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 3.97a4 (Read 13975 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

LAME 3.97a4

Quote
I'd prefer adventurous people to test the next alpha version (ie the next 3.97a not yet available)

The current alpha 4 seems stable enough (it never crashed on any of the many samples I have encoded), and to me usually sounds the same as 3.96.1 and sometimes better. My question is, how safe is this alpha from a technical standpoint? Is it so experimental that no one should ever use it for anything serious? Or is it technically more stable than 3.96.1 (like 3.96a was technically more stable than 3.95.1 at one point)?

Also, I am curious about the upcoming alpha version

LAME 3.97a4

Reply #1
If you run the alpha executable, there is a warning displayed that states that alpha versions should only be used for experimentations.
This warning is real, it is not just an eye-candy.

When I say "test" I really mean testing so I can have some feedback.

LAME 3.97a4

Reply #2
Quote
If you run the alpha executable, there is a warning displayed that states that alpha versions should only be used for experimentations.
This warning is real, it is not just an eye-candy.

When I say "test" I really mean testing so I can have some feedback.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=263292"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

oh, ok, so what do you mean when you say beta?

this is very educational


LAME 3.97a4

Reply #4
Quote
When I say "test" I really mean testing so I can have some feedback.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=263292"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


What kind of feedback exactly? On problem samples, normal music? Which bitrate (vbr/cbr) should have improvements, if any? What was the overall goal of 3.97?
A secure audio ripper for linux: code.google.com/p/rubyripper

LAME 3.97a4

Reply #5
Quote
oh, ok, so what do you mean when you say beta?

Beta should be usable for everyday use, but are usually less tested for stability, compilation across different platforms , ... than releases.

Quote
What kind of feedback exactly? On problem samples, normal music? Which bitrate (vbr/cbr) should have improvements, if any? What was the overall goal of 3.97?

NEXT (not yet available) alpha. I'll probably ask for some feedback when it will be available.

LAME 3.97a4

Reply #6
is there any changelog available?
--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'

LAME 3.97a4

Reply #7
not yet

LAME 3.97a4

Reply #8
The most recent builds of alpha4 have an annoying bug. For instance, if you add "--shortthreshold 4.5,35" to the commandline (e.g. -V 5 --shortthreshold 4.5,35) the output is poor quality (mushiness and swishiness in transients) even though this particular setting is more stringent than the V5 default. Therefore, something is broken.

Note that an alpha4 build from November 2004 (which I used to have) didn't have this problem.

LAME 3.97a4

Reply #9
Quote
For instance, if you add "--shortthreshold 4.5,35" to the commandline

And if you don't add it?

LAME 3.97a4

Reply #10
3.97a5 is comitted in cvs.

I'd mainly like opinions about "-b 128 -X 10,10" against 3.90.3.

It also includes a few tuning changes to all presets.

LAME 3.97a4

Reply #11
Can someone tell me how to cvs this alpha branch? What's the cvs command exactly?

LAME 3.97a4

Reply #12
Quote
Quote
For instance, if you add "--shortthreshold 4.5,35" to the commandline

And if you don't add it?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=263761"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

If you don't add it, the output sounds fine.

LAME 3.97a4

Reply #13
Quote
3.97a5 is comitted in cvs.

I'd mainly like opinions about "-b 128 -X 10,10" against 3.90.3.

It also includes a few tuning changes to all presets.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=263780"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I've just finished a quick test:

Code: [Select]
               3.90.3_ap cbr 128   -b 128 -X 10,10    3.961_V5   3.97a5_V5
applaud.wav             2.0           1.5                3.2         2.9
Bayle - Etching.wav     1.8           1.0                2.2         2.5
BigYellow.wav           2.3           3.0                5.0         5.0
chanchan.wav            4.0           3.5                3.2         2.8
FloorEssence            2.5           2.0                2.5         2.5
Mahler.wav              3.8           1.5                3.3         2.0


IMHO the new cbr settings still suffers of the infamous ringing (Bayle - Etching.wav) and warbling (applaud), sometimes preecho is worse than 3.90.3. I can provide samples and ABC/HR logs on request.
WavPack 4.3 -mfx5
LAME 3.97 -V5 --vbr-new --athaa-sensitivity 1

LAME 3.97a4

Reply #14
stable doesn mean not crashing
stable mean not making wierd results on some samples
Sven Bent - Denmark

LAME 3.97a4

Reply #15
*amano hugs proxima*

for the time consuming ABXing!

LAME 3.97a4

Reply #16
I quickly tested the new alpha with hihat.wav. 3.90.3's --alt-preset cbr 128 still handled this particular sample much better. The first hihat hit is heavily distorted with 3.97a5. BUT this sample may be considered invalid according to Gabriel's proposal. I will try other samples later.

LAME 3.97a4

Reply #17
I used fatboy this time.

3.97a5 (-b 128 -X 10,10) VS 3.90.3 (--alt-preset cbr 128)


[span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%']ABC/HR Version 0.9b, 30 August 2002
Testname: fatboy 3.90.3 VS 3.97a5

1R = C:\My Test Samples\fatboy\3.90.3.mp3.wav
2R = C:\My Test Samples\fatboy\3.97a5.mp3.wav

---------------------------------------
General Comments:
#1 sounds better to me. #2 sounds really "dirty" and coarse.
---------------------------------------
1R File: C:\My Test Samples\fatboy\3.90.3.mp3.wav
1R Rating: 1.5
1R Comment: lots of noise is added, but still sounds cleaner and closer to the original overall.
---------------------------------------
2R File: C:\My Test Samples\fatboy\3.97a5.mp3.wav
2R Rating: 1.0
2R Comment: less noise is added, but distorion is too severe and sounds dirty.
---------------------------------------
ABX Results:
Original vs C:\My Test Samples\fatboy\3.90.3.mp3.wav
    7 out of 7, pval = 0.008
Original vs C:\My Test Samples\fatboy\3.97a5.mp3.wav
    7 out of 7, pval = 0.008
C:\My Test Samples\fatboy\3.90.3.mp3.wav vs C:\My Test Samples\fatboy\3.97a5.mp3.wav
    7 out of 8, pval = 0.035
[/span]

 

LAME 3.97a4

Reply #18
Could anybody test this sample with the new LAME alpha:
http://dev0.rc55.com/files/samples/giveupt...ample18sec.flac

It caused serious problems (similiar to HiHat.wav) with 3.96.1 and I have to leave for school right now.
All alpha5 testing should go into this thread from now on for the sake of clarity.

My own tests will follow later.
"To understand me, you'll have to swallow a world." Or maybe your words.