lame 3.98.4, 3.99 alpha, 32- and 64-bit builds Options

[robert]

How much of a speed difference is there between 3.98.4 and 3.99.a10 ?

This post has been edited by robert: Jun 8 2010, 10:58

[john33]

On Q6600 systems @ 3.2GHz, 3.98.4 64bit runs at approx 37x and 32bit at approx 41x. With 3.99a10 the numbers are similar only reversed.

[IgorC]

john33,

I have a performance issue with 3.99a10 build from rarewares. It runs at half of speed comparing to 3.98.4 rarewares's build.
PC: AMD Turion II P540 http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/K10/AMD-Turi...540SGR23GM.html
Windows 7 32 bits.


Both build run equally fast at Intel PC.


tsnr's build 3.99a10 directly doesn't run.

This post has been edited by IgorC: Oct 11 2010, 06:28

[john33]

john33,

I have a performance issue with 3.99a10 build from rarewares. It runs at half of speed comparing to 3.98.4 rarewares's build.
PC: AMD Turion II P540 http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/K10/AMD-Turi...540SGR23GM.html
Windows 7 32 bits.


Both build run equally fast at Intel PC.


tsnr's build 3.99a10 directly doesn't run.

I'll take a look at this when I return home - I'm away at the moment, but it will probably not be until next week.

[IgorC]

If somebody experiences the slow encode with 3.99a on AMD here is lvqcl's compilation.
http://filekeeper.org/download/shared/lame_a10.rar

[lvqcl]

tsnr's build 3.99a10 directly doesn't run.

BTW: try to patch it with iccpatch utility (e.g. from here: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....74345&st=75 )

[IgorC]

Have tried with different versions of iccpatch (GUIed one too). Didn't work.

[IgorC]

Some results for Windows 7 x64
CPU Turion II P540

LAME 3.99a10 (foobar converter, 2 cores)

Rarewares builds:
x64 - 47x
x32 - 24x

lvqcl's build http://filekeeper.org/download/shared/lame_a10.rar
x32 - 44-45x

tsnr build http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....st&p=708769
x64 - 42-43x
x32 - doesn't run.

[moozooh]

Has anybody conducted any tests comparing the recent 3.99 alphas with 3.98.4? I'm lacking a proper equipment to test at the moment.

[Fishman0919]

Has anybody conducted any tests comparing the recent 3.99 alphas with 3.98.4? I'm lacking a proper equipment to test at the moment.

I've run several test with Lame 3.98.4 and 3.99a10... as of right now both seem to produce the same file. I built both build with the same settings.

Here's a pic from both on the same file.





This post has been edited by Fishman0919: Jan 14 2011, 00:04

[Steve Forte Rio]

3.99a contains the new VBR mode which enables with --vbr-new key. In other modes the result will be the same as for lame 3.98.4

[Fishman0919]

3.99a contains the new VBR mode which enables with --vbr-new key. In other modes the result will be the same as for lame 3.98.4

Sorry, yes, my bad... I don't use vbr-new because it make larger file using -V4 with 3.98.4 and 3.99a10.
Here are some shot of 3.97, 3.98.4 and 3.99a10 on the same file.







This post has been edited by Fishman0919: Jan 14 2011, 19:35

[Steve Forte Rio]

Hm, I see that bitrate distribution is different for two compiles:

Alpha 10 from here:
http://lame.bakerweb.biz/

and

lvqcl's build http://filekeeper.org/download/shared/lame_a10.rar

--silent -V 2 --vbr-new --noreplaygain

bakerweb.biz - 216kbps avg
lvqcl's - 208 kbps avg



This post has been edited by Steve Forte Rio: Jan 14 2011, 20:01

[Fishman0919]

Hm, I see that bitrate distribution is different for two compiles:

Alpha 10 from here:
http://lame.bakerweb.biz/

and

lvqcl's build http://filekeeper.org/download/shared/lame_a10.rar

--silent -V 2 --vbr-new --noreplaygain

bakerweb.biz - 216kbps avg
lvqcl's - 208 kbps avg

Yes, different compiles produce different file.

My MVS VC9 Build


My MinGW Build


Bakerweb Build


Rareware Build


This post has been edited by Fishman0919: Jan 14 2011, 21:12

[Fishman0919]

4 Different builds. Same file using "lame.exe --noreplaygain -V 4 test.wav test.mp3"

Rareware Build


My MVS VC9 Build


Bakerweb Build


My MinGW Build


This post has been edited by Fishman0919: Jan 14 2011, 22:20

[Fishman0919]

Same file using -V2.

Rareware, My MSV VC9, Bakerweb, My MinGW build

[Steve Forte Rio]

Yes, different compiles produce different file.

But why??

This post has been edited by Steve Forte Rio: Jan 14 2011, 22:46

[Fishman0919]

Yes, different compiles produce different file.

But why??

Different Libraries used in compilers, diff settings used when compiling, diff compilers... which boils down to in the end, different rounding of numbers.

Though not sure why vbr-old doesn't differ so much(same bitrate size, a few different bitrates here and there) as where vbr-new differs alot in bitrate size between compiles with 3.99a10

This post has been edited by Fishman0919: Jan 14 2011, 23:45

[Steve Forte Rio]

So, now I must ask: which is the best? Of course, in terms of quality

This post has been edited by Steve Forte Rio: Jan 15 2011, 13:26

[Fishman0919]

So, now I must ask: which is the best? Of course, in terms of quality

That I can't answer... All of them I guess... I don't think there really is a BAD compiler for Final ver's of Lame.

Maybe robert or john33 could answer that better.

This post has been edited by Fishman0919: Jan 16 2011, 18:33

[john33]

So, now I must ask: which is the best? Of course, in terms of quality

That question has been asked many times before and to the best of my knowledge no one has yet been able reliably to differentiate between the outputs from the encoders compiled with different compilers. So it's safe to say that you can use whichever takes your fancy.

[Fishman0919]

Having an issue compiling Lame 3.98.4 or 3.99a10 with MSVS 2010... Lame 3.91-3.97 compiles fine.

Can compile Lame 3.98.4 and 3.99a10 fine with MSVS 2008.

Seems to be a linker option that is no longer valid but don't know where to start... any help would be appreciated.

Setting environment for using Microsoft Visual Studio 2010 x86 tools.

C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio 10.0\VC>cd lame3984

C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio 10.0\VC\lame3984>nmake -f Makefile.MSVC


Microsoft ® Program Maintenance Utility Version 10.00.30319.01
Copyright © Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
building LAME featuring RH
+ ASM
+ MMX
using MS COMPILER
+ optimizing for Pentium II/III
+ using Single precision
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pass GTK=YES to build the frame analyzer. (requires installed GTK)
.
.
.
main.c
LINK : fatal error LNK1117: syntax error in option 'opt:NOWIN98'
NMAKE : fatal error U1077: '"C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio 10.0\VC\BI
N\link.EXE"' : return code '0x45d'
Stop.

C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio 10.0\VC\lame3984>

This post has been edited by Fishman0919: Jan 26 2011, 08:34

[robert]

Edit Makefile.MSVC and remove /opt:NOWIN98 around line 236.

[Fishman0919]

Edit Makefile.MSVC and remove /opt:NOWIN98 around line 236.

Thank You

[Steve Forte Rio]

So, now I must ask: which is the best? Of course, in terms of quality

That question has been asked many times before and to the best of my knowledge no one has yet been able reliably to differentiate between the outputs from the encoders compiled with different compilers. So it's safe to say that you can use whichever takes your fancy.

I asked the same question about different bitstream of 320 CBR encoded with two compiles. The difference between them was a small digital 1-bit noise. These could be the results of some processing optimizations.
But here we have different bitrates, and I think this is very strange and must affect quality.

Again:

john33 build - 191 kbps
tsnr (bakerweb.biz) - 185 kbps
lvqcl - 185 kbps

This post has been edited by Steve Forte Rio: Jan 26 2011, 17:21