IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

9 Pages V  « < 5 6 7 8 9 >  
Closed TopicStart new topic
lame 3.98.4, 3.99 alpha, 32- and 64-bit builds
john33
post May 5 2011, 19:50
Post #151


xcLame and OggDropXPd Developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 3726
Joined: 30-September 01
From: Bracknell, UK
Member No.: 111



QUOTE (The Sheep of DEATH @ May 5 2011, 19:39) *
Where can I find a source tarball for 3.99b0?

I'm not sure you can, you may have to do a CVS Checkout.


--------------------
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
My compiles and utilities are at http://www.rarewares.org/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lvqcl
post May 5 2011, 19:50
Post #152





Group: Developer
Posts: 3208
Joined: 2-December 07
Member No.: 49183



http://lame.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/lame/lame/

"Download GNU tarball" link at the bottom of the page
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
The Sheep of DEA...
post May 5 2011, 19:58
Post #153





Group: Developer
Posts: 174
Joined: 16-April 06
Member No.: 29596



I can't believe I didn't see that. That whole page. Now bookmarked.

Thanks a lot!


--------------------
Copy Restriction, Annulment, & Protection = C.R.A.P. -Supacon
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
The Sheep of DEA...
post May 6 2011, 00:41
Post #154





Group: Developer
Posts: 174
Joined: 16-April 06
Member No.: 29596



Have the old psymodels been removed from the code? Is there any way to download a tarball of the CVS before March 5, 2011?


--------------------
Copy Restriction, Annulment, & Protection = C.R.A.P. -Supacon
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
The Sheep of DEA...
post May 6 2011, 01:48
Post #155





Group: Developer
Posts: 174
Joined: 16-April 06
Member No.: 29596



Okay, to answer my own questions: yes, previously used psymodel functions have been stripped from the code as of March 5. Alpha 12 is the latest tagged release in CVS before that time. (I'm sorry for the repeated posts; after some interval of time, the forum no longer lets me edit my previous posts).


--------------------
Copy Restriction, Annulment, & Protection = C.R.A.P. -Supacon
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
KlameM
post Jul 6 2011, 11:04
Post #156





Group: Members
Posts: 3
Joined: 6-July 11
Member No.: 92079



QUOTE (john33 @ Apr 6 2011, 18:30) *
QUOTE (dxiv @ Mar 31 2011, 18:09) *
Is there a v3.98.4 modified lame_enc.dll to use .ini settings? The latest I see on rarewares is v3.98.2. Thanks.

Now available at Rarewares. smile.gif


Something seems to wrong with this compile :
It requires LIBMMD.DLL which is neither included in the download package nor a part of windows.
A dll of this name is part of Media Match Jukebox. I wonder why this should be required by a lame compile.
The previous modified lame_enc.dll (V3.98.2) was complete (almost twice the size) and worked under Windows versions from Win2000 and newer.
Could you please check the dependencies of your compilation ?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
john33
post Jul 6 2011, 12:17
Post #157


xcLame and OggDropXPd Developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 3726
Joined: 30-September 01
From: Bracknell, UK
Member No.: 111



QUOTE (KlameM @ Jul 6 2011, 11:04) *
QUOTE (john33 @ Apr 6 2011, 18:30) *
QUOTE (dxiv @ Mar 31 2011, 18:09) *
Is there a v3.98.4 modified lame_enc.dll to use .ini settings? The latest I see on rarewares is v3.98.2. Thanks.

Now available at Rarewares. smile.gif


Something seems to wrong with this compile :
It requires LIBMMD.DLL which is neither included in the download package nor a part of windows.
A dll of this name is part of Media Match Jukebox. I wonder why this should be required by a lame compile.
The previous modified lame_enc.dll (V3.98.2) was complete (almost twice the size) and worked under Windows versions from Win2000 and newer.
Could you please check the dependencies of your compilation ?

Will do, and I'll get back to you. smile.gif


--------------------
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
My compiles and utilities are at http://www.rarewares.org/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
john33
post Jul 6 2011, 15:11
Post #158


xcLame and OggDropXPd Developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 3726
Joined: 30-September 01
From: Bracknell, UK
Member No.: 111



I've recompiled this using static libraries in the same way the the regular .dll is compiled. I've re-uploaded to Rarewares.


--------------------
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
My compiles and utilities are at http://www.rarewares.org/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
KlameM
post Jul 8 2011, 10:04
Post #159





Group: Members
Posts: 3
Joined: 6-July 11
Member No.: 92079



QUOTE (john33 @ Jul 6 2011, 16:11) *
I've recompiled this using static libraries in the same way the the regular .dll is compiled. I've re-uploaded to Rarewares.


Hi John33,

many thanks for your effort !

However, I've just tried to download the new version and sadly am still getting the version of April with approximatly 130 kB size sad.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
john33
post Jul 8 2011, 10:39
Post #160


xcLame and OggDropXPd Developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 3726
Joined: 30-September 01
From: Bracknell, UK
Member No.: 111



QUOTE (KlameM @ Jul 8 2011, 10:04) *
QUOTE (john33 @ Jul 6 2011, 16:11) *
I've recompiled this using static libraries in the same way the the regular .dll is compiled. I've re-uploaded to Rarewares.


Hi John33,

many thanks for your effort !

However, I've just tried to download the new version and sadly am still getting the version of April with approximatly 130 kB size sad.gif

That's odd! huh.gif I just downloaded it here and got the new version.


--------------------
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
My compiles and utilities are at http://www.rarewares.org/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
KlameM
post Jul 8 2011, 15:37
Post #161





Group: Members
Posts: 3
Joined: 6-July 11
Member No.: 92079



QUOTE (john33 @ Jul 8 2011, 11:39) *
QUOTE (KlameM @ Jul 8 2011, 10:04) *
QUOTE (john33 @ Jul 6 2011, 16:11) *
I've recompiled this using static libraries in the same way the the regular .dll is compiled. I've re-uploaded to Rarewares.


Hi John33,

many thanks for your effort !

However, I've just tried to download the new version and sadly am still getting the version of April with approximatly 130 kB size sad.gif

That's odd! huh.gif I just downloaded it here and got the new version.

Thanks a lot John33 !

I finally got a copy. (A proxy kept sending the older version until I tried another proxy) smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
john33
post Jul 8 2011, 16:25
Post #162


xcLame and OggDropXPd Developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 3726
Joined: 30-September 01
From: Bracknell, UK
Member No.: 111



Ah, that's good. smile.gif

This post has been edited by db1989: Jul 23 2011, 09:13
Reason for edit: removing redundant quotation


--------------------
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
My compiles and utilities are at http://www.rarewares.org/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Fishman0919
post Jul 23 2011, 04:09
Post #163





Group: Members
Posts: 75
Joined: 18-December 03
Member No.: 10554



Is Lame on hold?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lvqcl
post Jul 23 2011, 08:10
Post #164





Group: Developer
Posts: 3208
Joined: 2-December 07
Member No.: 49183



Last update for LAME 3.99 was: May 24 20:45:55 2011 UTC

(BTW, this version can produce noticeable artifacts in CBR/ABR modes... example: florida_seq @128kbps CBR)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Fishman0919
post Sep 7 2011, 23:39
Post #165





Group: Members
Posts: 75
Joined: 18-December 03
Member No.: 10554



I ask this again...

Is Lame on hold... Dead?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
db1989
post Sep 8 2011, 10:39
Post #166





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 5141
Joined: 23-June 06
Member No.: 32180



Donít you think that would have been announced if it were the case?

Anyway, ďdeadĒ how? Itís an open-source project, and I think weíd have to wait a while for the day when there isnít at least one user interested in continuing to tweak its code with a view to optimisation.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
halb27
post Sep 8 2011, 15:08
Post #167





Group: Members
Posts: 2414
Joined: 9-October 05
From: Dormagen, Germany
Member No.: 25015



Not to mention the fact that Lame 3.98.4 is pretty close to perfection with respect to the mp3 conditions.
AFAIK there are no flaws which can be contributed to implementation, not codec limitations.
Sure things can always be improved, but with the quality actually achieved it is hard to do so.


--------------------
lame3100m --bCVBR 300
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
db1989
post Sep 8 2011, 15:14
Post #168





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 5141
Joined: 23-June 06
Member No.: 32180



Well, in comparison to that current stable version, the in-progress 3.99 has another new VBR mode. This presumably represents a step closer to optimality, though I havenít read much about it. Has there been much discussion here?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Heemlock
post Sep 8 2011, 15:34
Post #169





Group: Members
Posts: 28
Joined: 29-May 10
Member No.: 80976



Anyone can tell me what is the difference between the LAME 3.98.4 Bundles? I use the one i have found at RareWares (LAME 3.98.4 Bundle compiled with Intel Compiler 11.1) but i saw other LAME 3.98.4 Bundles from other sites and those have different files/sizes.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
db1989
post Sep 8 2011, 15:37
Post #170





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 5141
Joined: 23-June 06
Member No.: 32180



You hinted at it yourself; this is simply an inconsequential result of the differing executables having been created by different compilers. Read more here: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=48978
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Heemlock
post Sep 8 2011, 15:48
Post #171





Group: Members
Posts: 28
Joined: 29-May 10
Member No.: 80976



QUOTE (db1989 @ Sep 8 2011, 16:37) *
You hinted at it yourself; this is simply an inconsequential result of the differing executables having been created by different compilers. Read more here: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=48978


Thank you! smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
IgorC
post Sep 13 2011, 00:05
Post #172





Group: Members
Posts: 1506
Joined: 3-January 05
From: Argentina, Bs As
Member No.: 18803



QUOTE (halb27 @ Sep 8 2011, 11:08) *
Not to mention the fact that Lame 3.98.4 is pretty close to perfection with respect to the mp3 conditions.
AFAIK there are no flaws which can be contributed to implementation, not codec limitations.
Sure things can always be improved, but with the quality actually achieved it is hard to do so.

I found 3.98.4 -V0 and 3.99b0 -V0 --vbr-new both are suitable for transparent encoding on my music (rock). -V2, -V1 weren't satisfactory.
Testing killer samples EIG, fatboy and castanets doesn't make much sense for me as I don't listen this kind of music. These samples aren't transparent at any bitrate for LAME.

3.99b0 -V 0 --vbr-new uses a bit higher bitrate than 3.98.4 -V0 and does better on difficult samples (imho it's the main improvement of 3.99).

It's not a pure quality improvement because the bitrate has increased too. It's more like some sort of mixed class improvement (usability+quality). But it's still improvement.

This post has been edited by IgorC: Sep 13 2011, 00:08
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
halb27
post Sep 13 2011, 06:53
Post #173





Group: Members
Posts: 2414
Joined: 9-October 05
From: Dormagen, Germany
Member No.: 25015



It's good to hear about improvements with 3.99. I didn't even know that it's in beta stage now.
I don't care about bitrate increases. With today's storage capacities this isn't an issue for me and probably many other users. Those sporting for extremely good efficiency are better off using codecs like AAC.

What's your experience with quality improvements, what are the samples you can hear an improved quality using 3.99.b0 -V0 --vbr-new compared to 3.98.4 -V0?

This post has been edited by halb27: Sep 13 2011, 06:57


--------------------
lame3100m --bCVBR 300
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
IgorC
post Sep 14 2011, 04:07
Post #174





Group: Members
Posts: 1506
Joined: 3-January 05
From: Argentina, Bs As
Member No.: 18803



QUOTE (halb27 @ Sep 13 2011, 02:53) *
What's your experience with quality improvements, what are the samples you can hear an improved quality using 3.99.b0 -V0 --vbr-new compared to 3.98.4 -V0?

Some of the results.

eig
Less pre-echo for 3.99

Sample 08 and 14 from the last public test

Sample08

ABC/HR for Java, Version 0.53a, 12 September 2011
Testname:

Tester: IgorC

1R = sample08_399b0_V0_VNEW_3.wav
2R = sample08_3984_V0_2.wav
3R = sample08_397_V0_1.wav

Ratings on a scale from 1.0 to 5.0

---------------------------------------
General Comments:
---------------------------------------
1R File: sample08_399b0_V0_VNEW_3.wav
1R Rating: 4.2
1R Comment:
---------------------------------------
2R File: sample08_3984_V0_2.wav
2R Rating: 3.4
2R Comment:
---------------------------------------
3R File: sample08_397_V0_1.wav
3R Rating: 4.0
3R Comment:
---------------------------------------

ABX Results:


Also less pre-echo for 3.99

Sample14 (trumpet)

ABC/HR for Java, Version 0.53a, 12 September 2011
Testname:

Tester: IgorC

1L = sample14_3984_V0_2.wav
2R = sample14_399b0_V0_VNEW_3.wav
3L = sample14_397_V0_1.wav

Ratings on a scale from 1.0 to 5.0

---------------------------------------
General Comments:
---------------------------------------
1L File: sample14_3984_V0_2.wav
1L Rating: 3.6
1L Comment:
---------------------------------------
3L File: sample14_397_V0_1.wav
3L Rating: 4.3
3L Comment:
---------------------------------------

ABX Results:

3.98.4 has an artifact which was known as paper sound in past (?)

Generally 3.98.4 and 3.99b0 both did great on all other samples. (the exclusion can be fatboy sample. I was already tired on some samples). Shortly the average score and bitrates were higher for 3.99b0 (3.99b0>3.98.4>3.97). I don't post all results as it's just for personal interest.

This post has been edited by IgorC: Sep 14 2011, 04:11
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
halb27
post Sep 14 2011, 08:41
Post #175





Group: Members
Posts: 2414
Joined: 9-October 05
From: Dormagen, Germany
Member No.: 25015



Interesting to learn about improvements on trumpet which is the sample that made me aware of codec artefacts (in the days of 3.97) I didn't care about before.

This post has been edited by halb27: Sep 14 2011, 08:42


--------------------
lame3100m --bCVBR 300
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

9 Pages V  « < 5 6 7 8 9 >
Closed TopicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 17th April 2014 - 03:14