LAME 3.99 is out, 2012-02-28: version 3.99.5 has been released Options

[kwanbis]

Still not a word on the lowpass case for -V0 ???

It seems LAME devs don't know either

[C.R.Helmrich]

Still not a word on the lowpass case for -V0 ???

It seems LAME devs don't know either

At least a partial reply is given in post 228.

Sounds to me like the lowpass might also be dropped for 320 kbps in the near future. Then at least 320 CBR and -V 0 would be in sync again.

Conceptually it makes sense: maximum VBR mode => maximum bandwidth. I'd be considering the same when designing a very high-bitrate VBR mode. But it would be simply "cosmetic" (so that certain people watching spectrum analyzers would stop complaining), since I have yet to encounter someone able to ABX a 20-kHz lowpass on material other than sine-sweeps.

Chris

[ShotCaller]

I'd be considering the same when designing a very high-bitrate VBR mode. But it would be simply "cosmetic" (so that certain people watching spectrum analyzers would stop complaining), since I have yet to encounter someone able to ABX a 20-kHz lowpass on material other than sine-sweeps.

I think you are right that it is only cosmetic... I think LAME is trying to prove it can compete with AAC by including the whole spectrum

[Broadway]

Having just checked, it appears to fine here. Anyone else have a problem?

Edit: When I say this it is because lametag.exe says so.

This is strange, see:

LameTag - Reads the LAME tag from an mp3 file
Copyright © 2005 phwip
Release 0.4.1, compiled 2005-09-09

D:\RadioRecord\KalimbaV2_64.mp3
LAME tag not found.

[john33]

Are you sure you're using the version downloaded from Rarewares?

I just ran a test using the 64 bit version with this result:

CODE

Microsoft Windows [Version 6.1.7601]
Copyright © 2009 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

C:\Users\John>f:

F:\>cd testdir

F:\testdir>lametag 14.mp3
LameTag - Reads the LAME tag from an mp3 file
Copyright © 2005 phwip
Release 0.4.1, compiled 2005-09-09

F:\testdir\14.mp3
Tag revision: 0
Encoder string: L3.9
Version string: 9r
Quality: 80 (V2 and q0)
Encoding method: vbr new / vbr mtrh
Lowpass: 18,500Hz
RG track peak: <not stored>
RG track gain: +0.0dB (determined automatically)
RG album gain: <not stored>
nspsytune: yes
nssafejoint: yes
nogap continued: no
nogap continuation: no
ATH type: 5
Bitrate: minimal (-b) bitrate 32
Encoder delay: 576 samples
Padded at end: 1,392 samples
Noise shaping: 1
Stereo mode: joint
Unwise settings: no
Source sample freq: 44.1kHz
MP3Gain change: <none>
Preset: V2: preset standard (fast mode)
Surround info: none
Music length: 8,166,730 bytes
Music CRC: 050C
Actual Music CRC: 050C
Info tag CRC: 10E8
Actual InfoTag CRC: 10E8

This post has been edited by db1989: Nov 7 2011, 11:57

Reason for edit: removing unnecessary quote; [code] to [codebox]

[Broadway]

Are you sure you're using the version downloaded from Rarewares?

Yes I am, downloaded it again this morning from rarewares.
I did some tests this morning and found out that in one (!) case the Lame Tag was written, in all the other cases not.

Also I found out that the 64bit-version shuts down after converting without saving settings to the ini. This does not happen with the 32bit-version.

(I'm on Windows 7 X64 HP German)

This post has been edited by db1989: Nov 7 2011, 11:58

Reason for edit: pruning unnecessary full quote of above post

[john33]

OK, I'll do some more research and get back to you.

[Broadway]

OK, I'll do some more research and get back to you.

Thank you.

Just another point: I found out that changes of the settings are not written to the ini.
So it is maybe like this: lamedropxpd (64) converts the wav to mp3 and shuts down before writing the lame tag and without saving to the ini.

[john33]

OK, would you be kind enough to try this one:

http://www.rarewares.org/files/mp3/lamedro...2-3.99.1-64.zip

Hopefully, an improvement, certainly seems OK here.

[Broadway]

OK, would you be kind enough to try this one:

http://www.rarewares.org/files/mp3/lamedro...2-3.99.1-64.zip

Hopefully, an improvement, certainly seems OK here.

I'm sorry, no improvement over here... Program finishes after creating the mp3 without writing the lame tag and saving settings to the ini.

I experimented a bit with running the program as admin... when running as admin it even does not convert....strange...

[john33]

OK, would you be kind enough to try this one:

http://www.rarewares.org/files/mp3/lamedro...2-3.99.1-64.zip

Hopefully, an improvement, certainly seems OK here.

I'm sorry, no improvement over here... Program finishes after creating the mp3 without writing the lame tag and saving settings to the ini.

I experimented a bit with running the program as admin... when running as admin it even does not convert....strange...

Very puzzling; it works flawlessly here.

System 1: Phenom II X4 840 (@stock), 8GB DDR3, Windows 7 HP 64 bit
System 2: Phenom II X6 1075T (@3.6), 8GB DDR3, Windows 7 Pro 64 bit
System 3: i7 920 D0 (@3.6), 6GB DDR3, Windows 7 Ult 64 bit

Without seeing the problem myself, it's a little difficult to know where to go next. Anyone else seeing this or have any bright ideas?

EDIT: I take that back! I've just double checked on System 3 and the program failed part way through writing the Lame Tag. More work to do, I guess!

This post has been edited by john33: Nov 7 2011, 16:44

[Broadway]

System 3: i7 920 D0 (@3.6), 6GB DDR3, Windows 7 Ult 64 bit

...

EDIT: I take that back! I've just double checked on System 3 and the program failed part way through writing the Lame Tag. More work to do, I guess!

My Win 7 x64 is on a Core I3-System...

[john33]

System 3: i7 920 D0 (@3.6), 6GB DDR3, Windows 7 Ult 64 bit

...

EDIT: I take that back! I've just double checked on System 3 and the program failed part way through writing the Lame Tag. More work to do, I guess!

My Win 7 x64 is on a Core I3-System...

Can you try downloading from the same link, again, please. There's a new compile there that runs on all systems OK, now. If it runs OK, I'll tell you what it was!

[krafty]

At least a partial reply is given in post 228.

Sounds to me like the lowpass might also be dropped for 320 kbps in the near future. Then at least 320 CBR and -V 0 would be in sync again.

Conceptually it makes sense: maximum VBR mode => maximum bandwidth. I'd be considering the same when designing a very high-bitrate VBR mode. But it would be simply "cosmetic" (so that certain people watching spectrum analyzers would stop complaining), since I have yet to encounter someone able to ABX a 20-kHz lowpass on material other than sine-sweeps.

Chris

That is what I thought too. Although "tuning" ABR/CBR says very little... I'd like a better confirmation.
But I eventually bump into forums and people are complaining why AAC 256 VBR mode has "full spectrum" while lame has a "cut". This could simmer down.
I myself was bothered by this when I noticed AAC going full spectrum. It's purely psychological.

[Broadway]

System 3: i7 920 D0 (@3.6), 6GB DDR3, Windows 7 Ult 64 bit

...

EDIT: I take that back! I've just double checked on System 3 and the program failed part way through writing the Lame Tag. More work to do, I guess!

My Win 7 x64 is on a Core I3-System...

Can you try downloading from the same link, again, please. There's a new compile there that runs on all systems OK, now. If it runs OK, I'll tell you what it was!

Sorry, no changes here...
But I'm interested in your approach... maybe it helps locating the problem at my place.

[lvqcl]

Oops... "Unhandled exception at 0x772a40f2 in lamedropXPd.exe: 0xC0000374: A heap has been corrupted."

[john33]

Hmm, one more time.

http://www.rarewares.org/files/mp3/lamedro...2-3.99.1-64.zip

This performs perfectly on my systems, so if there are any problems, I'm kind of lost!

EDIT: OK, forget this for the moment. There clearly is an issue on x64. Iworks on two systems and then fails on the third! Back to the drawing board for the time being!

This post has been edited by john33: Nov 7 2011, 19:32

[Wombat]

I use the lame_enc.dll for a while now and lame 3.98.4 and 3.99 showed "Variable Bit Rate -V X" under file details, 3.99.1 shows the actual bitrate. Is this on purpose?

Edit: wrong quote

This post has been edited by Wombat: Nov 7 2011, 22:08

[john33]

Now this version has been tested fairly heavily on all three of my systems and has not failed, so far.

http://www.rarewares.org/files/mp3/lamedro...2-3.99.1-64.zip

Some testing and feedback would be appreciated. TIA.

[robert]

So far, no problems on my machine.

Btw., target quality doesn't allow settings in the range ]9,10[ ?

[john33]

So far, no problems on my machine.

Btw., target quality doesn't allow settings in the range ]9,10[ ?

Thanks for the testing, and I'll look into that.

[viktor]

Now this version has been tested fairly heavily on all three of my systems and has not failed, so far.

http://www.rarewares.org/files/mp3/lamedro...2-3.99.1-64.zip

Some testing and feedback would be appreciated. TIA.

thanks!

speed comparison:
- x86: 245s
- x64: 179s

very nice improvement. but i have a few questions:

- why have such an odd default -V value (8.31) in lamedropxpd?
- why a different filename? i guess it's just an oversight
- why do the resulting mp3 files differ between 32 and 64 bit compiles? both lame and lamedropxpd, but at least the files are identical on the same architecture from the 2.

This post has been edited by viktor: Nov 8 2011, 13:08

[john33]

Now this version has been tested fairly heavily on all three of my systems and has not failed, so far.

http://www.rarewares.org/files/mp3/lamedro...2-3.99.1-64.zip

Some testing and feedback would be appreciated. TIA.

thanks!

speed comparison:
- x86: 245s
- x64: 179s

very nice improvement. but i have a few questions:

- why have such an odd default -V value (8.31) in lamedropxpd?
- why a different filename? i guess it's just an oversight
- why do the resulting mp3 files differ between 32 and 64 bit compiles? both lame and lamedropxpd, but at least the files are identical on the same architecture from the 2.

Thanks for the feedback.

1. I've changed the default now and thanks for telling me. That's a throwback to an older version and should have been changed a while ago!
2. I wanted to keep the name different so I could run them using the same .ini file. I'll probably change the .exe to have a '64' suffix when I'm reasonably sure it's OK to release.
3. The 32 bit compiles use 'nasm' assembler routines for cpu feature optimisations, the 64 bit compiles use the Intel intrinsics. The differences in the maths routines = differences in output. However, as had been said many times, although different compilers used result in differing outputs, no one has yet been able to abx any difference. So, just accept the difference and don't worry about.

[viktor]

Thanks for the feedback.

1. I've changed the default now and thanks for telling me. That's a throwback to an older version and should have been changed a while ago!
2. I wanted to keep the name different so I could run them using the same .ini file. I'll probably change the .exe to have a '64' suffix when I'm reasonably sure it's OK to release.
3. The 32 bit compiles use 'nasm' assembler routines for cpu feature optimisations, the 64 bit compiles use the Intel intrinsics. The differences in the maths routines = differences in output. However, as had been said many times, although different compilers used result in differing outputs, no one has yet been able to abx any difference. So, just accept the difference and don't worry about.

thanks for the clarification! as of point 2, it would be really helpful to change the program's title as well. i'm asking coz ATM it's really hard to distinguish the 2 when they run, there's no indication neither in the task bar nor anywhere else in the program (main window, encoding options, about screen, anything). lamedropXPd and lamedropXPd-64 (or sg like that) would be fine for me (both title and executable name).

This post has been edited by viktor: Nov 8 2011, 13:50

[john33]

So far, no problems on my machine.

Btw., target quality doesn't allow settings in the range ]9,10[ ?

Revised version which includes the extended VRB Quality range is here for testing, if those who are interested would be so kind.

http://www.rarewares.org/files/mp3/lamedro...2-3.99.1-64.zip

On the 'About' page, I have added a note next to the compile date to indicate whether it is a 32 bit, or 64 bit compile.