Hydrogenaudio Forums > Do I really have lame 3.93.1?

brainzelda

Jan 11 2004, 16:17

Just an observation that's been bugging me. I downloaded the 3.93.1 bundle from rarewares and fired it up.

QUOTE

C:\Documents and Settings\Brian Estrada\My Documents\Audio Codecs\Lossy Codecs\M
P3\LAME\lame3.93.1>lame
LAME version 3.93 MMX (http://www.mp3dev.org/)

usage: lame [options] <infile> [outfile]

<infile> and/or <outfile> can be "-", which means stdin/stdout.

Try:
   "lame --help"    for general usage information
or:
   "lame --preset help" for information on suggested predefined settings
or:
   "lame --longhelp"
or "lame -?" for a complete options list

It's in the 3.93.1 folder, but the command line calls it just plain 3.93. The reason that bothers me is because I also have 3.90.3 and that is named correctly in command line.

QUOTE

C:\Documents and Settings\Brian Estrada\My Documents\Audio Codecs\Lossy Codecs\M
P3\LAME\lame3.90.3>lame
LAME version 3.90.3 MMX (http://www.mp3dev.org/)

usage: lame [options] <infile> [outfile]

<infile> and/or <outfile> can be "-", which means stdin/stdout.

Try:
   "lame --help"    for general usage information
or:
   "lame --preset help" for information on suggested predefined settings
or:
   "lame --longhelp"
or "lame -?" for a complete options list

I just don't want to get screwed by realizing I actually have the jacked up original 3.93, instead of the fixed 3.93.1 Thanks.

getID3()

Jan 11 2004, 17:24

3.93.1 was (unfortunately in my opinion) a silent update - the encoder and the resultant output files both identify themselves as "3.93" for both the buggy 3.93 and the fixed 3.93.1

However, you can rest assured that the RareWares version is indeed 3.93.1 - in fact you'd be hard pressed to find a copy of the buggy version (I know, I looked).

phwip

Jan 11 2004, 18:24

One way you can tell for sure is to encode a file using --preset extreme. Then check the lowpass from the lame tag in LameTag.exe or Encspot or some other utility. If it is 19500 you have 3.93, if it is 19600 you have 3.93.1

gazzyk1ns

Jan 12 2004, 18:21

QUOTE(getID3() @ Jan 11 2004, 03:24 PM)

3.93.1 was (unfortunately in my opinion) a silent update - the encoder and the resultant output files both identify themselves as "3.93" for both the buggy 3.93 and the fixed 3.93.1

Incidentally, I noticed today that the same is true of 3.95.1 - even though I was sure of the version I had, it would be nice for each .exe to be clear about its identity. No major problems, though...

floyd

Feb 25 2004, 23:17

QUOTE(phwip @ Jan 11 2004, 06:24 PM)

One way you can tell for sure is to encode a file using --preset extreme. Then check the lowpass from the lame tag in LameTag.exe or Encspot or some other utility. If it is 19500 you have 3.93, if it is 19600 you have 3.93.1

Is there any difference between -alt preset insane lowpasses? Or any other settings? I have a group of encoded files that I'd like to know whether they were encoded from 3.93 or 3.93.1. The lowpass is 20,500.

And even if it was 3.93 does anyone know if the quality should be seriously degraded at -api?

phwip

Feb 26 2004, 03:22

QUOTE(floyd @ Feb 26 2004, 05:17 AM)

Is there any difference between -alt preset insane lowpasses? Or any other settings? I have a group of encoded files that I'd like to know whether they were encoded from 3.93 or 3.93.1. The lowpass is 20,500.

Yes, 3.93 uses a lowpass of 20,500 for --alt-preset insane amd 3.93.1 uses a lowpass of 20,600.

QUOTE(floyd @ Feb 26 2004, 05:17 AM)

And even if it was 3.93 does anyone know if the quality should be seriously degraded at -api?

No idea, sorry.

john33

Feb 26 2004, 03:45

QUOTE(getID3() @ Jan 11 2004, 11:24 PM)

3.93.1 was (unfortunately in my opinion) a silent update - the encoder and the resultant output files both identify themselves as "3.93" for both the buggy 3.93 and the fixed 3.93.1

However, you can rest assured that the RareWares version is indeed 3.93.1 - in fact you'd be hard pressed to find a copy of the buggy version (I know, I looked).

I can give you a "nice and buggy" 3.93 if you really want one.

I still have the libs.

With regard to the naming, the 'LAME standard' is that only the 'major' and 'minor' version numbers are included in a release. This makes sense until we have 3.93.1 and 3.95.1 when we have total confusion. Should this happen again, I think that I will add the '.n' extension to that minor version number so as to avoid this unnecessary confusion. I can do this retrospectively for 3.95.1 if that's what people would like.

Sebastian Mares

Feb 26 2004, 04:38

Edit: Nevermind!

floyd

Mar 23 2004, 14:04

What are the differences between the -alt preset standard lowpasses for 3.93 and 3.93.1? If any? Thanks

phwip

Mar 23 2004, 16:59

QUOTE(floyd @ Mar 23 2004, 08:04 PM)

What are the differences between the -alt preset standard lowpasses for 3.93 and 3.93.1? If any? Thanks

None. Both are 19000.