Which MP3 codec do you prefer?, LAME 3.90.3, 3.96.1, or something else? Options

[Polar]

MP3 still seems to be the most popular lossy audio codec by far, especially out in the wild (outside Hydrogenaudio, I mean ), a phenomenon which is now even manifesting itself amongst HA members in the most recent multi lossy codec poll.

The question whether the tried-and-true version 3.90.3 of LAME still holds up against the newer v3.96.1 as the most widely preferred MP3 codec has recently arisen in this thread in the MP3 - General forum, along with the consequent remark that a poll would not have been a bad idea to find out.

So here goes.

Quite some people have IMHO rightly raised the almost philosophical question about which codec version Hydrogenaudio should promote as recommended, if e.g. v3.96.1 were to turn out the most popular one, especially if one or the other still isn't univocally considered the best choice quality-wise. Note that this poll does not really cover this official HA recommendation question. It is aimed at getting to know your personal preference only. The official recommendation issue could perhaps be debated later on, should poll results require so.

I would like to invite supporters of other (lossy/lossless) codecs than MP3 (i.e. any MP3 codec), who don't have any particular preference for this or that MP3 encoder version, to place a null vote, so as to get as clear a view as possible on MP3 users' preference.

[rjamorim]

I don't think this is the right time to start such a poll, since it doesn't seem it'll take long for 3.97 to be released.

[Polar]

I don't think this is the right time to start such a poll, since it doesn't seem it'll take long for 3.97 to be released.

Although I can see the reasoning behind your argument, I don't see the harm of a little curiosity for HA members' present-day preference.
After all, LAME 3.97 is still in alpha stage, so it could still take some months before a stable release, let alone several months before opinions be based on somewhat of an authoritative graduator of testing.

[geopoul]

There should be a "both 3.90.3 & 3.96.1" option.

[odious malefacto...]

There should be a "both 3.90.3 & 3.96.1" option.

True that!

[DreamTactix291]

Currently what little mp3 encoding I do is with 3.96.1

[stephanV]

I don't think this is the right time to start such a poll, since it doesn't seem it'll take long for 3.97 to be released.

Not entirely, because 3.97 might very well end up in the "not tested enough"-corner next to 3.96. This poll could give a good indication how many people still follow the HA-recommendation. I think people using 3.96 are more likely to switch to 3.97 then people still using 3.90.3.

[Synthetic Soul]

There should be a "both 3.90.3 & 3.96.1" option.

True that!

Do you encode using one, listen, and then, if there are issues, encode using the other? If so, which do you try first (and stick with, if the individual result is acceptable)? I don't mean to be inquisitorial, I'm just intrigued by your thoroughness.

I have placed my vote for 3.96.1.

Edit: How many votes need to be placed for this poll to have any bearing I wonder? Polar's "What's your lossless codec of choice?" poll received 494 votes. I think anything short of this could still be seen as inconclusive. That took four months to undertake (I can't tell whether it is closed now or not). Still, you've got to start somewhere I guess.

This post has been edited by Synthetic Soul: Mar 8 2005, 09:49

[Polar]

There should be a "both 3.90.3 & 3.96.1" option.

If I didn't have a clearcut preference, I'd just do the same I've advised "supporters of other (lossy/lossless) codecs than MP3, who don't have any particular preference for this or that MP3 encoder version" to do, viz. "to place a null vote".
If you really can't make a choice, nobody's obliging you to.

[krmathis]

I use 3.96.1 the few times I encode to mp3.
Simply because it encodes ~2 times as fast as 3.90.3.

[guruboolez]

3.97 alphas. I'm currently using LAME with ABR at mid bitrate, and according to my own tests, quality is clearly better than both 3.90.3 and 3.96.1 (and it's also twice faster than 3.90.3).

[Polar]

How many votes need to be placed for this poll to have any bearing I wonder?  Polar's "What's your lossless codec of choice?" poll received 494 votes.  I think anything short of this could still be seen as inconclusive.

I'd rather say some 100 votes or so, i.e. at least a majority of all advocates of MP3 in the most recent multi lossy polls: 191 in Roberto's closed August 2004 poll and 113 so far in aabxx's current poll. You can't expect non-MP3 people to express their preference for a certain MP3 codec, if they just don't use any.
And I don't understand why the lossless poll would qualify better as a reference in this particular poll than the above-mentioned lossy ones.

<off topic>

That took four months to undertake (I can't tell whether it is closed now or not).

Well, not quite. That lossless poll was started on August 3, 2004, and it's still not closed yet. It seems to have taken 5 weeks (i.e. by September 6) to reach the 350 cast votes stage.
</off topic>

[Synthetic Soul]

@Polar

Yes, my mistake. I agree that we need to compare the amount of feedback with other MP3-specific polls (and not a lossless poll). I would personally hope for between 100 and 150 - considering the figures you quote, and the nature of the poll.

Thanks for the (offtopic) info re: the lossless poll. 5 weeks is a lot more acceptable.

[QuantumKnot]

The only mp3 encoding I do nowadays is for video. Since speed is mostly my concern in this instance, I'm using the Xing 1.5 encoder

[john33]

The only mp3 encoding I do nowadays is for video.  Since speed is mostly my concern in this instance, I'm using the Xing 1.5 encoder   

At least use GoGo!!

[rjamorim]

At least use GoGo!!

Shame on you John! You don't even check my test results.

(Xing is at least as good as Gogo)

This post has been edited by rjamorim: Mar 8 2005, 16:27

[TimYork]

I still use good ol' 3.90.2 -aps. My ears aren't good enough to hear the difference between 3.90.3 -aps and 3.90.2 -aps, so the extra filesize from the built in -Z option isn't justified for me. I figure if I ever do hear a difference, I'll have the option to turn it on. BTW, just out of curiosity, is there a way to turn in off in 3.90.3?

[john33]

I still use good ol' 3.90.2 -aps.  My ears aren't good enough to hear the difference between 3.90.3 -aps and 3.90.2 -aps, so the extra filesize from the built in -Z option isn't justified for me.  I figure if I ever do hear a difference, I'll have the option to turn it on.  BTW, just out of curiosity, is there a way to turn in off in 3.90.3?

No!

[music_man_mpc]

I use Qdesign and Blade!! There names are 5|_||>4R 1337!! So they must be the best choices for de 1337 |-|4><><0R!!

[geopoul]

There should be a "both 3.90.3 & 3.96.1" option.

If I didn't have a clearcut preference, I'd just do the same I've advised "supporters of other (lossy/lossless) codecs than MP3, who don't have any particular preference for this or that MP3 encoder version" to do, viz. "to place a null vote".
If you really can't make a choice, nobody's obliging you to.

What i mean't is that i use them both. 3.90.3 with aps parameter and 3.96.1 for lower bitrates.

[rjamorim]

I use Qdesign and Blade!!  There names are 5|_||>4R 1337!!  So they must be the best choices for de 1337 |-|4><><0R!!

If you really believe QDesign is a 1337 name...

[memomai]

QDesign And Blade

I still use Lame 3.90.2, I think 3.97a7 is very good, too, and at least 3.90.3 of course.

Otherwise I'd use other lossy codecs instead of other MP3 codecs, because for me lame 3.90.2 is still the best one of all (of course 3.90.3 is for you better).

Musepack MPC (MPPENC) is my favorite alternate lossy codec.

I don't think there will be much better lame versions than 3.90.3 or 3.96.1...

[Synthetic Soul]

I still use Lame 3.90.2, I think 3.97a7 is very good, too, and at least 3.90.3 of course.

Otherwise I'd use other lossy codecs instead of other MP3 codecs, because for me lame 3.90.2 is still the best one of all (of course 3.90.3 is for you better).

I don't think there will be much better lame versions than 3.90.3 or 3.96.1...

I can't decide whether you are joking or not... so much paradox...

If you think 3.97a7 is very good why do you not think 3.97 will be better than 3.96.1?

[kotrtim]

voted for LAME 3.96

I don't think there will be much better lame versions than 3.90.3 or 3.96.1...

the world is improving.....many things are possible, i don't it's impossible to improve LAME

if LAME team release 3.97 i will definitely go for it!
3.97 is FAST

[Acid Orange Juic...]

The only mp3 encoding I do nowadays is for video.  Since speed is mostly my concern in this instance, I'm using the Xing 1.5 encoder   

I use Lame 3.96.1 for my personal use; but, from time to time for share some file with my friends I use the mp3 encoder from Audio Catalyst v2.0