Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Lame 3.90.3 (Read 5958 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Lame 3.90.3

How do I get a copy of LAME 3.90.3

Lame 3.90.3

Reply #2 –
Can I asked why you are reticent to use 3.97b2?
I'm on a horse.

Lame 3.90.3

Reply #3 –
Quote
Closest place I can find is here:  http://www.rjamorim.com/rrw/lame.html - but I only see 3.90.1 upon first glance.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=354694"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

3.91 is there. There should be no essential difference.
lame3995o -Q1.7 --lowpass 17

Lame 3.90.3

Reply #4 –
Quote
How do I get a copy of LAME 3.90.3
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=354684"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I still have the executables and the source. Tell me which you want and I'll post a link for you.

Lame 3.90.3

Reply #5 –
Quote
Quote
Closest place I can find is here:  http://www.rjamorim.com/rrw/lame.html - but I only see 3.90.1 upon first glance.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=354694"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

3.91 is there. There should be no essential difference.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=354733"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks, my comprehension isn't so good.

Lame 3.90.3

Reply #6 –
Quote
Quote
How do I get a copy of LAME 3.90.3
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=354684"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I still have the executables and the source. Tell me which you want and I'll post a link for you.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=354736"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Dou you have a 3.90.3 or 3.91 version which is definitely an ICL compile with the slower compiler settings for rounding float to nearest integer (other than is done usually by C compilers)?

This would be wonderful cause I've been searching for such a version without success.
lame3995o -Q1.7 --lowpass 17

Lame 3.90.3

Reply #7 –
Quote
Dou you have a 3.90.3 or 3.91 version which is definitely an ICL compile with the slower compiler settings for rounding float to nearest integer (other than is done usually by C compilers)?

This would be wonderful cause I've been searching for such a version without success.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The standard 3.90.3 compiles were produced using ICL4.5 in default mode regarding floating point to integer conversion. The Intel compiler default is 'round to nearest'.

You can get it here: [a href="http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jfe1205/LAME/lame-3.90.3.zip]http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jfe1205/LAME/lame-3.90.3.zip[/url]

Lame 3.90.3

Reply #8 –
Quote
The standard 3.90.3 compiles were produced using ICL4.5 in default mode regarding floating point to integer conversion. The Intel compiler default is 'round to nearest'.

You can get it here: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jfe1205/LAME/lame-3.90.3.zip
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=354751"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thank you very much.
lame3995o -Q1.7 --lowpass 17

Lame 3.90.3

Reply #9 –
Quote
Can I asked why you are reticent to use 3.97b2?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=354720"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I am just following instruction on the radified site. He recommends this version over the later one for his purposes. I don't know for sure why but I am following his instructions because otherwise i would be lost. didn't know about this site until going to his site. Boy what an active group. thanks for all the replies.

Lame 3.90.3

Reply #10 –
Quote
Quote
Can I asked why you are reticent to use 3.97b2?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=354720"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I am just following instruction on the radified site. He recommends this version over the later one for his purposes. I don't know for sure why but I am following his instructions because otherwise i would be lost. didn't know about this site until going to his site. Boy what an active group. thanks for all the replies.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=354789"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Without asking you to take me by the hand through the whole learning curve, what are the issues between the versions? 3.97b2 is a later version than when radified wrote his instructions. May this is the one to go with now?

Lame 3.90.3

Reply #11 –
it is the one to go (3.97b)

Lame 3.90.3

Reply #12 –
I'm afraid this is just too big a subject for me to attempt.  Perhaps one of the old faithful can explain better.

I hoped to point you to a thread or wiki explaining it, or allowing you to follow a logical thread - but I can't.

Sufficing to say 3.90.3 was the recommend version at HA for years, until the end of 2005.  3.97b1 was finally made the recommended version after it proved, to the those in the know, that it was superior, or at least not inferior, in most situations.

I would use 3.97b2.  In fact, I do use 3.97b2.

I believe any (normal) command for 3.90.3 will work with 3.97b2 - including the -alt-presets.

Edit: This wiki page is at least of some help, and details the correlation between the -V values and the -alt-preset values (which may be a concern to you).  Check the Quick Start section for the HA recommendations.
I'm on a horse.