LAME versions, Development of LAME |
![]() ![]() |
LAME versions, Development of LAME |
Nov 22 2004, 08:47
Post
#1
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 17 Joined: 18-April 02 Member No.: 1811 |
Hi people,
Just wondering if LAME is still in development. There seems to be a lot less activity in LAMe now and I was wondering if 3.93.1 is going to be the definitive in "best" quality for recording in .mp3 format. There used to be a lot more activity in relases and forum discussion/testing and seing as though Car stereos still don't include the.ogg format the next choice is .wma. Is this what we can expect or is LAME still comparable and under development. Half the links to developent discussions don't even work any more. |
|
|
|
Nov 22 2004, 08:57
Post
#2
|
|
![]() Group: Members Posts: 304 Joined: 9-August 02 From: SoFo Member No.: 3002 |
|
|
|
|
Nov 22 2004, 16:53
Post
#3
|
|
|
Group: Developer Posts: 1289 Joined: 17-March 03 From: Calgary, AB Member No.: 5541 |
3.96.1 came out in july i believe, that's pretty recent.
|
|
|
|
Nov 22 2004, 22:55
Post
#4
|
|
![]() Group: Members Posts: 304 Joined: 9-August 02 From: SoFo Member No.: 3002 |
Right, but version 3.93.1 is pretty old
|
|
|
|
Nov 23 2004, 17:37
Post
#5
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 1361 Joined: 25-November 02 Member No.: 3873 |
QUOTE (DigitalDictator @ Nov 22 2004, 01:55 PM) ...yes, and you shouldn't use it either... -------------------- --alt-presets are there for a reason! These other switches DO NOT work better than it, trust me on this.
LAME + Joint Stereo doesn't destroy 'Stereo' |
|
|
|
Nov 25 2004, 11:47
Post
#6
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 17 Joined: 18-April 02 Member No.: 1811 |
QUOTE (Jojo @ Nov 23 2004, 04:37 PM) QUOTE (DigitalDictator @ Nov 22 2004, 01:55 PM) ...yes, and you shouldn't use it either... woops, I meant 3.90.3 3.90.3 is also very old. I understand it's supposed to be the best sounding. It is why I was asking if LAME was at the end of it's development as no movement (sorry I mean movement as in quality getting better with newer versions, ie: this is the best version) has been seen from 3.90.3 for a long time now and although there are more resent versions, releases seem more and more infrequent and still not recomended over ther 3.90.3 version. Just after opinions as to if the .mp3 format is dead, I mean dead as in people are more interested in "other" formats now and so concentrate less on LAME. This post has been edited by SHADES: Nov 25 2004, 11:49 |
|
|
|
Nov 25 2004, 14:32
Post
#7
|
|
![]() Group: Members (Donating) Posts: 3474 Joined: 7-November 01 From: Strasbourg (France) Member No.: 420 |
QUOTE (SHADES @ Nov 25 2004, 11:47 AM) It's a joke? http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/lame...y.html?rev=1.70 3.95 - 3.95.1 - 3.96 - 3.96.1 - 3.97 alpha 1-> 4 were released this year, which was a very productive one. QUOTE and still not recomended over ther 3.90.3 version. Generally speaking, lame 3.90.3 recommandations are done by people which can't ABX 3.90.3 over 3.96 (fortunately, there are exceptions). I wouldn't trust 95% of these This post has been edited by guruboolez: Nov 25 2004, 14:33 |
|
|
|
Nov 25 2004, 16:15
Post
#8
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 1361 Joined: 25-November 02 Member No.: 3873 |
I prefer LAME 3.96.1 over LAME 3.90.3
-------------------- --alt-presets are there for a reason! These other switches DO NOT work better than it, trust me on this.
LAME + Joint Stereo doesn't destroy 'Stereo' |
|
|
|
Nov 25 2004, 17:49
Post
#9
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 32 Joined: 4-October 03 Member No.: 9151 |
QUOTE (Jojo @ Nov 25 2004, 11:15 AM) 3.96.1 should be especially appealing for car stereos given the improvements it offers at lower bitrates, not to mention encoding is competitvely fast, and i haven't been able to abx the fast presets from the normal ones despite the filesizes are a bit smaller. whatever samples people have found regression in are more than made up for in improvements at portable-friendly bitrates since so many have them. getting more transparent(esp. with road noise) onto a disc faster can only be a good thing. |
|
|
|
Nov 25 2004, 17:51
Post
#10
|
|
![]() Group: Members Posts: 657 Joined: 4-December 02 Member No.: 3989 |
LAME 3.96 is 2X faster than 3.90.3 especialy with "preset"
an abvious advantage of 3.96 over 3.90 |
|
|
|
Nov 25 2004, 18:37
Post
#11
|
|
![]() xcLame and OggDropXPd Developer Group: Developer Posts: 3708 Joined: 30-September 01 From: Bracknell, UK Member No.: 111 |
You're all also forgetting Takehiro's work on LAME4.0. This is currently at Alpha 11.
Last time I did this, I got into trouble -------------------- John
---------------------------------------------------------------- My compiles and utilities are at http://www.rarewares.org/ |
|
|
|
Nov 25 2004, 19:51
Post
#12
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 1361 Joined: 25-November 02 Member No.: 3873 |
QUOTE (john33 @ Nov 25 2004, 09:37 AM) You're all also forgetting Takehiro's work on LAME4.0. This is currently at Alpha 11. Last time I did this, I got into trouble I agree, you shouldn't post this since there is no point in using it (unless you are bored)...it's even more dangerous than the 3x alpha releases... -------------------- --alt-presets are there for a reason! These other switches DO NOT work better than it, trust me on this.
LAME + Joint Stereo doesn't destroy 'Stereo' |
|
|
|
Dec 1 2004, 18:47
Post
#13
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 126 Joined: 19-December 02 From: Athens, Greece Member No.: 4152 |
any info on when lame 4 is going to "air"?
|
|
|
|
Dec 1 2004, 18:54
Post
#14
|
|
![]() Group: Developer (Donating) Posts: 193 Joined: 9-May 02 From: Emeryville, CA Member No.: 2010 |
QUOTE (john33 @ Nov 25 2004, 05:37 PM) You're all also forgetting Takehiro's work on LAME4.0. This is currently at Alpha 11. Last time I did this, I got into trouble Do you know what the goals for 4.0 are? Will it be significantly different from 3x? |
|
|
|
Dec 6 2004, 09:50
Post
#15
|
|
|
LAME developer Group: Developer Posts: 74 Joined: 18-May 02 From: Japan Member No.: 2067 |
QUOTE (kuniklo @ Dec 2 2004, 02:54 AM) LAME4 is now in the late-alpha stage. One of its final goal is to define the goal Current LAME4's Main goal is "destory all the obstacles to improve the quality/speed, which is made by OLD code". "Improving quality" itself is not current goal, but "to lay the foundations for it" is the goal. Maybe after archiving this goal, I will do the next goal (improving quality by tuning the parameters). That will be beta stages' work, after Christmas or the new year. edit: tag is not closed. oops. This post has been edited by takehiro: Dec 6 2004, 09:51 -------------------- May the source be with you! // Takehiro TOMINAGA
|
|
|
|
Dec 6 2004, 14:27
Post
#16
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 126 Joined: 19-December 02 From: Athens, Greece Member No.: 4152 |
QUOTE (takehiro @ Dec 6 2004, 12:50 AM) QUOTE (kuniklo @ Dec 2 2004, 02:54 AM) LAME4 is now in the late-alpha stage. One of its final goal is to define the goal Current LAME4's Main goal is "destory all the obstacles to improve the quality/speed, which is made by OLD code". "Improving quality" itself is not current goal, but "to lay the foundations for it" is the goal. Maybe after archiving this goal, I will do the next goal (improving quality by tuning the parameters). That will be beta stages' work, after Christmas or the new year. edit: tag is not closed. oops. i must suppose that by "improving the quality/speed" you mean to improve the speed but maintain the lame 3.9x quality, right? |
|
|
|
Dec 6 2004, 16:03
Post
#17
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 1361 Joined: 25-November 02 Member No.: 3873 |
QUOTE (alfa156 @ Dec 6 2004, 05:27 AM) QUOTE (takehiro @ Dec 6 2004, 12:50 AM) QUOTE (kuniklo @ Dec 2 2004, 02:54 AM) LAME4 is now in the late-alpha stage. One of its final goal is to define the goal Current LAME4's Main goal is "destory all the obstacles to improve the quality/speed, which is made by OLD code". "Improving quality" itself is not current goal, but "to lay the foundations for it" is the goal. Maybe after archiving this goal, I will do the next goal (improving quality by tuning the parameters). That will be beta stages' work, after Christmas or the new year. edit: tag is not closed. oops. i must suppose that by "improving the quality/speed" you mean to improve the speed but maintain the lame 3.9x quality, right? ...and hopefully get rid of 'Stereo' (and use JS instead), unsafe JS, CBR-Encoding and stupid command lines that either bloat filesize and don't achive anything in terms of quality - or making a file sound worse at a bitrate were better sound could be achived -------------------- --alt-presets are there for a reason! These other switches DO NOT work better than it, trust me on this.
LAME + Joint Stereo doesn't destroy 'Stereo' |
|
|
|
Dec 6 2004, 17:28
Post
#18
|
|
![]() LAME developer Group: Developer Posts: 2950 Joined: 1-October 01 From: Nanterre, France Member No.: 138 |
Well, if someone wants to take over the frontends for v4, the position is open.
We will use v4 to clean some features of the frontends, but Takehiro's time is more usefull inside the encoder. |
|
|
|
Dec 6 2004, 17:56
Post
#19
|
|
![]() Group: Members Posts: 3621 Joined: 14-May 03 From: Bad Herrenalb Member No.: 6613 |
Sorry, if I missed this, but is Intensity Stereo planned for LAME 4.0?
-------------------- http://listening-tests.hydrogenaudio.org/sebastian/
|
|
|
|
Dec 6 2004, 19:10
Post
#20
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 64 Joined: 28-November 04 Member No.: 18381 |
Would it be possible to have mp3gain in Lame 4.0 ?
-------------------- Death is the one thing we all face
|
|
|
|
Dec 6 2004, 19:45
Post
#21
|
|
![]() LAME developer Group: Developer Posts: 2950 Joined: 1-October 01 From: Nanterre, France Member No.: 138 |
QUOTE Sorry, if I missed this, but is Intensity Stereo planned for LAME 4.0? Yes QUOTE Would it be possible to have mp3gain in Lame 4.0 ? This is possible with ANY mp3 encoder. |
|
|
|
Dec 6 2004, 20:00
Post
#22
|
|
![]() Group: Members Posts: 3621 Joined: 14-May 03 From: Bad Herrenalb Member No.: 6613 |
QUOTE (neutral_00 @ Dec 6 2004, 07:10 PM) LAME 3.96.1 already writes ReplayGain information to the LAME header. However, there is no application supporting this AFAIK. -------------------- http://listening-tests.hydrogenaudio.org/sebastian/
|
|
|
|
Dec 6 2004, 20:19
Post
#23
|
|
|
Group: Developer (Donating) Posts: 2332 Joined: 28-June 02 From: Argentina Member No.: 2425 |
QUOTE (Gabriel @ Dec 6 2004, 04:28 PM) Well, if someone wants to take over the frontends for v4, the position is open. We will use v4 to clean some features of the frontends, but Takehiro's time is more usefull inside the encoder. what you mean by frontend? -------------------- MAREO: http://www.webearce.com.ar
|
|
|
|
Dec 6 2004, 20:22
Post
#24
|
|
![]() LAME developer Group: Developer Posts: 2950 Joined: 1-October 01 From: Nanterre, France Member No.: 138 |
QUOTE what you mean by frontend? The frontends are lame.exe, lame.dll, acm codec, directshow filter. This post has been edited by Gabriel: Dec 6 2004, 20:22 |
|
|
|
Dec 6 2004, 20:24
Post
#25
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 64 Joined: 28-November 04 Member No.: 18381 |
QUOTE This is possible with ANY mp3 encoder. QUOTE LAME 3.96.1 already writes ReplayGain information to the LAME header. However, there is no application supporting this AFAIK. (Apologizes in advanced I new to this On my portables the replaygain does not do seem to do anything. I think the hardware just skips this. Mp3 gain changes the a value about loudness in the frames ? I think it would be realy cool if lame could take a second pass if say --mp3gain was enabled to change the files gain to avoid the clipping. Also is the q 0 switch fixed. I have no real regard for encoding time. But like to know the huffman coding is making the files small. (or have i got this wrong -------------------- Death is the one thing we all face
|
|
|
|
![]() ![]() |
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 24th May 2013 - 15:17 |