Multi-threaded LAME 3.97beta2 Out! |
![]() ![]() |
Multi-threaded LAME 3.97beta2 Out! |
Mar 14 2006, 14:51
Post
#1
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 221 Joined: 12-January 03 From: Kowloon, Hong Kong Member No.: 4533 |
LAME MT Project:
Turning LAME into a Multi-Threaded Engine, and to be 1:1 bit compatible with the original version. http://www.lame-mt.com -------------------- Hong Kong - International Joke Center (after 1997-06-30)
|
|
|
|
Mar 14 2006, 15:35
Post
#2
|
|
![]() LAME developer Group: Developer Posts: 2950 Joined: 1-October 01 From: Nanterre, France Member No.: 138 |
I do not know about this version, but previous versions provided LOWER QUALITY than default Lame, as they required to disable bit reservoir.
|
|
|
|
Mar 14 2006, 16:29
Post
#3
|
|
![]() Administrator Group: Admin Posts: 2372 Joined: 22-September 01 Member No.: 3 |
QUOTE (Gabriel @ Mar 14 2006, 03:35 PM) I do not know about this version, but previous versions provided LOWER QUALITY than default Lame, as they required to disable bit reservoir. Right, it still requires that, i just tested lame-mt.3.97b2.cl_32.exe on an A64 X2: QUOTE WARNING: Multi-Threaded Encoder is DISABLED - please add '--nores' to enable Multi-Threading ! Inverse mix-pasting showed that the resulting file was a lot different from the normal output. The ICL compile didn't seem to run multi-threaded at all, i guess that's because of the A64. |
|
|
|
Mar 16 2006, 10:31
Post
#4
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 221 Joined: 12-January 03 From: Kowloon, Hong Kong Member No.: 4533 |
QUOTE (CiTay @ Mar 14 2006, 11:29 PM) Right, it still requires that, i just tested lame-mt.3.97b2.cl_32.exe on an A64 X2: QUOTE WARNING: Multi-Threaded Encoder is DISABLED - please add '--nores' to enable Multi-Threading ! Inverse mix-pasting showed that the resulting file was a lot different from the normal output. The ICL compile didn't seem to run multi-threaded at all, i guess that's because of the A64. You mean the encoded MP3 less quality than the normal binary? If it's true (can somebody double check?) Need to tell the author about this. How about MS's binary? -------------------- Hong Kong - International Joke Center (after 1997-06-30)
|
|
|
|
Mar 16 2006, 12:04
Post
#5
|
|
![]() LAME developer Group: Developer Posts: 2950 Joined: 1-October 01 From: Nanterre, France Member No.: 138 |
Of course the MT version is of lesser quality if you want to use it in MT, as it requires to disable bit reservoir. (the author is aware of this)
*single thread-> same quality, but also same speed *multithread -> reduced quality, faster Practically, multiple Lame instances of a "regular" version would provide about the same speed as this MT version, with an higher quality. However, running 2 instances is reducing ease of use. |
|
|
|
Mar 16 2006, 12:42
Post
#6
|
|
|
Group: Developer Posts: 122 Joined: 31-January 06 Member No.: 27439 |
QUOTE The output of this multi-threaded version, based on LAME 3.97 alpha, is 1:1 bit compatible with the original version and it gains ~1.16x speedup when Constant Bit Rate (CBR) or Average Bit Rate (ABR) models are used and ~1.30 speedup when Variable Bit Rate (VBR) mode is used on SMT platforms and >1.45x on SMP systems. taken from Description then this statement is not true and the project goal is not reached ?? this is confusing for me and I do not have hardware to test the app myself would be nice to get some test results This post has been edited by wisodev: Mar 16 2006, 12:42 -------------------- http://code.google.com/p/wavtoac3encoder/
|
|
|
|
Mar 16 2006, 15:19
Post
#7
|
|
![]() LAME developer Group: Developer Posts: 2950 Joined: 1-October 01 From: Nanterre, France Member No.: 138 |
QUOTE then this statement is not true and the project goal is not reached ?? This statement is incomplete. It is true only if you disable bit reservoir, and that will reduce quality. |
|
|
|
Mar 17 2006, 03:47
Post
#8
|
|
![]() Group: Members (Donating) Posts: 352 Joined: 10-July 04 From: Albany NY USA Member No.: 15259 |
QUOTE (wisodev @ Mar 16 2006, 07:42 AM) QUOTE The output of this multi-threaded version, based on LAME 3.97 alpha, is 1:1 bit compatible with the original version and it gains ~1.16x speedup when Constant Bit Rate (CBR) or Average Bit Rate (ABR) models are used and ~1.30 speedup when Variable Bit Rate (VBR) mode is used on SMT platforms and >1.45x on SMP systems. then this statement is not true and the project goal is not reached ??this is confusing for me The output of the MT encoder has the same headers, block structure, etc as other lame mp3s. It will be identified as a lame produced file by any scanner utility. It might even be bit identical to the output of the normal lame encoder with --nores. But because the bit resevoir is not useable, quility is reduced in small but signifigant ways. QUOTE You can get the same result by using "--nores" on a standard lame encoder. That is the flag to disable the resevoir.
|
|
|
|
Mar 17 2006, 09:52
Post
#9
|
|
|
Group: Developer Posts: 122 Joined: 31-January 06 Member No.: 27439 |
QUOTE The output of the MT encoder has the same headers, block structure, etc as other lame mp3s. well it is obvious that headers and blocks structure should be the same This post has been edited by wisodev: Mar 17 2006, 09:53 -------------------- http://code.google.com/p/wavtoac3encoder/
|
|
|
|
Mar 21 2006, 07:03
Post
#10
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 221 Joined: 12-January 03 From: Kowloon, Hong Kong Member No.: 4533 |
QUOTE (Klyith @ Mar 17 2006, 10:47 AM) The output of the MT encoder has the same headers, block structure, etc as other lame mp3s. It will be identified as a lame produced file by any scanner utility. It might even be bit identical to the output of the normal lame encoder with --nores. But because the bit resevoir is not useable, quility is reduced in small but signifigant ways. I'm asking the MT version's author to confirm. -------------------- Hong Kong - International Joke Center (after 1997-06-30)
|
|
|
|
![]() ![]() |
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 20th May 2013 - 21:56 |