List of recommended LAME compiles, Discussion Options

[BadHorsie]

nice... but you should add the cpu type to the filename. is it a i686 compile?

BadHorsie

[magic75]

Another thing: What about audio books? Is it "allowable" to add something like -a -b 80 or even -a -b 32 when encoding them (only one voice, mono, no music.)? Or does this somehow destroy the whole point of the alt presets? If I do not use it, 99.5% of the frames are encoded at 128 with --preset standard (I'm currently using 3.93.1 though as I have not found the 3.90.3 source code yet.)

Try a search on "voice" or "speech". I know there has been som discussions on good settings for speech. The only generally accepted additions to the alt presets are the -Y and -lowpass switches. If you feel that ~128kbps is a bit to much you may want to skip --alt-preset standard and try the ABR settings --alt-preset xxx. But I think you'll find the information you need in the threads that I mentioned above.

[AstralStorm]

nice... but you should add the cpu type to the filename. is it a i686 compile?

BadHorsie

I haven't made these binaries.

[Jan S.]

I now added the recommendations to the wiki:
http://doc.hydrogenaudio.org/wikis/hydroge...io/LameCompiles

Perhaps this thread should jsut direct there?

[idem]

Download LAME 3.90.3

This is a link to some kind of hybrid (with 3.93.1) version and where is no --alt-preset in help. Is some where link to some kind of original version?

[_Shorty]

actually it's just 3.90.2 with --alt-preset standard -Z forced when you use --alt-preset standard, got nothing to do with 3.93.1

<edit> whoops, I said -Y when I meant -Z

This post has been edited by _Shorty: Oct 29 2003, 21:57

[idem]

actually it's just 3.90.2 with --alt-preset standard -Z forced when you use --alt-preset standard, got nothing to do with 3.93.1

<edit> whoops, I said -Y when I meant -Z

I read about -Z in first post, but it is strange bundle - in index.html it is 3.93.1, in help and in presets.html where is no --alt-preset, just --preset like in 3.93. But if defference only in "cosmetic" it's ok.

[_Shorty]

yup, IIRC the only differences were in command line behaviour, it's still the same encoder as 3.90.2 was, hence the only x.xx.1 difference.

[chronicking]

Updated May 13, 2003

This list will be kept up to date with the current LAME compiles that are recommended for use for optimal quality and will keep track of any developmental compiles released on this site.

The currently recommended LAME version:

Download LAME 3.90.3

Automatically uses Noise Shaping mode 1 with --alt-preset standard/extreme/insane.
No need to specify -Z in the commandline for highest quality anymore.

The DLL makes use of john33's modifications which map certain quality settings to the --alt-presets.

ive heard there are Lame encoders better than the one with the CDEX software. i have version 1.3, 3.92MMx installed and it worx pretty damn good. is this other lame.dll better? will i be able to set my own settings(presets) in the encoder settings if i use this one?

[Societal Eclipse]

Is it just me or does lamedrop XPd V1.3.3 do nothing? I set the options I want and drop files over it but nothing happens. I have it set to log errors and no log is created so I'm not sure what is wrong.

[Edit]
I forgot to mention V1.3.2 works perfectly fine out of a different directory.

This post has been edited by Societal Eclipse: Nov 21 2003, 03:43

[magic75]

i have version 1.3, 3.92MMx installed and it worx pretty damn good.  is this other lame.dll better?

This has been answered plenty of times, so I'll keep this short. Use the search if you need more info. 3.90.3 has been tested much more thoroughly than 3.92. The differences between the versions are very small and if you are happy with the 3.92 dll there is not that many reasons to change.

[chronicking]

i have version 1.3, 3.92MMx installed and it worx pretty damn good.  is this other lame.dll better?

This has been answered plenty of times, so I'll keep this short. Use the search if you need more info. 3.90.3 has been tested much more thoroughly than 3.92. The differences between the versions are very small and if you are happy with the 3.92 dll there is not that many reasons to change.

im probably gonna get red flagged for this(somebody here must not like the chronic or those who use it). anywayz, i have read and im not being lazy. alot of these threads are a bit advanced for us layman folk. everyone is talking about compile, binaries, commandlines, etc.etc.etc. from what ive gathered from reading, the main diff. in 3.90.3 & 3.92(that ihave in CDEX) is for the -alt. presets(standard ibelieve w/-z in the command line[imnot quite sure wat that means ]) i guess you need programming knowledge for that stuff i dunno. i use the VBR settings with a low minimum-192max, J.stereo, highest quality, VBR quality 0, Mp3on the fly, and VBR MTRH. im happy with the quality, but after reading these threads, i m afraid im losing quality that im not hearing or understanding.

In short........ i just want an honest straight forward(and knowledgable) answer. If you don't use the alt presets, is there a reason to switch from 3.92 to 3.90.3???
sorry to interupt this intellectual thread, but i don't know where else to post it. everytime i post i get some warning (wat's up with that?!!)

[JeanLuc]

[In short........ i just want an honest straight forward(and knowledgable) answer.  If you don't use the alt presets, is there a reason to switch from 3.92 to 3.90.3???
sorry to interupt this intellectual thread, but i don't know where else to post it.  everytime i post i get some warning (wat's up with that?!!)

AFAIK, 3.90.3 is the direct follow-up to 3.90.2 and adds the -Z switch (which improves quality on some rare occasions) to the alt-presets only ...

I could make out differences in encoding speed and file size between 3.90.2 and 3.92, but never in audible quality so it should be no difference to use 3.92 if you are not going to use the alt-presets - encoding quality e.g. at 192 cbr should be the same so hypothetically there would be no reason for you to switch from 3.92 to 3.90.3 (although 3.90.3 can do anything that 3.92 does - and it is more thoroughly tested and may be better-sounding)

I suggest you try out these two compiles yourself ... download winabx and do some serious testing if you can find the time.

This post has been edited by JeanLuc: Nov 23 2003, 00:49

[chronicking]

[In short........ i just want an honest straight forward(and knowledgable) answer.  If you don't use the alt presets, is there a reason to switch from 3.92 to 3.90.3???
sorry to interupt this intellectual thread, but i don't know where else to post it.  everytime i post i get some warning (wat's up with that?!!)

AFAIK, 3.90.3 is the direct follow-up to 3.90.2 and adds the -Z switch (which improves quality on some rare occasions) to the alt-presets only ...

I could make out differences in encoding speed and file size between 3.90.2 and 3.92, but never in audible quality so it should be no difference to use 3.92 if you are not going to use the alt-presets - encoding quality e.g. at 192 cbr should be the same so hypothetically there would be no reason for you to switch from 3.92 to 3.90.3 (although 3.90.3 can do anything that 3.92 does - and it is more thoroughly tested and may be better-sounding)

I suggest you try out these two compiles yourself ... download winabx and do some serious testing if you can find the time.

thank yee kind sir

your a scholar & a gentleman.......

[fairyliquidizer]

Is this a "fast" or "slow" compile and if "fast" will the quality suffer?

In addition, Why doesn't LAME use SSE? Would a compile with AMDNOW, MMX, and SSE run faster?

Fairy

[magic75]

Is this a "fast" or "slow" compile and if "fast" will the quality suffer?

You will only (maybe) suffer worse quality by using other compiles. This one is the best in terms of quality. I think its pretty fast anyway, but maybe not the fastest?

[john33]

In addition, Why doesn't LAME use SSE?  Would a compile with AMDNOW, MMX, and SSE run faster?

It already does, written as nasm (assembler) routines.

[TakuSkan]

I could make out differences in encoding speed and file size between 3.90.2 and 3.92, but never in audible quality so it should be no difference to use 3.92 if you are not going to use the alt-presets - encoding quality...

So can someone report which version produces faster encoding speed, and which a smaller file size?

Shel

[chronicking]

I could make out differences in encoding speed and file size between 3.90.2 and 3.92, but never in audible quality so it should be no difference to use 3.92 if you are not going to use the alt-presets - encoding quality...

So can someone report which version produces faster encoding speed, and which a smaller file size?

Shel

i have tested both the 3.90.3 vs. the 3.92 for file size and quality with 192kps CBR/stereo settings and have found no difference in size or quality.

I'm sure someone has done much more extensive testing than myself, but i really don't see any reason to replace the existing lame_.dll(3.92) file that comes with CDEX if your going to encode at a CBR.

[TakuSkan]

[/QUOTE]
i have tested both the 3.90.3 vs. the 3.92 for file size and quality with 192kps CBR/stereo settings and have found no difference in size or quality.
[/QUOTE]

Okay great... I'll do a little testing myself. I've been using 3.92 by default for some time, and never thought about whether or not 3.90.3 may be better for anything over 3.92.

Shel

[magic75]

[QUOTE=chronicking,Dec 6 2003, 02:11 PM] i have tested both the 3.90.3 vs. the 3.92 for file size and quality with 192kps CBR/stereo settings and have found no difference in size or quality. [/QUOTE]
Well since you are using CBR you can't get any difference in size.
[QUOTE]I'm sure someone has done much more extensive testing than myself[/QUOTE]
You are absolutely right. The guys in this forum has tested and tuned 3.90.3 to death. The later versions has in no way been tested as thoroughly as 3.90.3. The reason for this is that the changes hasn't been that significant. So thereason for recommending and chosing 3.90.3 over later versions is simply that its a safer choice due to more more thourough testing.
[/QUOTE]I'm sure someone has done much more extensive testing than myself, but i really don't see any reason to replace the existing lame_.dll(3.92) file that comes with CDEX if your going to encode at a CBR.[QUOTE]
You are probably absolutely right.

About speed, I don't think there has been any significant changes in the source code that affect speed, but there can of course be different compiles out there that differ in speed. If you use john33's compiles from rarewares, I don't think there should be any significant speed difference between 3.90.3 and 3.93.1.

This post has been edited by magic75: Dec 8 2003, 10:23

[Gabriel]

About speed, I don't think there has been any significant changes in the source code that affect speed, but there can of course be different compiles out there that differ in speed. If you use john33's compiles from rarewares, I don't think there should be any significant speed difference between 3.90.3 and 3.93.1.

3.93.1 should be faster than 3.90.3 due to optimizations in the log computations.

[magic75]

I stand corrected

[TakuSkan]

About speed, I don't think there has been any significant changes in the source code that affect speed, but there can of course be different compiles out there that differ in speed. If you use john33's compiles from rarewares, I don't think there should be any significant speed difference between 3.90.3 and 3.93.1.

3.93.1 should be faster than 3.90.3 due to optimizations in the log computations.

You know... I have no idea which compiles I've downloaded in the past year. The 'about' file in the LAME v3.92 zip archive I have credits Mitiok for the compile. How would encoding speed and file size of this compare to other compiles?

It seems there is no centralized webpage or Hydrogen forum thread where all the various LAME compiles, and details about each are posted for review and download. Or have I missed it?

Shel

[magic75]

It seems there is no centralized webpage or Hydrogen forum thread where all the various LAME compiles, and details about each are posted for review and download. Or have I missed it?

No I am pretty sure there is no such. HA is primarily quality oriented so that is the reason for no such thread. I don't think the speed differs that much between compiles, which is probably the reason why noone has the interest of doing such comparisons. If one really needs speed over quality, Gogo or fastenc would be better alternatives.