Lame 3.90.2 vs 3.92, Audible differences with APS? |
  |
Lame 3.90.2 vs 3.92, Audible differences with APS? |
  Jan 16 2003, 16:03
Post
#1
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 524 Joined: 7-November 02 From: Gloucester, UK Member No.: 3716  |
oops, I always thought I had been using 3.90.2, but upon actually opening my eyes and checking, it seems I am using 3.92. I have swapped to 3.90.2, although I cannot tell one little difference whatsoever.
Is there any difference, audibly? -------------------- http://www.megalev.co.uk
|
 |
 
|
|
Jan 16 2003, 16:10
Post
#2
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 574 Joined: 15-December 02 From: Rijeka, Croatia Member No.: 4090 |
3.92 is newer, 3.90.2 is older... I don't know about difference.
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 16 2003, 16:26
Post
#3
|
|
 Group: Developer Posts: 1679 Joined: 23-December 01 From: Germany Member No.: 731 |
There should be no audible difference, but maybe a small one in bitrate, since 3.92 uses different compilerflags.
dev0 -------------------- "To understand me, you'll have to swallow a world." Or maybe your words.
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 16 2003, 17:02
Post
#4
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 723 Joined: 29-November 01 Member No.: 563 |
Apparently the developpers have screwed something up; 3.92 and later I believe use the wrong noiseshaping with APS.
I personally would recommend 3.90.2 for the VBR presets, and 3.93.1 for the ABR & CBR presets. |
|
|
|
|
Jan 16 2003, 17:07
Post
#5
|
|
 LAME developer Group: Developer Posts: 2950 Joined: 1-October 01 From: Nanterre, France Member No.: 138 |
QUOTE Apparently the developpers have screwed something up; 3.92 and later I believe use the wrong noiseshaping with APS. ???
|
|
|
|
 Jan 16 2003, 17:22
Post
#6
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 524 Joined: 7-November 02 From: Gloucester, UK Member No.: 3716 |
What does the '???' mean?
Wrong noise shaping or not? I know that the newer compiles of Lame have 'disadvantaged' APS... 
-------------------- http://www.megalev.co.uk
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 16 2003, 17:23
Post
#7
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 187 Joined: 30-September 01 From: North Carolina Member No.: 114 |
QUOTE (NeoRenegade @ Jan 16 2003 - 11:02 AM) Apparently the developpers have screwed something up; 3.92 and later I believe use the wrong noiseshaping with APS. I personally would recommend 3.90.2 for the VBR presets, and 3.93.1 for the ABR & CBR presets. You state 3.92 and later is screwed up (without backing that up, btw), and then recommend 3.93.1. Isn't 3.93.1 later than 3.92? Clarify your claims please. EDIT: My mistake. I now see you recommend 3.93.1 for ABR and CBR. However, I disagree with your claim that 3.92 APS is screwed up. This post has been edited by Daffy: Jan 16 2003, 17:26 |
|
|
|
|
Jan 16 2003, 17:37
Post
#8
|
|
|
LAME developer Group: Developer Posts: 2950 Joined: 1-October 01 From: Nanterre, France Member No.: 138 |
Noise shaping is the same between 3.90.2, 3.91, 3.92, 3.93.1.
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 16 2003, 18:19
Post
#9
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 353 Joined: 28-April 02 Member No.: 1894 |
'tis only 3.93 that comes unreccomended.
-------------------- r3mix zealot.
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 16 2003, 18:24
Post
#10
|
|
|
Group: Developer Posts: 1679 Joined: 23-December 01 From: Germany Member No.: 731 |
We've been through this so many times...
The differences between 3.90.2 and 3.92 are: - changed compiler options, that might cause a slight modification in bitrate; - support for CBR/ABR alt-presets for bitrates <80kbps 3.90.2 is still the HA approved, most tested and fastest version, so if you don't need any of the 'features' of 3.92 or 3.93.1 use it! dev0 -------------------- "To understand me, you'll have to swallow a world." Or maybe your words.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 23rd May 2013 - 13:23 |
