LAME 3.99 is out, 2012-02-28: version 3.99.5 has been released Options

[lvqcl]

October 15 2011: 3.99 beta 1 becomes 3.99

Download: http://www.rarewares.org/mp3-lame-bundle.php

Changelog: http://lame.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/lam...ml/history.html


This post has been edited by greynol: Nov 9 2011, 21:10

[TuNk77]

I don't know if this is the right place to ask this question, but I am wondering why LAME 3.99 32-bits and LAME 3.99 64-bits make mp3's that are different in size.
One example is this: an mp3 made with LAME 3.99 32-bits is 7,76 MB (8 138 854 bytes) in size, but the same song encoded with LAME 3.99 32-bits is 7,75 MB (8 137 291 bytes) in size.
The song was ripped with EAC 10. B3 and not modified in any way.
But, I am puzzled about that 1563 bytes in filesize difference

Edit: I forgot to mention that I used LAME 3.99 Bundle compiled with Intel Compiler 11.1. and LAME 3.99 64bit Bundle compiled with Intel Compiler 11.1. Downloaded from rarewares yesterday.

This post has been edited by TuNk77: Oct 17 2011, 18:25

[john33]

Quite simply, it's the fact that one is generating a compile for 32 bit using the internal 'nasm routines' whereas the 64 bit compile uses the compiler's internal processor optimisations. In this case the same compiler is used, but if compiles for the same target are created using different compilers, the encoded output will differ in size to a small extent because the internal math routines differ, amongst other things. I hasten to add that no one, to the best of my knowledge, has yet been able to discern any audible differences between any of the differing outputs generated by the encoders created with different compilers.

This post has been edited by db1989: Oct 18 2011, 19:34

Reason for edit: deleting pointless full quote of above post

[TuNk77]

Thank you for replying john33 and thanks for clarifying and explaining the filesize difference for me (and others)

This post has been edited by db1989: Oct 18 2011, 19:34

Reason for edit: ditto