LAME 4.0 alpha 6, Anyone like to play? |
  |
LAME 4.0 alpha 6, Anyone like to play? |
 May 9 2003, 16:39
Post
#1
|
|
 xcLame and OggDropXPd Developer Group: Developer Posts: 3707 Joined: 30-September 01 From: Bracknell, UK Member No.: 111  |
You can download this from here: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jfe1205/lame4.0a6.zip.
This is compiled from Takehiro's experimental branch so, BEWARE!! I've only made this available for people to try for fun, it's not ready for general consumption. It sounds reasonable, but it's main claim to fame is that it is about 4 - 5 times faster than the current encoder! Please note, it's not likely that Takehiro is looking for any feedback at this time, but any comments may be of general interest. Let me make this quite clear again, this is NOT for use for archival purposes, it's only to give an idea of the direction that LAME may be going. -------------------- John
---------------------------------------------------------------- My compiles and utilities are at http://www.rarewares.org/ |
 |
 
|
|
May 9 2003, 16:44
Post
#2
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 353 Joined: 13-April 02 From: Manchester, NH Member No.: 1771 |
4 to 5 times faster? Damn! Gotta try this when I get home.
Just a little curious on what Takehiro's experimental branch will accomplish when it is ready other then speed. The same quality as the current recommended compile or will the quality be better? -------------------- iTunes 10 - Mac OS X 10.6
256kbps AAC VBR iPhone 4 32GB |
|
|
|
|
May 9 2003, 16:44
Post
#3
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 489 Joined: 13-June 02 Member No.: 2290 |
You bet I'll play.
Thanks for the release, John. |
|
|
|
|
May 9 2003, 16:52
Post
#4
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 25 Joined: 27-November 01 Member No.: 547 |
jesus.
|
|
|
|
|
May 9 2003, 16:52
Post
#5
|
|
 Group: Banned Posts: 1131 Joined: 19-September 02 Member No.: 3407 |
Its fast alright!!!
file size is also a little bigger: lame3.9 @ alt preset standard was around 180k lame4.0 @ alt preset standard is around 194k With my really cheap speakers, I cant tell the difference between the two!!! |
|
|
|
|
May 9 2003, 16:55
Post
#6
|
|
 Group: Members (Donating) Posts: 1180 Joined: 21-February 02 From: Chicago Member No.: 1367 |
How many alpha branches of LAME is there? There's 3.90.3, 3.95 and now 4.0? How many of the features of 3.90.3 and 3.95 are incorporated into 4.0? What about -Z and -Y switches?
-------------------- The object of mankind lies in its highest individuals.
One must have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth to a dancing star. |
|
|
|
|
May 9 2003, 16:58
Post
#7
|
|
 Group: Developer Posts: 1679 Joined: 23-December 01 From: Germany Member No.: 731 |
3.90.x - Hydrogenaudio Branch; based on version 3.90
3.94 - Next stable official LAME version 4 - Takehiro's new experimental lame branch, which will become the next generation some day -------------------- "To understand me, you'll have to swallow a world." Or maybe your words.
|
|
|
|
|
May 9 2003, 17:02
Post
#8
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 271 Joined: 19-August 02 From: Maryland Member No.: 3109 |
LAME v4.0!!! Yea!!! I can't wait until I get home to try this out.
|
|
|
|
|
May 9 2003, 17:07
Post
#9
|
|
|
Group: Members (Donating) Posts: 1180 Joined: 21-February 02 From: Chicago Member No.: 1367 |
Hmm I wonder whether it's due to x86 specific optimizations (SSE, SSE2, 3DNow!, etc.) like Gogo uses.
-------------------- The object of mankind lies in its highest individuals.
One must have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth to a dancing star. |
|
|
|
|
May 9 2003, 17:11
Post
#10
|
|
|
Group: Banned Posts: 1131 Joined: 19-September 02 Member No.: 3407 |
Just encoded 700Mb of wav files (whole CD) with --alt-preset standard in 3 minutes 29 seconds !!!
It was going well over 22x Encoded the same CD with lame3.90.2 and it took 22 minutes 48 seconds !!!! Thats nearly 7 times faster  by the way, I have an xp1900+ This post has been edited by JEN: May 9 2003, 19:18 |
|
|
|
|
May 9 2003, 17:13
Post
#11
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 574 Joined: 15-December 02 From: Rijeka, Croatia Member No.: 4090 |
Wonder why they start with alpha6 or 7, why not alpha1?
|
|
|
|
|
May 9 2003, 17:18
Post
#12
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 761 Joined: 29-September 01 Member No.: 40 |
maybe we're just too late ?
|
|
|
|
|
May 9 2003, 17:34
Post
#13
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 2 Joined: 9-May 03 Member No.: 6502 |
Just doing some comparison encodes right now. These results are on a wav file that is approximately 73 mins long. The performance improvements are amazing. No difference between alt-preset standard and alt-preset fast standard (giving practically identical results when binary compared so option does nothing).
lame --alt-preset standard Test.wav newlame.mp3 LAME version 4.0 MMX, 3DNow!(alpha 6, May 9 2003 16:14:24) (http://www.mp3dev.org/) CPU features: i387, MMX (ASM used), 3DNow! (ASM used), SIMD Using polyphase lowpass filter, transition band: 18671 Hz - 19205 Hz Encoding Test.wav to newlame.mp3 Encoding as 44.1 kHz VBR(q=3) j-stereo MPEG-1 Layer III (ca. 8.2x) qval=5 Frame | CPU time/estim | REAL time/estim | play/CPU | ETA 169823/169827(100%)| 2:37/ 2:37| 2:37/ 2:37| 28.203x| 0:00 32 [ 825] %* 40 [ 1] * 48 [ 9] % 56 [ 11] % 64 [ 30] % 80 [ 675] % 96 [ 5055] %****** 112 [ 16935] %******************** 128 [ 28530] %%********************************* 160 [ 54157] %%%%************************************************************** 192 [ 29247] %%********************************** 224 [ 19122] %%********************** 256 [ 8940] %%********* 320 [ 6290] %%****** average: 170.7 kbps LR: 9829 (5.788%) MS: 159998 (94.21%) lame --alt-preset fast standard Test.wav newfastlame.mp3 LAME version 4.0 MMX, 3DNow!(alpha 6, May 9 2003 16:14:24) (http://www.mp3dev.org/) CPU features: i387, MMX (ASM used), 3DNow! (ASM used), SIMD Using polyphase lowpass filter, transition band: 18671 Hz - 19205 Hz Encoding Test.wav to newfastlame.mp3 Encoding as 44.1 kHz VBR(q=3) j-stereo MPEG-1 Layer III (ca. 8.2x) qval=5 Frame | CPU time/estim | REAL time/estim | play/CPU | ETA 169823/169827(100%)| 2:40/ 2:40| 2:40/ 2:40| 27.748x| 0:00 32 [ 825] %* 40 [ 1] * 48 [ 9] % 56 [ 11] % 64 [ 30] % 80 [ 675] % 96 [ 5055] %****** 112 [ 16935] %******************** 128 [ 28530] %%********************************* 160 [ 54157] %%%%************************************************************** 192 [ 29247] %%********************************** 224 [ 19122] %%********************** 256 [ 8940] %%********* 320 [ 6290] %%****** average: 170.7 kbps LR: 9829 (5.788%) MS: 159998 (94.21%) lame392 --alt-preset standard Test.wav oldlame.mp3 LAME version 3.92 MMX (http://www.mp3dev.org/) CPU features: i387, MMX (ASM used), 3DNow! (ASM used), SIMD Using polyphase lowpass filter, transition band: 18671 Hz - 19205 Hz Encoding Test.wav to oldlame.mp3 Encoding as 44.1 kHz VBR(q=2) j-stereo MPEG-1 Layer III (ca. 7.3x) qval=2 Frame | CPU time/estim | REAL time/estim | play/CPU | ETA 169824/169826(100%)| 15:24/ 15:24| 15:25/ 15:25| 4.7996x| 0:00 32 [ 825] %* 128 [ 22507] %%%%*************************** 160 [ 49357] %%%%%%%%%%%%%%**************************************************** 192 [ 40464] %%%%%%%%%%%%%%***************************************** 224 [ 27555] %%%%%%%%%%%%%%*********************** 256 [ 18292] %%%%%%%%%%%************** 320 [ 10827] %%%%%%********* average: 193.7 kbps LR: 44849 (26.41%) MS: 124978 (73.59%) This post has been edited by Dense: May 9 2003, 17:36 |
|
|
|
|
May 9 2003, 17:38
Post
#14
|
|
 LAME developer Group: Developer Posts: 761 Joined: 22-September 01 Member No.: 5 |
there is no difference between the fast and none fast standard, because there is no vbr-old anymore. the formerly known vbr-mtrh is the only vbr code now.
|
|
|
|
|
May 9 2003, 17:39
Post
#15
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 23 Joined: 11-October 02 Member No.: 3522 |
VERYYYYYYYYYYYY FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAST!!!
I hope quality its OK?! First TEST... CU Bobby Black |
|
|
|
|
May 9 2003, 17:44
Post
#16
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 913 Joined: 15-December 01 From: Germany Member No.: 662 |
This is interesting. I could use high speed + high quality to transcode my mpcs for my portable. If the quality is mediocre... no harm done.
How alpha is this version? Should we rather ensure a proper 3.94 final or start testing v4? Would testing at this early stage be usefull? |
|
|
|
|
May 9 2003, 17:55
Post
#17
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 221 Joined: 12-January 03 From: Kowloon, Hong Kong Member No.: 4533 |
QUOTE (Gecko @ May 10 2003 - 12:44 AM) How alpha is this version? Should we rather ensure a proper 3.94 final or start testing v4? Would testing at this early stage be usefull? IMHO, 4.0alpha6 is for quick test only, no harm if doing something not require quality. It's really amazing fast, but I'll still wait for the official 3.94. -------------------- Hong Kong - International Joke Center (after 1997-06-30)
|
|
|
|
|
May 9 2003, 17:59
Post
#18
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 17 Joined: 7-August 02 Member No.: 2978 |
The --nogap option is nice, but I am unclear on what this means:
Note: Disabling VBR Xing/Info tag since it interferes with --nogap What does the VBR Xing/Info tag do for me? Will I miss it? Is there a distinction between --preset standard and --alt-preset standard? |
|
|
|
|
May 9 2003, 18:05
Post
#19
|
|
 LAME developer Group: Developer Posts: 2950 Joined: 1-October 01 From: Nanterre, France Member No.: 138 |
The speed improvements are not because of x86 assembly but mainly because of Takehiro's brain.
(btw think about how fast a Gogo based on this could be!) |
|
|
|
|
May 9 2003, 18:15
Post
#20
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 1037 Joined: 23-May 02 From: DE Member No.: 2107 |
does lame 4.0 also include gabriel's development (3.94...) or are 4.0 and 3.94 two independent developments ?
|
|
|
|
|
May 9 2003, 18:19
Post
#21
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 198 Joined: 19-October 02 From: Valencia Member No.: 3577 |
Ha ha ha on my machine it encodes even faster than MPC, at 7x-8x and even 9x
 It only lacks of gapless playback and blah blah blah. I've also noticed that the algorithm used is q3 instead of q2 (did Takehiro tweak q3?) This post has been edited by LordSyl: May 9 2003, 18:22 |
|
|
|
|
May 9 2003, 18:45
Post
#22
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 913 Joined: 15-December 01 From: Germany Member No.: 662 |
Speed is excellent (ca 15x on my Athlon TB 1333).
A quick test revealed problems with an Autechre track (no real surprise there) titled "Eidetic Casein". Right at the beginning there are some extremely short bursts of noise which I'd expect to cause smearing. However what first caught my attention was the slightly sound in the background (that "ding - ding - ding"). In the original the frequency is stable, in the mp3 it has a vibrato. No need to abx, damn obvious. My mother also noticed it right away over my pc speakers. The noisy reverb of the ding-ding sound is also shorter in the mp3. First 6 seconds FLACed edit: 3.90.2 aps sounds much better; would need abx for which I have no time now. Also worth mentioning are the bitrates for the short sample (no typo): 3.90.2 - 161 4.0a6 - 116 This post has been edited by Gecko: May 9 2003, 19:02 |
|
|
|
|
May 10 2003, 03:44
Post
#23
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 271 Joined: 19-August 02 From: Maryland Member No.: 3109 |
The quality seems to have taken a turn for the worse, at least in --preset standard using the fatboy sample. This is a super earley alpha, so this is to be expected though. I have very high hopes for v4.0 when it matures. FAST is an understatement!
|
|
|
|
|
May 10 2003, 04:35
Post
#24
|
|
 Group: Banned Posts: 154 Joined: 30-March 03 Member No.: 5756 |
whoah fast speeds
 even on aps. I haven't tested lame since 3.94 alpha something and I have to say this is amazingly fast! LAME is definitely cleaning up the slow speeds, and lag on machines when encoding is gone. 4.77 mb - for the new alpha 4.37 mb - for 3.90.2 both are --alt-preset standard this makes me":angry:" because it is CONSIDERABLY higher, this makes me angry as either lames new compile is made to trick you into thinking its fast and more accurate while it could just randomly be picking bitrates and stumbling across encodes. 3.90.2 - 19 -128, 25 -160, 28 -192, 14 -224, 8 -256, 6 -320 average bitrate: 189 3.4 alpha whatever (the one you just linked  ) - 83 -192, 4 -224, 3 - 256, 9 -320...used EncSpot as always!!! My final guess (or conclusion either way you look at it)- It seems that LAME's speeds are a fluke. Sure they are significantly faster than 3.90.2 and may foul many of you but, comparing bitrates shows that its more like a non-variable bitrate, as most of them are 192. And you already get good speeds with 192 on 3.90.2. In other words, 3.4's aps ripping is a RIP and stick with 3.90.2 because I think thats the best compile we'll EVER find of LAME. Lame 4.0 alpha whatever's alt-preset standard is a cheap, defective 192 kbps encode setting practically! If you want 192 or GOOD aps stick with --alt-preset standard. This post has been edited by feces1223: May 10 2003, 04:37 |
|
|
|
|
May 10 2003, 05:48
Post
#25
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 395 Joined: 17-September 02 From: Hell Member No.: 3380 |
Used --alt-preset fast extreme for encoding both files.
Lame 4.0 alpha6: MPEG-1 Layer 3 286 Kbit VBR (with Xing header) 44.1 Khz Joint stereo Artist: Mazzy Star - Tell Me Now File size 8.983MB Encoding time for this was approx: 19 seconds (Info from external compressor window) Lame3.93: MPEG-1 Layer 3 256 Kbit VBR (with Xing header) 44.1 Khz Joint stereo Artist: Mazzy Star - Tell Me Now Filesize: 8.063MB Encoding time for this was approx: 19 seconds (Info from external compressor window) Maybe should have used extreme or standard for both (tomorrow). In any case, they both sound passable, but it is late here and music is not very loud right now. Not much speed difference on this machine using this particular preset. Filesizes are little different and so are bitrates. Bitrate # from Media Center, which I think takes an overall average for the bitrates. Pretty good though for an alpha version. edit: cleaned pasted info up This post has been edited by MachineHead: May 10 2003, 05:53 -------------------- Looking for a digital idiot? Look no further.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 21st May 2013 - 10:32 |
