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 3.90.2 3.91 3.92 comparison tool? (Read 3709 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

LAME 3.90.2 3.91 3.92 comparison tool?

I was wondering if there is any tool that will allow me to compare vbr mp3s.

Why?
I have encoded an album (Sheryl Crow Globe Sessions) with LAME v3.90.2-IC (from here), v3.91, and v3.92 (both from Mitiok's page).

All the v3.91 and v3.90.2-IC mp3s have different bitrates and sizes when compared to their v3.92  twins.

For instance:
-F --alt-preset extreme, RazorLame 1.1.5

Track 10, v3.90.2-IC - 223kbps (winamp & EncSpot), 7.90MB
Track 10, v3.91 - 223kbps (winamp & EncSpot), 7.90MB
Track 10, v3.92 - 219kbps (winamp & EncSpot), 7.74MB

Track 04, v3.90.2-IC - 228kbps (winamp & EncSpot), 7.86MB
Track 04, v3.91 - 228kbps (winamp & EncSpot), 7.86MB
Track 04, v3.92 - 222kbps (winamp & EncSpot), 7.66MB

What I would like to do is find some tool that shows me vbr throughout the timeline of the songs, so I can see where the differences are and take a listen to those areas. 

In addition can anyone suggest why they are different?  What changes to 3.92 would create these differences?  As I assume the Mitiok files used the same compiler(3.92 and 3.91)

Thanks for any assitance.

Jon

LAME 3.90.2 3.91 3.92 comparison tool?

Reply #1 –
Quote
Originally posted by thedonga
What I would like to do is find some tool that shows me vbr throughout the timeline of the songs, so I can see where the differences are and take a listen to those areas.
Encspot 2 pro would show this, but it's not free.
Quote
In addition can anyone suggest why they are different?  What changes to 3.92 would create these differences?  As I assume the Mitiok files used the same compiler(3.92 and 3.91)
This issue has been under lots of discussion.. Differences emerge because of different compilers/compiler settings.
Juha Laaksonheimo

LAME 3.90.2 3.91 3.92 comparison tool?

Reply #2 –
thanks.

Can it be assumed that because the number of higher bit rate frames are lessened in 3.92, it is inferior at encoding?  Or more efficient?

I took a look at the info for Track 4:

v3.92 -

128kbps 3%
160kbps 15%
192kbps 27%
224kbps 24%
256kbps 16%
320kbps 15%

avg bitrate 222
max reservoir 511
av reservoir 79
scalefac 16.2%


v3.91

128kbps 2%
160kbps 11%
192kbps 26%
224kbps 26%
256kbps 18%
320kbps 17%

avg bitrate 227
max reservoir 511
av reservoit 80
scalefac 17.3%

Lower the av reservoir the better correct?  I don't quite understand this, something about overflow....

Could you maybe explain reservoir, and scalefac(tor)?  Or point me in the right direction to find some info.


thanks!  just trying to get a better handle on this stuff.

LAME 3.90.2 3.91 3.92 comparison tool?

Reply #3 –
Robert Hegemann (one of the LAME developers) told me that he changed some compile options for ICC (Intel C Compiler) in LAME 3.92. The quality of the MP3s is not affected by this.

LAME 3.90.2 3.91 3.92 comparison tool?

Reply #4 –
Quote
The quality of the MP3s is not affected by this.


Don't understand how the mp3 is "not affected" by a lower average bitrate.
Either making it better or worse...it has to affect it.

LAME 3.90.2 3.91 3.92 comparison tool?

Reply #5 –
Quote
Originally posted by thedonga


Don't understand how the mp3 is "not affected" by a lower average bitrate. 
Either making it better or worse...it has to affect it.


Ok, let me rephrase it... the quality should not be affected to a degree where it is audible.

Next time i talk to Robert, i'll ask him some more about this.

LAME 3.90.2 3.91 3.92 comparison tool?

Reply #6 –
thanks.