Lame 3.94a11

Reply #50 – 2003-03-11 20:47:38

this is a alpha version now lame 3.94 alpha 11 . 

Lame 3.94a11

Reply #51 – 2003-03-13 19:22:02

I have been testing the medium vs. medium1 presets in the latest alpha11 (28th Feb 03), and I can hear a difference between the two but in my tests, medium1 has more definition - more 'sparkly' high-frequencies if that makes any sense - but it doesn't seem to sound worse than medium in any other respect. This seems to fly in the face of everyone elses opinion, so I'm wondering if anyone could provide a couple of test encodes that show medium sounding noticeably 'better' than medium1.
The only difference I can hear is that there is more treble definition in medium1, whereas medium is more flat but tends to make 'busy' tracks sound muddy and undefined. I dunno, maybe its just me...

Lame 3.94a11

Reply #52 – 2003-04-22 02:30:43

just tested 3.94 Alpha11. Although i can't ensure that its the same exact quality as 3.90.2, i couldn't tell the difference on my expensive sony headphones (using both aps presets). The lame.exe was a 100 or so kb bigger than 3.90.2's lame.exe however, it cut down considerably from 5.41mb to 5.1xish. And the speed was noticably faster. Since the Dos prompt was showing bitrate levels too fast to catch on, i compared both mp3s with EncSpot. I got these results:


3.94 a11.:.  <1 - 32kbps, <1 - 96kbps, 1 - 112kbps, 5 - 128kbps, 17 - 160kbps, 22 - 192kbps, 32 - 224kbps, 19 - 256kbps, 3 - 320kbps, AVERAGE BITRATE -208 kbps


3.90.2.:. <1 - 32kbps, 6 - 128kbps, 18 - 160kbps, 21 - 192kbps, 21 - 224kbps, 22 - 256kbps, 12 - 320kbps, AVERAGE BITRATE -218 kbps


Very close bitrates with both compiles although the 224kbps, and 320kbps were somewhat different.


My final conclusion of 3.94 a11 is that the sound quality is the same/less quality than  the 3.90.2 compile. The filesize is considerably cut down for similar quality results, and speed seems to be cleaned up to be a bit faster. It seems like LAME is getting out of the 3.93 chaos situation and is really analyzing the sucess and downfalls of previous compiles. They definitely are programming in the right direction and if this does become final anytime soon, I believe it won't improve the sound quality over 3.90.2 but, definitely will cut down processing times and mb size. Hope this was somewhat useful research for you guys. Thanks for the link to download it!!

Lame 3.94a11

Reply #53 – 2003-04-22 03:12:49

*alpha13 is what i meant i suppose (at least thats what the rar i got off john33 says)

Lame 3.94a11

Reply #54 – 2003-04-22 13:47:49

good god. getting smaller filesize at the same quality level = better quality at a reduced filesize

Lame 3.94a11

Reply #55 – 2003-04-22 15:42:06

thats not necessarily true