IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

16 Pages V  « < 5 6 7 8 9 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
LAME 3.99 is out, 2012-02-28: version 3.99.5 has been released
john33
post Nov 11 2011, 10:43
Post #151


xcLame and OggDropXPd Developer


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



QUOTE (DARcode @ Nov 11 2011, 10:34) *
QUOTE (robert @ Nov 10 2011, 19:38) *
Ok, I guess my other reply didn't make it clear.
[...]
This looks like a problem within MediaInfo. The field consists of 9 characters, no Zero termination required.
Not arguing, simply trying to understand: why the issue manifests itself with 3.99.1 and not 3.98.4 please?

QUOTE (john33 @ Nov 10 2011, 20:07) *
[...]
I'll produce a new set of compiles with this fix, but it will likely not be until tomorrow now. Technically, it was a problem although I would imagine most are unconcerned by this, IMHO.
Which compiler settings then please? Is it not best you devs/coders first agree on the most compatible and hopefully best performing ones?

This was two tiny and inconsequential coding errors in version.c that affected the insertion of the lame version into the LAME tag, nothing to do with compiler settings.


--------------------
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
My compiles and utilities are at http://www.rarewares.org/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
nao
post Nov 11 2011, 10:50
Post #152





Group: Members
Posts: 86
Joined: 16-June 06
Member No.: 31911



QUOTE (DARcode @ Nov 11 2011, 18:34) *
Not arguing, simply trying to understand: why the issue manifests itself with 3.99.1 and not 3.98.4 please?

3.98.4 says "LAME3.98r", and 3.99.1 says "L3.99r". Mediainfo only accepts version strings beginning with "LAME" or "GOGO".
Quote from mediainfo's File_Mpega.cpp, line 1204
CODE
            if (Lame || Lib==_T("LAME") || Lib==_T("GOGO"))
                Header_Encoders_Lame();
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
john33
post Nov 11 2011, 12:27
Post #153


xcLame and OggDropXPd Developer


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



New compiles now available. smile.gif


--------------------
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
My compiles and utilities are at http://www.rarewares.org/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
DARcode
post Nov 11 2011, 13:20
Post #154





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 679
Joined: 10-January 05
From: Italy
Member No.: 18968



QUOTE (john33 @ Nov 11 2011, 10:43) *
This was two tiny and inconsequential coding errors in version.c that affected the insertion of the lame version into the LAME tag, nothing to do with compiler settings.
What I meant is: since you were about to produce new compiles, why not sort our the compiler switches doubts first.


--------------------
WavPack 4.70.0 -b384hx6cmv/qaac 2.32 -V 100
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Anakunda
post Nov 11 2011, 15:27
Post #155





Group: Members
Posts: 414
Joined: 24-November 08
Member No.: 63072



Tried to view last build's (11/11) metadata with MediaInfo 0.7.50, encode settings are not shown at all, version information not shown at all on both 32bit and 64bit build. Foobar however reports L3.99r1 correctly.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
DARcode
post Nov 11 2011, 15:30
Post #156





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 679
Joined: 10-January 05
From: Italy
Member No.: 18968



QUOTE (nao @ Nov 11 2011, 10:50) *
[...]Mediainfo only accepts version strings beginning with "LAME" or "GOGO".
Quote from mediainfo's File_Mpega.cpp, line 1204
CODE
            if (Lame || Lib==_T("LAME") || Lib==_T("GOGO"))
                Header_Encoders_Lame();



--------------------
WavPack 4.70.0 -b384hx6cmv/qaac 2.32 -V 100
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
john33
post Nov 11 2011, 15:37
Post #157


xcLame and OggDropXPd Developer


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



QUOTE (DARcode @ Nov 11 2011, 13:20) *
QUOTE (john33 @ Nov 11 2011, 10:43) *
This was two tiny and inconsequential coding errors in version.c that affected the insertion of the lame version into the LAME tag, nothing to do with compiler settings.
What I meant is: since you were about to produce new compiles, why not sort our the compiler switches doubts first.

In truth, the basic optimisation settings have changed very little over the last several years, it's more a case of trying the odd tweak to see if it makes any difference.


--------------------
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
My compiles and utilities are at http://www.rarewares.org/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Anakunda
post Nov 11 2011, 15:38
Post #158





Group: Members
Posts: 414
Joined: 24-November 08
Member No.: 63072



Does it mean the new LAME version doesnot begin with LAME but L only? I wished Mediainfo could show LAME version again, and why is not shown encode time settings anymore? Does it something to do with required LAME version string too?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
DARcode
post Nov 11 2011, 15:52
Post #159





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 679
Joined: 10-January 05
From: Italy
Member No.: 18968



QUOTE (john33 @ Nov 11 2011, 15:37) *
In truth, the basic optimisation settings have changed very little over the last several years, it's more a case of trying the odd tweak to see if it makes any difference.
I don't wanna hijack or spam this thread, so I'll make one last try at explaining myself: I'm referring to the different compiles' performance you've been discussing with Alex B, lvqcl and psycho.


--------------------
WavPack 4.70.0 -b384hx6cmv/qaac 2.32 -V 100
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
GeSomeone
post Nov 11 2011, 16:19
Post #160





Group: Members
Posts: 920
Joined: 22-October 01
From: the Netherlands
Member No.: 335



QUOTE (krafty @ Nov 5 2011, 22:42) *
Still not a word on the lowpass case for -V0 ?

Nothing genius, but if you like to mimic the old behaviour one of the possibilities is to use -V 0.5. This is the highest setting that uses a lowpass, although it is a rather high one.


--------------------
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
nao
post Nov 11 2011, 16:21
Post #161





Group: Members
Posts: 86
Joined: 16-June 06
Member No.: 31911



QUOTE (Anakunda @ Nov 11 2011, 23:38) *
Does it something to do with required LAME version string too?

Mediainfo assumes that LAME tag is not written unless the version string begins with "LAME" or "GOGO".
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Anakunda
post Nov 11 2011, 16:56
Post #162





Group: Members
Posts: 414
Joined: 24-November 08
Member No.: 63072



QUOTE (nao @ Nov 11 2011, 16:21) *
QUOTE (Anakunda @ Nov 11 2011, 23:38) *
Does it something to do with required LAME version string too?

Mediainfo assumes that LAME tag is not written unless the version string begins with "LAME" or "GOGO".


If the problem is on MediaInfos side then consider this issue solved.
MediaInfo 0.7.51 was released today but doesnot reflect the latest Lame version tagging changes crying.gif
Anyway I'd like to Lame continues identify itself as LAME henceforward.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
john33
post Nov 11 2011, 17:49
Post #163


xcLame and OggDropXPd Developer


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



QUOTE (DARcode @ Nov 11 2011, 15:52) *
QUOTE (john33 @ Nov 11 2011, 15:37) *
In truth, the basic optimisation settings have changed very little over the last several years, it's more a case of trying the odd tweak to see if it makes any difference.
I don't wanna hijack or spam this thread, so I'll make one last try at explaining myself: I'm referring to the different compiles' performance you've been discussing with Alex B, lvqcl and psycho.

From my own testing on AMD and Intel based systems, I believe that the compiles now on Rarewares represent the fastest compiles that I can produce with the tools I have available. Don't forget that no one involved in any of this actually makes any money out of it, in fact probably the reverse. We do what we do from interest and, I guess, because it provides a diversion from other things in life.

Don't take that to mean that we don't welcome constructive criticism, but we do this in our spare time and, more importantly, when it suits us. wink.gif


--------------------
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
My compiles and utilities are at http://www.rarewares.org/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lvqcl
post Nov 11 2011, 18:22
Post #164





Group: Developer
Posts: 3212
Joined: 2-December 07
Member No.: 49183



QUOTE (DARcode @ Nov 11 2011, 18:52) *
I'm referring to the different compiles' performance you've been discussing with Alex B, lvqcl and psycho.


If you want to compare, you can download MSVS2010 compiles here: http://www.multiupload.com/ROM5UG0RW5
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
psycho
post Nov 11 2011, 20:07
Post #165





Group: Members
Posts: 241
Joined: 14-October 05
Member No.: 25099



I have made my compile available for anyone interrested to test it:

LAME - psycho build

Be kind and report your results. wink.gif


My results with MSVS2010 compiles, lvqcl provided (machinae_supremacy-fighters_from_ninne flac used as source from their website):

My LAME build:
16.200x 277.7 kbps

ReleaseNASM:
18.095x 277.4 kbps

ReleaseSSE2 x32:
16.437x 277.4 kbps

Rarewares build:
17.214x 278.0 kbps


Don't have 64- OS installed to test the ReleaseSSE2 x64.


So - for me, the ReleaseNASM is the fastest way to go.

This post has been edited by psycho: Nov 11 2011, 20:22


--------------------
lame -V 0
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
psycho
post Nov 11 2011, 21:26
Post #166





Group: Members
Posts: 241
Joined: 14-October 05
Member No.: 25099



My previous build is 3.99, so here's the new one:

LAME 3.99.1 - psycho build


--------------------
lame -V 0
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
robert
post Nov 11 2011, 22:31
Post #167


LAME developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 783
Joined: 22-September 01
Member No.: 5



QUOTE (robert @ Nov 3 2011, 01:27) *
Running some test with my above ~45 min track:

Rarewares compiles:
3.98.4 : 1:46
3.99.0 : 2:08

My own VC9 compiles :
3.98.4 : 2:24 (Release NASM)
3.99.0 : 2:24 (Release NASM)
3.99.0 : 2:01 (Release SSE2)

My own VC11 compile:
3.99.0 : 2:10 (Release)
3.99.0 : 1:46 (Release SSE2)
3.99.0 : 1:38 (Release SSE2, 64-bit)

It looks like John's IC11.1 compile isn't using optimized code paths, or at least no SSE2 optimizations.



QUOTE (psycho @ Nov 11 2011, 21:26) *
My previous build is 3.99, so here's the new one:

LAME 3.99.1 - psycho build

Same test as above, with psycho's build:
3.99.1 : 2:08 (Release NASM, VC10 32-bit)

So, it's faster than my own VC9 NASM build, but not as fast as my Release SSE2 VC9 32-bit one.

Update on John's 11-11 compiles:
3.99.1 : 2:01 (Intel Compiler 11.1 32-bit)
3.99.1 : 1:43 (Intel Compiler 11.1 64-bit)

This post has been edited by robert: Nov 11 2011, 23:23
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
hidn
post Nov 12 2011, 10:40
Post #168





Group: Members
Posts: 53
Joined: 17-April 08
Member No.: 52847



it is possible to see how used cpu extensions
http://www.cpuid.com/softwares/perfmonitor.html


(on ss working gogo 3.13)

This post has been edited by hidn: Nov 12 2011, 10:41
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
robert
post Nov 12 2011, 12:08
Post #169


LAME developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 783
Joined: 22-September 01
Member No.: 5



Here are some perfmon snapshots using psycho's (A), john's 32-bit (B) and 64-bit ©, my VC9-NASM-32-bit (D), VC9-SSE2-32-bit (E) and VC11-SSE2-64-bit (F) compiles.

A
Attached Image
B
Attached Image
C
Attached Image
D
Attached Image
E
Attached Image
F
Attached Image


This post has been edited by robert: Nov 12 2011, 12:39
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ijskonijn
post Nov 12 2011, 16:44
Post #170





Group: Members
Posts: 1
Joined: 12-November 11
Member No.: 95120



Is it correct that in the latest build of Lame from 2011-11-11 ( http://www.rarewares.org/mp3-lame-bundle.php ) the error still exist where Lame writes the lame header ( http://forum.dbpoweramp.com/showthread.php...ll=1#post116335 )?

Because i saw an error in dBpoweramp ( http://forum.dbpoweramp.com/showthread.php...ll=1#post116339 ) and they say that this was the problem?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lock67ca
post Nov 12 2011, 17:38
Post #171





Group: Members
Posts: 25
Joined: 24-June 05
Member No.: 22928



EncSpot is showing the Xing tag but isn't showing the Lame tag (which it usually does), as if it is unable to read it or it hasn't been written. iTunes still shows the encoder as Unknown. Odd???
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
robert
post Nov 12 2011, 18:04
Post #172


LAME developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 783
Joined: 22-September 01
Member No.: 5



@ijskonijn

The rarewares builds look fine. When dMC still shows "3.98.4", then it seems you haven't replaced the correct file(s). IIRC, you'll have to use the CLI encoder from dMC, if you want to use LAME.exe.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Zenitram
post Nov 15 2011, 22:16
Post #173





Group: Members
Posts: 6
Joined: 30-August 05
Member No.: 24206



QUOTE (nao @ Nov 11 2011, 11:50) *
QUOTE (DARcode @ Nov 11 2011, 18:34) *
Not arguing, simply trying to understand: why the issue manifests itself with 3.99.1 and not 3.98.4 please?

3.98.4 says "LAME3.98r", and 3.99.1 says "L3.99r". Mediainfo only accepts version strings beginning with "LAME" or "GOGO".


MediaInfo has been updated (Windows development snapshot, for Linux you need to update from SVN) in a "quick and dirty" way (actually, the whole Lame tag code is quick and dirty sad.gif ).
For the future, I'll implement a better code and I'll detect LAME tag from the CRC-16 instead of "magic value" = "LAME", but if you don't plan to obey the "specifications" described on this page (saying that $9C is 'L', $9D is 'A', $9E is 'M', $9F is 'E'), do you have a page describing the updated specifications (especially the rule for the version number for previous, present and future versions, I would like to be able to separe library name and library version in the future)?

Is there any specific reason to break the "LAME3.99a" (a, b, c, d...) versioning method?

Jérôme, developer of MediaInfo.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
viktor
post Nov 15 2011, 23:09
Post #174





Group: Members
Posts: 297
Joined: 17-November 06
Member No.: 37682



QUOTE (Zenitram @ Nov 15 2011, 22:16) *
Is there any specific reason to break the "LAME3.99a" (a, b, c, d...) versioning method?


i've been wondering about this as well, and i couldn't find any particular reason other than "just cause" smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
apodtele
post Nov 16 2011, 04:38
Post #175





Group: Members
Posts: 39
Joined: 16-November 11
Member No.: 95199



Dropping LAME is a bad idea from branding standpoint. L is not a brand name, LAME is. This is way more important than any minor version.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

16 Pages V  « < 5 6 7 8 9 > » 
Reply to this 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: 20th April 2014 - 10:15