3.90.3 versus 3.96.1, ...it's not what it seems Options

[earphiler]

Take the two LAME versions: 3.90.3 and 3.96.1

Now I'm not going to ask which has been more tested -- the answer is simple. However, I would like to know why you personally choose 3.90.3 or 3.96.1

To me, it makes no difference but I grabbed 3.96.1, I'm too lazy to switch back, no problems here, I'm not too paranoid, and newer just sounds cooler (not to say its better).

Others? I know this thread sounds rather peculiar

[smz]

sounds like violating TOS#8, in this form...

[earphiler]

this isn't violation of #8 as stated --

8. All members that put forth a statement concerning subjective sound quality, must -- to the best of their ability -- provide objective support for their claims. Acceptable means of support are double blind listening tests (ABX or ABC/HR) demonstrating that the member can discern a difference perceptually, together with a test sample to allow others to reproduce their findings. Graphs, non-blind listening tests, waveform difference comparisons, and so on, are not acceptable means of providing support.

I'm not asking for which is best and I'm not saying screw ABX test, all I'm asking is why you choose 3.90.3 or why you choose 3.96.1

I just want personal responses , that's all. If this seen as a violation in any way by the moderators -- apologies.

[smz]

... and newer just sounds cooler (not to say its better).

3.96.1, anyway, because quality is adequate for my needs and it is faster.

[rjamorim]

3.96.1. 3.90.3 is effete.

[earphiler]

3.96.1. 3.90.3 is effete.

is that a joke ? (not sure haha)

[p0wder]

3.96.1. 3.90.3 is effete.

Roberto your vocabulary is so copious I have to use the dictionary sometimes!

My choice is 3.96.1.

[boojum]

3.96.1. 3.90.3 is effete.

Roberto! Your English is better than mine, and I am native-born. My Portuguese is just awful, too, other than feijoada.


Way cool, buddy.

[linus]

3.96.1

[Teqnilogik]

3.96.1 here because its faster and there is no quality degradation to my ears using preset standard.

[VCSkier]

wow! im suprised. ive been using 3.90.3, and probably still will, cause encoding speed isn't a factor to me, but i am going to at least reevaluate and take a second look at 3.96.1 (or 3.96b2) and see if i have been making the wrong decision... by the way, whats the difference between 3.96.1 and 3.96b2? of the two, which is generally *prefered*?

[Turing]

wow!  im suprised.  ive been using 3.90.3, and probably still will, cause encoding speed isn't a factor to me, but i am going to at least reevaluate and take a second look at 3.96.1 (or 3.96b2) and see if i have been making the wrong decision...  by the way, whats the difference between 3.96.1 and 3.96b2?  of the two, which is generally *prefered*?

3.96b2 is geek speek for version 3.96 beta 2 (second beta release). This should be close to 3.96.1 but I have not checked the change logs at sourceforge for the details.

3.96.1 is the latest official developer release (after the beta tests were considered completed). This version has been stable since July 2004. 3.96.1 is the current recommended stable version according to the folks who work on the program (see LAME at sourceforge).

There is also a 3.97alpha7 version in the works that should come out as 3.97 this year. Alpha versions are even more unstable than beta version and will cause your computer to explode and burn down your neighborhood (just kidding).

[LadFromDownUnder]

I switched from 3.90.3 to 3.96.1 for a bit, and noticed an easily discernable degradation when encoding some Strauss and some live Springsteen tracks (and I did ABX checks to confirm my suspicions). I've since switched back; I'm happy enough with the 3.90.3 encoding times. I used APS for both encoders.

[Turing]

I switched from 3.90.3 to 3.96.1 for a bit, and noticed an easily discernable degradation when encoding some Strauss and some live Springsteen tracks (and I did ABX checks to confirm my suspicions).  I've since switched back; I'm happy enough with the 3.90.3 encoding times.  I used APS for both encoders.

What settings did you use? I suspect that 3.90.3 is better for some settings and 3.96.1 for others.

[LadFromDownUnder]

I switched from 3.90.3 to 3.96.1 for a bit, and noticed an easily discernable degradation when encoding some Strauss and some live Springsteen tracks (and I did ABX checks to confirm my suspicions).  I've since switched back; I'm happy enough with the 3.90.3 encoding times.  I used APS for both encoders.

What settings did you use? I suspect that 3.90.3 is better for some settings and 3.96.1 for others.

I used "--preset standard" for both encoders.

[Jojo]

another vote for LAME 3.96.1 . Overall, lower bitrates for --preset standard (in some cases 40kbps less) , faster encoding, more presets

This post has been edited by Jojo: Mar 6 2005, 20:28

[Lyx]

wow!  im suprised.  ive been using 3.90.3, and probably still will, cause encoding speed isn't a factor to me, but i am going to at least reevaluate and take a second look at 3.96.1 (or 3.96b2) and see if i have been making the wrong decision...  by the way, whats the difference between 3.96.1 and 3.96b2?  of the two, which is generally *prefered*?

My proposal would be to stay with 3.90.3 and instead wait until 3.97 becomes stable - currently, it looks as if 3.97 when its finalized may offer more than just speed over 3.90.3 - or in other words, a more worthy update. That way, you will save yourself one update-step(you would then go 3.90.3 -> 3.97 final, instead of 3.90.3->3.96.1->3.97 )

Or in short: if you haven't yet changed to 3.96.1, then wait for 3.97 instead.

- Lyx

[AtaqueEG]

3.96.1. 3.90.3 is effete.

From Dictionary.com:

Marked by self-indulgence, triviality, or decadence

Wonderful.

I would have not dared to say it that way myself, though.
3.90.3 is nothing short of canonized around here.

I am using alpha 7. I have been getting used to the overnight transcodes from FLAC.
No much pain once you have you files properly tagged and encoded to lossless. You can try whatever encoder comes around when you feel like it.

I am still waiting for implementation of HE-AAC on the iPod, though, maybe then I could get some rest.

[Acid Orange Juic...]

3.96.1 here because its faster and there is no quality degradation to my ears using preset standard.

exact situation for me.

[Turing]

wow!  im suprised.  ive been using 3.90.3, and probably still will, cause encoding speed isn't a factor to me, but i am going to at least reevaluate and take a second look at 3.96.1 (or 3.96b2) and see if i have been making the wrong decision...  by the way, whats the difference between 3.96.1 and 3.96b2?  of the two, which is generally *prefered*?

My proposal would be to stay with 3.90.3 and instead wait until 3.97 becomes stable - currently, it looks as if 3.97 when its finalized may offer more than just speed over 3.90.3 - or in other words, a more worthy update. That way, you will save yourself one update-step(you would then go 3.90.3 -> 3.97 final, instead of 3.90.3->3.96.1->3.97 )

Or in short: if you haven't yet changed to 3.96.1, then wait for 3.97 instead.

- Lyx

Since 3.96b2 has not yet finished ABX testing, what is the basis for saying that 3.97 is better than either 3.96.1 or 3.90.3? This is not a hostile question, I just want to know.

[Turing]

3.96.1. 3.90.3 is effete.

From Dictionary.com:

Marked by self-indulgence, triviality, or decadence

3.90.3 is nothing short of canonized around here.

Interesting how if one were to recommended one version of software over another without ABX backup (e.g. 3.90.3 vs. 3.96.1) TOS rule #8 would be invoked by big brother. Yet this very sort of recommendation is unquestionable around here.

Who will watch the watchers?

[Madrigal]

3.96.1 -V1 --scale x.xxxx (as calculated by WaveGain).

Regards,
Madrigal

[Megaman]

From http://dictionary.reference.com

effete \eh-FEET; ih-\, adjective:
1. No longer capable of producing young; infertile; barren; sterile.
2. Exhausted of energy; incapable of efficient action; worn out.
3. Marked by self-indulgence or decadence; degenerate.
4. Overrefined; effeminate.


I consider 3.90.3 overrefined indeed .

One could also say that 3.90.3 is "incapable of efficent action" if appropriate listening test were done, the results being 3.96.1 quality is equal or better than 3.90.3. Because speed is part of efficiency you know .

95% of my MP3 encodings are 3.90.2/3.90.3. Nowadays I´m using 3.90.3 for the very rare MP3 encoding (generally for friends, don´t have a portable). Don´t care waiting for the extra time. Anyway for the highest efficiency I prefer vorbis.

This post has been edited by Megaman: Mar 6 2005, 23:08

[AtaqueEG]

3.96.1 -V1 --scale x.xxxx (as calculated by WaveGain).

Regards,
Madrigal

V1? Isn't that a bit too much?

[earphiler]

I have to say I'm surprised. I would've thought nearly everyone would've said 3.90.3 because it has been more tested, and I stereotyped that you were all overly paranoid with mp3s. Guess not You proved me wrong, and I'm glad you use 3.96.1 to try something else. I, too, am tired of beating a dead cow to death

and rjamorim -- very interesting bandwidth stats!

This post has been edited by earphiler: Mar 7 2005, 00:46