lame 3.98.4, 3.99 alpha, 32- and 64-bit builds |
  |
lame 3.98.4, 3.99 alpha, 32- and 64-bit builds |
 May 5 2011, 19:50
Post
#151
|
|
 xcLame and OggDropXPd Developer Group: Developer Posts: 3713 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/ |
 |
 
|
|
May 5 2011, 19:50
Post
#152
|
|
 Group: Developer Posts: 3035 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 |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
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.  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 ? |
|
|
|
|
Jul 6 2011, 12:17
Post
#157
|
|
|
xcLame and OggDropXPd Developer Group: Developer Posts: 3713 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. 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.
-------------------- John
---------------------------------------------------------------- My compiles and utilities are at http://www.rarewares.org/ |
|
|
|
|
Jul 6 2011, 15:11
Post
#158
|
|
|
xcLame and OggDropXPd Developer Group: Developer Posts: 3713 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/ |
|
|
|
|
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  |
|
|
|
|
Jul 8 2011, 10:39
Post
#160
|
|
|
xcLame and OggDropXPd Developer Group: Developer Posts: 3713 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 That's odd!  I just downloaded it here and got the new version.
-------------------- John
---------------------------------------------------------------- My compiles and utilities are at http://www.rarewares.org/ |
|
|
|
|
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 That's odd! 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)
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 8 2011, 16:25
Post
#162
|
|
|
xcLame and OggDropXPd Developer Group: Developer Posts: 3713 Joined: 30-September 01 From: Bracknell, UK Member No.: 111 |
Ah, that's good.
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/ |
|
|
|
|
Jul 23 2011, 04:09
Post
#163
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 73 Joined: 18-December 03 Member No.: 10554 |
Is Lame on hold?
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 23 2011, 08:10
Post
#164
|
|
|
Group: Developer Posts: 3035 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) |
|
|
|
|
Sep 7 2011, 23:39
Post
#165
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 73 Joined: 18-December 03 Member No.: 10554 |
I ask this again...
Is Lame on hold... Dead? |
|
|
|
|
Sep 8 2011, 10:39
Post
#166
|
|
|
Group: Super Moderator Posts: 4483 Joined: 23-June 06 Member No.: 32180 |
Don’t you think that would have been announced if it were the case?
Anyway, “dead” how? It’s an open-source project, and I think we’d have to wait a while for the day when there isn’t at least one user interested in continuing to tweak its code with a view to optimisation. |
|
|
|
|
Sep 8 2011, 15:08
Post
#167
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 2297 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. -------------------- lame3100k -V0 --cvbr 9
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 8 2011, 15:14
Post
#168
|
|
|
Group: Super Moderator Posts: 4483 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 haven’t read much about it. Has there been much discussion here?
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 8 2011, 15:37
Post
#170
|
|
|
Group: Super Moderator Posts: 4483 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
|
|
|
|
|
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!
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 13 2011, 00:05
Post
#172
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 1318 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 |
|
|
|
|
Sep 13 2011, 06:53
Post
#173
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 2297 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 -------------------- lame3100k -V0 --cvbr 9
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 14 2011, 04:07
Post
#174
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 1318 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 |
|
|
|
|
Sep 14 2011, 08:41
Post
#175
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 2297 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 -------------------- lame3100k -V0 --cvbr 9
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 18th June 2013 - 23:04 |
