WHY a particular LAME version, ? |
WHY a particular LAME version, ? |
  Dec 17 2004, 21:30
Post
#1
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 24 Joined: 17-December 04 Member No.: 18738  |
I have read quite a lot stuff on the net recommending the 3.90.3 ver. of the LAME encoder. Why is it better than the newer versions?
please post some detailed info -------------------- Increase the Peace!!!
Integrated audio, soon Audigy 2! 2x40HDDs, soon 1x40 & 1x250GB! 5.1 Luxeon speakers. DAP: XClef HD-500 FW 5.323 |
 |
 
|
 |
|
Dec 17 2004, 21:55
Post
#2
|
|
 Group: Members (Donating) Posts: 707 Joined: 20-July 03 From: Canada Member No.: 7895 |
The presets (--alt-preset xxx) for the 3.90.X branch of LAME were designed by many of the original members of this site and were exhaustively tested to make sure that they utilized the best possible settings for quality. Subsequent versions of LAME broke compatibility with these presets to allow for many other improvements (faster, bug issues, etc), thus making a temporary regression in quality. LAME 3.96.1 seemed as though it might be about the same quality as 3.90.3 in some of the tests done after it was released. However, in the minds of the administration of this forum it has not yet been tested extensively enough, thus 3.90.3 is still the recommended version. LAME 3.96.1 has been proven to be of superior quality for some bitrates where there are no VBR presets for 3.90.3, only ABR. Thus 3.90.3 --alt-preset standard is considered to be better than 3.96.1 -V 2 (--preset standard) but 3.96.1 -V 5 (approximatly 128kb/s) is better then 3.90.3 --alt-preset 128. It is also worth noting that 3.96.1 is at least twice as fast as 3.90.3 for encoding and that -V 2 produces slightly smaller files then --alt-preset standard.
edit: typos This post has been edited by music_man_mpc: Dec 20 2004, 22:00 -------------------- gentoo ~amd64 + layman | ncmpcpp/mpd | wavpack + vorbis + lame
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 17 2004, 22:00
Post
#3
|
|
 Group: Developer Posts: 1679 Joined: 23-December 01 From: Germany Member No.: 731 |
Very well put.
-------------------- "To understand me, you'll have to swallow a world." Or maybe your words.
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 17 2004, 22:37
Post
#4
|
|
|
Group: Members (Donating) Posts: 707 Joined: 20-July 03 From: Canada Member No.: 7895 |
QUOTE (dev0 @ Dec 17 2004, 01:00 PM) Very well put.  Thanks, I tried to make it as concise as possible while hitting all the important issues. Perhaps this could replace "Differences between Lame 3.90.3 APS and 3.93.1 APS -Z LAME 3.93.1 vs 3.90.3" in the FAQ? As not too many people are asking about 3.93.1 these days  .
-------------------- gentoo ~amd64 + layman | ncmpcpp/mpd | wavpack + vorbis + lame
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 17 2004, 22:52
Post
#5
|
|
|
Group: Developer Posts: 1679 Joined: 23-December 01 From: Germany Member No.: 731 |
I added this thread to the FAQ and extended the "Recommended LAME compile" thread with your information.
Thanks a lot for your effort. This is something which should have been done a lot earlier. -------------------- "To understand me, you'll have to swallow a world." Or maybe your words.
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 20 2004, 21:54
Post
#6
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 253 Joined: 17-June 03 Member No.: 7228 |
QUOTE (music_man_mpc @ Dec 17 2004, 12:55 PM) LAME 3.96.3 has been proven to be of superior quality for some bitrates. . . edit: typos Since this is now linked to the FAQ, please correct this (one more) typo. . . . |
|
|
|
|
Dec 20 2004, 22:00
Post
#7
|
|
|
Group: Members (Donating) Posts: 707 Joined: 20-July 03 From: Canada Member No.: 7895 |
QUOTE (odious malefactor @ Dec 20 2004, 12:54 PM) QUOTE (music_man_mpc @ Dec 17 2004, 12:55 PM) LAME 3.96.3 has been proven to be of superior quality for some bitrates. . . edit: typos Since this is now linked to the FAQ, please correct this (one more) typo. . . . Thanks for pointing that out odious. -------------------- gentoo ~amd64 + layman | ncmpcpp/mpd | wavpack + vorbis + lame
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 20 2004, 22:07
Post
#8
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 253 Joined: 17-June 03 Member No.: 7228 |
QUOTE (music_man_mpc @ Dec 20 2004, 01:00 PM) Thanks for pointing that out odious. Thank you, music_man. |
|
|
|
 |
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 24th May 2013 - 19:21 |
