Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: lame 3.90.3, lame 3.95, lame 4
Hydrogenaudio Forums > Lossy Audio Compression > MP3 > MP3 - General
Opeth
today i just tried to rip a song with three diff versions of lame encoder.

Artist: Opeth
Song: When
Style: Extreme Progressive Metal
Length: 9:14
Source: When.wav (uncompressed wav ripped with EAC in secure mode, no error)
All settings: --alt-preset extreme
System: P4 3.0c with 800 FSB Hyper Thread (Enabled; Non Overclock), 1GB DDR pc3200, Intel 865PE Motherboard

- And the speed results were very weird:

lame 3.903 : ~6x; 98 seconds; 17,328 kb
lame 3.95 : ~8x; 66 seconds; 17,390 kb
lame 4(a6) : ~12x; 50 seconds; 16,980 kb

- I only can judge the quality with my own ears and this is personal opinion:

lame 3x sound the same..., lame4 sound pretty much metallic...maybe cause the new vbr mode..

- When I tried to encode in alt-preset cbr 192; lame 3.90.3 and lame 4.0 are same slow ( around 2x) and lame 395 was fast, it was about 10x


any commend welcome
brainzelda
QUOTE(Opeth @ Jan 11 2004, 01:50 PM)
lame 3x sound the same..., lame4 sound pretty much metallic...maybe cause the new vbr mode..

You're gonna need abx results for that.
Opeth
what about the cbr issue...why lame 3.90.3 cbr mode is much slower than vbr

thanks
de Mon
Qoute
lame 3.903 : ~6x; 98 seconds; 17,328 kb
lame 3.95 : ~8x; 66 seconds; 17,390 kb
lame 4(a6) : ~12x; 50 seconds; 16,980 kb



Something is wrong with your PC. I encode most of my music on my brother's PC (just an Intel Celeron 1200 MHz). I get about 5x with APS 3.90.3 and even faster with APE. Check your BIOS settings.
fairyliquidizer
I don't think anything looks unusual with those values (although it depends on your kit). I get 8x with APS on 3.95 and 3.90.3 gave me about 5x (from memory).

These values look fine. Personally I'm comparing APS with Nero AAC Normal at the moment and finding it very difficult to tell the two apart. Whenever I think I can here a difference I can't consistently detect it so I guess it isn't there!

Do some ABXs and post the results like the man said. Yeah I know documenting things is a drag and it's a bore hearing people go on about ABXing all the time.

Love,
Fairy
de Mon
QUOTE(fairyliquidizer @ Jan 11 2004, 03:29 PM)
I don't think anything looks unusual with those values (although it depends on your kit).  I get 8x with APS on 3.95 and 3.90.3 gave me about 5x (from memory).

ohmy.gif What is your system?
I am sure I get about 5x with lame.exe 3.90.3 and LAMEDropXPd on Intel Celeron 1,2 GHz 256 Kb cash. So Opeth have to get about 12-14x
getID3()
Agreed with de Mon about the speed issue - on my P4 overclocked to 3.0GHz (no HT) I get results like this:

LAME 3.90.3:
--aps = 7.1x
--ape = 7.9x
--apfs = 11.1x
--apfe = 11.4x
--cbr 192 = 9.9x

LAME 3.95:
--aps = 11.3x (59% faster)
--ape = 12.3x (56% faster)
--apfs = 14.2x (28% faster)
--apfe = 14.2x (25% faster)
--cbr 192 = 16.4x (66% faster)
Opeth
maybe this is hyper threading issue...

i forgot to note that i was encoding divx511 @ slowest mode (but i put the priority to slowest)....

why lame 3.09.3 is SO SLOW with my system...
Thrasher
I get about 2.4x speed with --preset standard, Lame 3.95 on my Duron 600 processor PC sad.gif .
But I ripped with EAC today with --preset standard -m s (stereo) and the speed was only about 1.2x and less. Anyone know why that is? unsure.gif
And using Lame 3.94 beta 1 with EAC was even a greater pain in the *ss. It went like 0.4x with 192 CBR setting crying.gif . I don't understand why?
Lame encoding was always about 2.5x with VBR and about 4x using CBR on my machine. Up to now....
Sebastian Mares
APS:

LAME 3.90.3: 0.7x
LAME 3.95.0: 1.2x
LAME 4.00.0: 3.4x

Tested on my Pentium II with 333 MHz. biggrin.gif
takehiro
QUOTE(Sebastian Mares @ Jan 12 2004, 08:36 PM)
APS:

LAME 3.90.3: 0.7x
LAME 3.95.0: 1.2x
LAME 4.00.0: 3.4x

Tested on my Pentium II with 333 MHz. biggrin.gif

Wow, fast machine. On my C3 600MHz, and preset standard, 3.95 is arround x0.7, 4.00 is arround x2.5.

Note: 4.00 is daily chainging and discussing sound quality and speed is quite meaningless...
Gabriel
QUOTE
On my C3 600MHz, and preset standard, 3.95 is arround x0.7, 4.00 is arround x2.5.


Beeing fanless has its price...
danchr
QUOTE(Gabriel @ Jan 12 2004, 01:36 PM)
Beeing fanless has its price...

Well, I get ~1.3x on my fanless iMac with it's blazingly fast 400MHz G3 laugh.gif I used to get 0.6-0.8 with 3.90.3 - quite an improvement.
sony666
Celeron 1.7
3.90.3 aps ~ 2.8-3.2x realtime
3.95 aps ~ 4.2x

very nice improvement, if there are no major dropouts we should have an excellent successor smile.gif
How do I turn off replaygain calculation please?
de Mon
Hell! I can't understand speeds you post here. Are you playing Quake 3 while encoding? I speak about 5x on my brother's Celeron 1.2 GHz and when I encode I do it from .WAV (not from CD) and I don't run any other applications. The only application is RazorLame + 3.90.3 (or LAMDropXPd). ohmy.gif
sld
QUOTE(Thrasher @ Jan 12 2004, 07:07 PM)
But I ripped with EAC today with --preset standard -m s (stereo)...

This is off-topic, but, were you using the -m s switch just for testing?
DarkAvenger
linux kernel 2.6.1-love1, glibc with nptl enabled, lame compiled with gcc 3.3.2 (CFLAGS="-march=athlon-xp -mfpmath=sse -O2 -pipe -frename-registers -fomit-frame-pointer -s") on athlon-xp @ 2.1 GHz, 1GB DDR-RAM DC PC-400:

lame 3.93.1 (I never encode to mp3...)
ape: 7.3x realtime with my sample
aps: 5.7x

lame 3.95.1
ape: 10.3x
aps: 9.0x
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2008 Invision Power Services, Inc.