Lame 3.96.1 compiles |
  |
Lame 3.96.1 compiles |
 Jul 10 2005, 17:26
Post
#1
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 224 Joined: 8-July 05 Member No.: 23210  |
are there any differences with lame 3.96.1 from rarewares and mitiok. Does anyone know why the exe sizes are different? I can't seem to find anything on the topic.
|
 |
 
|
|
Jul 10 2005, 17:56
Post
#2
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 1046 Joined: 28-June 03 From: on the dock of the bay Member No.: 7423 |
QUOTE (Donunus @ Jul 10 2005, 05:26 PM) are there any differences with lame 3.96.1 from rarewares and mitiok. Does anyone know why the exe sizes are different? I can't seem to find anything on the topic. probably different compilers / flags.
-------------------- Nothing but a Heartache - Since I found my Baby ;)
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 10 2005, 17:57
Post
#3
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 49 Joined: 10-July 05 Member No.: 23253 |
I too am interested as to the differences. Donunus, please try encoding the same .wav (from commandline) and post about any difference. I downloaded the Mitiok compile 3.96.1 a while back and the commandline says it's 3.96 (I notice this after encoding 100's of CDs...)
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 10 2005, 18:20
Post
#4
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 224 Joined: 8-July 05 Member No.: 23210 |
QUOTE (fj4 @ Jul 11 2005, 12:57 AM) I too am interested as to the differences. Donunus, please try encoding the same .wav (from commandline) and post about any difference. I downloaded the Mitiok compile 3.96.1 a while back and the commandline says it's 3.96 (I notice this after encoding 100's of CDs...)  That happened to me before but i downloaded another copy and its 3.96.1 is now in the command line. This is still from mitiok. havent tried the rarewares one. just downloaded it now for backup. I want a few comments first before I experiment but so far the only problem of the 3.96.1 I'm currently ripping with at preset extreme is that sometimes there are time errors with the mp3s(1 out of a thousand or so). I rip the same songs again and it fixes the problem. sounds better IMO than the recommended 3.90.3 Lame. I trusted my impulses after listening to just a few songs that it didn't sound as dry and seemed to have better PrAt than the older lame. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 10 2005, 18:57
Post
#5
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 68 Joined: 22-May 05 Member No.: 22203 |
This has been brought up many times. I'm not sure if this thread is still valid:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....topic=20759&hl= Here are my own tests and some info: Must be different flags, same compiler in readme from package: QUOTE Compiled with icl 4.5 & nasm.exe & dll were compressed with UPX executable packer http://upx.sourceforge.net/ mitiok The results from the two compiles are bit-identical: CODE INFO (foo_bitcompare) : Comparing: INFO (foo_bitcompare) : location: "file://C:\Documents and Settings\_____\Desktop\lame3.96.1\Layla.mp3" (0) INFO (foo_bitcompare) : location: "file://C:\Documents and Settings\_____\Desktop\lame-3.96.1\Layla.mp3" (0) INFO (foo_bitcompare) : No differences in decoded data found. INFO (foo_bitcompare) : Finished successfully. Here's my speed test, the values fluctuate each time I run them probably because of other things eating up CPU time, but there is no clear winner. I would venture to say whatever different flags used have no effect on anything, at all. CODE Rarewares: 7.9299x Mitiok: 8.0164x Rarewares: 7.9505x Mitiok: 7.9442x Rarewares: 7.8996x Mitiok: 7.9916x EDIT: This is on a P4, AMD tests may be different. This post has been edited by Tropican: Jul 10 2005, 19:47 |
|
|
|
|
Jul 16 2005, 23:42
Post
#6
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 144 Joined: 7-April 04 From: Florida Member No.: 13283 |
So negligible differences in speed, basically...
I assume anyone would agree? -------------------- "The way we see our world is better than yours."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 22nd May 2013 - 04:12 |
