we, FFS?


Edit: @westgroveg: 4.0 alphas are not really to be tested for the time being. Takehiro got displeased once when John33 posted a compile and people started testing, comparing, whining...
Title: LAME 3.97 Stable
Post by: ChiGung on 10 May, 2005, 11:05:46 PM
Quote
I think you guys should leave the release dates & version naming up to the developers (the people who actually do the work).

You're comfortable speaking for them regarding this?
- That there should be no discussion of such things in HA by non-developers.
Quote
I can see why they usually don't visit the forums   .

And this one too? 
Title: LAME 3.97 Stable
Post by: robinpb on 18 May, 2005, 11:16:24 AM
i've noticed in the latest 3.97 alphas (at least a10), that the minimal bitrate has changed from 128 to 32 (per -V2 / preset standard). what will be implemented as the minimum birate for the said preset in 3.97-release ?
Title: LAME 3.97 Stable
Post by: LordofStars on 18 May, 2005, 04:14:06 PM
Well... That is in an interesting question
Title: LAME 3.97 Stable
Post by: Gecko on 18 May, 2005, 04:38:03 PM
Damn, each time this specific topic shows up, I start opening the Champagne, but it's allways a false alarm.
Title: LAME 3.97 Stable
Post by: VCSkier on 18 May, 2005, 04:53:17 PM
Quote
Damn, each time this specific topic shows up, I start opening the Champagne, but it's allways a false alarm.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=298659"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

heh, me too.  i get so excited...
Title: LAME 3.97 Stable
Post by: Gabriel on 19 May, 2005, 06:38:31 AM
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=34001 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=34001)
Title: LAME 3.97 Stable
Post by: robinpb on 19 May, 2005, 09:33:55 AM
Quote
i've noticed in the latest 3.97 alphas (at least a10), that the minimal bitrate has changed from 128 to 32 (per -V2 / preset standard). what will be implemented as the minimum birate for the said preset in 3.97-release ?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=298598")


ok. i stepped backwards through the 3.97 alphas i had lying around. seems the lowering of the bitrate (-b) of -V2 (preset standard) started with alpha8, and has continued since. i suspect, then, that this will be implemented (-b 32) in 3.97-release ?

$ for i in *.exe ; do ./$i -V2 -T xp.wav xp_$i.mp3 ; done
$ for i in *.mp3 ; do lametag $i > $i.lametag.txt ; done

[a href="http://people.gactr.uga.edu/robin/test/]http://people.gactr.uga.edu/robin/test/[/url]
Title: LAME 3.97 Stable
Post by: Madrigal on 19 May, 2005, 09:37:27 AM
Quote
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=34001 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=34001)
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=298753"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

@Moderators: I would appreciate it very much if this thread could be closed now, and redirected to the thread Gabriel has linked to.

Regards,
Madrigal