Lame ULAM - what is it?, Just something I bumped into with EncSpot... Options

[Pike84]

That's just about it. I found some mp3s that EncSpot defines as "Lame ULAM". They are 160kb/s of bitrate, and have a quality colour code of yellow in EncSpot. Just interested, as I've never heard of these, and google doesn't know anything about them either. Thanks.

[psycho]

That's something new... Can you provide a screenshot and/or sample?

[lvqcl]

I also have such MP3 file (dont' remember its origin - it is pretty old).
It also contains the foollowing string:

LAME3.87 (beta 1, Oct 9яыў яЏр i
¤ 4Ђ 2000)

[Pike84]

Here's a ten second sample: Lame ULAM sample

Interesting thing is that after I split the file in two (with MusiCutter), the first and bigger part is now identified as "Gogo (after 3.0)". Also, this was one of just two tracks on an album, identified as Lame ULAM, whereas all the others were identified as Lame 3.92. So there's definitely some false results being produced by EncSpot.

Still, it'd be nice to know something more about this mysterious Lame ULAM .

[lvqcl]

Here's a ten second sample: Lame ULAM sample

403 Forbidden

Still, it'd be nice to know something more about this mysterious Lame ULAM .

It's just an MP3 file with incorrect header, nothing more. Open it in hex editor/viewer and search for other text strings in it. Maybe you'll find something like "LAME3.92".

This post has been edited by lvqcl: Nov 7 2009, 23:04

[trout]

after I split the file in two (with MusiCutter), the first and bigger part is now identified as "Gogo (after 3.0)".

Likely because MusiCutter didn't retain the header.

So there's definitely some false results being produced by EncSpot.

If encoder info isn't present in the header (not all encoders add it) then encspot makes a guess.

it'd be nice to know something more

Some file sharers modify the header (it's not difficult). You can't be sure what any download really is, regardless of what tools like EncSpot say.

link is bad for me also: "Firefox can't find the file at http://media1.youshare.com...."

[Pike84]

The link works fine for me - it's from a free filehosting service called YouShare.

Still, it'd be nice to know something more about this mysterious Lame ULAM .

It's just an MP3 file with incorrect header, nothing more. Open it in hex editor/viewer and search for other text strings in it. Maybe you'll find something like "LAME3.92".

Yes, that seems to be the case here, but where does this Lame ULAM originate from? Surely EncSpot doesn't just come up with obscure audio formats?

This post has been edited by Pike84: Nov 7 2009, 23:51

[Pike84]

@trout: I missed your post earlier.

Some file sharers modify the header (it's not difficult). You can't be sure what any download really is, regardless of what tools like EncSpot say.

So EncSpot only takes the info straight from the header without considering anything else? What about the guesses, when there's no header? What are they based on?

[trout]

So EncSpot only takes the info straight from the header without considering anything else?

I'm only speculating but is seems if something like the LAME/Xing header is present, with specific encoder info, that such info is trusted to be accurate and no further analyzation takes place.

What about the guesses, when there's no header? What are they based on?

They're based on characteristics within the file; certain clues are typical of certain encoders. In some cases a 'guess' can be made with a high degree of certainty. But as you've seen with your file modified by an mp3 editor, sufficient traces of origin can easily be lost or manipulated.

---

You can't be sure what any download really is

... and it could also simply be a re-encode. EncSpot might give it a nice color code, but ... muwahaha!

[Pike84]

Thanks for the replies.

Yes, I knew about re-encoding and stuff, I was just curious as I thought this was some actual version of Lame.

Now I don't have to come here wondering, when I find an mp3 identified by EncSpot as "Lame Hello world!"

[trout]

I was just curious as I thought this was some actual version of Lame.

Well if it is, it is extremely unusual and rare. As lvqcl suggested it is probably just an incorrect header. It could have been innocently corrupted. Since Google seems to know nothing about it, I think how it got that way will remain a mystery.

[pdq]

I suspect that whoever ripped it added his initials or some other identifier.