Skip to main content

Notice

Please be aware that much of the software linked to or mentioned on this forum is niche and therefore infrequently downloaded. Lots of anti-virus scanners and so-called malware detectors like to flag infrequently downloaded software as bad until it is either downloaded enough times, or its developer actually bothers with getting each individual release allow listed by every single AV vendor. You can do many people a great favor when encountering such a "problem" example by submitting them to your AV vendor for examination. For almost everything on this forum, it is a false positive.
Topic: Lame 3100m (halb27 version) vs 3.100 official release (Read 1123 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Lame 3100m (halb27 version) vs 3.100 official release

Looking to rip a few CDs for a USB stick in my car, and trying to decide between using halb27's LAME 3.100m (which I think was built off 3.100 alpha2, but I cannot verify, and was released November 2013), and the official 3.100 release from October 2017.  In my default settings on soft to moderate contemporary rock, I can't tell any difference between the two; after mp3packer, 3.100m averages about 1% larger files than 3.100 (~271kbps vs ~274).

Typical settings are -V0, -Y (aka less accurate high frequencies allowed so they don't steal too much file space), lowpass disabled, and for 3.100m, -cvbr 4.  I tried disabling -Y and adding -cvbr 0 (which raises the file size to ~316kbps) but still didn't hear a difference except maybe in the 8-12kHz range, and that could just be my imagination since I knew -Y was toggled.

I've used halb27's version for years and been happy with it, so don't see any need to switch, but thought I'd check if any differences between the base 3.100a2 and final 3.100 made switching worthwhile.  Thanks in advance.

Re: Lame 3100m (halb27 version) vs 3.100 official release

Reply #1
There's no quality change from 399 > 3100a2 > 3100 in stock lame. You can stick to the halb setting .
You can also try official lame using -V1 or -V1.5 . You get a turbocharged 'V2 / aps' WITH all the HF and
LESS bitrate than V0 settings .
wavpack 4.8 -b3hx4cl

Re: Lame 3100m (halb27 version) vs 3.100 official release

Reply #2
Or even better: try lame3995o with Q switch (https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php?topic=112036.0) =)

Re: Lame 3100m (halb27 version) vs 3.100 official release

Reply #3
Interesting...I didn't know that 3995o existed.  Thanks!  Looks like halb27 released 3995m right after 3100m, then developed versions n and o, with o as the final release.

For my everyday usage (car and TV audio), I doubt there's a perceptible difference between 3100m and 3995o.  Per halb27: For high bitrate settings the differences between 3100m and 3995m are pretty negligible, especially when using stronger --cvbr levels. According to the comparison in my last post I personally prefer 3995m a tiny bit.  But he does mention later he considered n a "major step forward".  He also mentioned 3100m did better with one problem sample (trumpet_myPrince), and 3995m with another (harp40_1).  3995n and o then improved harp40_1 still more.

Overall, it seems to make sense to use 3995o over base 3.100.  Related: any insight why the main LAME developers haven't considered incorporating his upgrades?  I thought about suggesting them via SourceForge but (a) didn't feel like signing up to do so, and (b) as halb27 is the owner of said upgrades, he should be the one to do so.  Sadly, his most recent post (12/24/19) indicated he was fighting aggressive cancer, so he may not still be with us...

Re: Lame 3100m (halb27 version) vs 3.100 official release

Reply #4
@BFG , I was planning to port 3995o changes to 3100 (no ETA though). It should make it easier to submit a patch to upstream.

 

Re: Lame 3100m (halb27 version) vs 3.100 official release

Reply #5
Glad to hear it - thanks!  I see the developers are already working on a 3.100.1 though, to give you a head's up.

This community seems to agree halb's version creates superior MP3s, with the only expense appearing to be a slower compression rate, so hopefully the developers will take notice once you complete the work.

 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2021