Hi,

I follow discussion in this forum for long time now, and today i have finally decided to subscibe as a member First, i introduce myself : i'm a 19 years old computer students in France near from Paris.

Have you heard about Lame 3.97 ?

Lame 3.97

I will probably start testing it this week ...

++

Lame? No, haven't heard of that one. Is it some sort of cracking tool? We don't really deal with that sort of thing on this site.

Hi Jam!

As seen on http://www.rarewares.org/mp3.html LAME 3.97 is an alpha version which may not be stable or safe to use. Of course: good news for the developement and for the testers, but keep attention using an unproved alpha version for archiving...

LAME 3.97 alpha 1 bundle 2004-04-25

toroco

geez... man, it's TEH TOOL for >insert your favorite kitchen-sink-task<

seriously, I think it's more than a litlle suspicious that some nice soul have (final?) 3.97 ready and shares it via that kind of url... lokks like malware to me...
(c'est mal, eh?)

This thread belongs in the bitbucket.

either that, or at least it should be moved away from the listening tests section.

I wonder if it is better than blade?

now come on... how can a tool of war possibly can be compared to an audio codec?
tse tse...

Blade is the worse codec i have ever seen
I'm searching a test CD's which was free in france : it's a CD given with a magazine "Nouvelle Revue Du Son" No12.
It's very interessant because it's a recording of misc ambiences like shops, street ... and there is type sentences which was audible only with a good enconding because they are mixed with the ambient noise. I think this is good samples type for testing audio codec.

My Actual Audiocodec Preferences :

Lossless :
FLAC

192 k :
MPC
Vorbis
AAC
MP3PRO

Good choice for lossless. MP3PRO is meant for less than 100kbit/s, it should not be used at 192kbit/s, for transparent MP3 LAME --preset standard is a much better choice. What do you mean by 192kbit/s MPC? --quality 6? Personally I think that 6 is overkill, I would go with 5; but its your choice . I hope you mean Vorbis -q7 and not CBR 192, as Vorbis should really only be used in VBR mode. You mean iTunes AAC at 192kbit/s, right? There are a lot of different AAC encoders out there, remember.

Yeah

I forgot to give some precision :

I use Vorbis 1.1.0 at 192 kb/s VBR
Lame 3,96 at 192 kb/s ABS -q 0 JS or S
Nero 6.1.3.4 AAC Encoder HE 192 kb/s

I agree with you, MP3PRO is Very Good for Internet Encoding 96kb/s RuLeZ

For Lossless encoding i use FLAC with --best

Isn't HE-AAC for low bitrates?

>>Isn't HE-AAC for low bitrates?
For bitrates < 96Kbit
BTW, anyway, Nero will not use SBR (even if you select it) for 192Kbit

Yup, and Nero won't actually let you use HE-AAC for anything higher than ~100kbit/s. However it doesn't stop you from changing to HE-AAC in the settings, so even though Jam thinks he is getting HE-AAC he is actually encoding in LC-AAC.

I didn't found a topic about HE and LC difference and i didn't ear the difference But, i think 192 kb/s i s a "low bitrate" for AAC dur to his ability to go to 448 kb/s and more.

Nope, if you test it out you will find that HE-AAC sounds pretty sweet at 24kbit/s (comparatively). So 192 is quite a high bitrate. 448kbit/s is just plain wasteful. Besides, there is no upper limit, AFAIK, for MPC and Vorbis, so by your logic 400kbit/s would be a low bitrate for either of them as they can reach bitrates in excess of 1000kbit/s.

edit: comparatively

>>But, i think 192 kb/s i s a "low bitrate" for AAC dur to his ability to go to 448 kb/s and more.
Heh, man, I don't want to be weird but it is better to operate terms in their common meaning
Low bitrate usually means that it is less than 128 Kbit (or 160Kbit) that usually is a border of transparency for the regular hearing (as mine )...

Yes, of course. But now with HDCD and the democratisation of ocean-size hard disk i encode in that terms : For internet streaming : 64kb/s MP3PRO
download : 160 kb/s VBR Ogg
mp3 portable players : 192 kb/s MP3 ABR
be compatible with certain DVD players : AAC 256 kb/s
all days listening : MPC
album that i like (for exemple Sting or Pink Floyd) and in order to take less space than wave i use FLAC --best

I think we are far from the original topic, but it is interessant to compare point of view and archiving strategy of differents guys to optimize his own record/ripping archiving

Why not --preset standard? It would yield a similar bitrate but would likely be transparent in substantially more cases.

In french "lame" means "blade".

Regarding 3.97, I am sure it has not been released.

Hi,

Ok. But version 3.97 Alpha is an official version or a stupid fake ?

Alphas, even if they are genuine, are not "official releases" IMHO.

Hi,

I know but is this an alpha from Lame developper or a fake ?

I do not know and I do not care, as users should not use alpha versions. So anyway, DO NOT USE IT.

OK I use it just for my own test purpose ... Thx

Maybe this post should be moved or renamed. It looks like 3.97 has been released on the HA portal. Not good.

ah, o.k, thanks. now the joke doesn't look too good anymore...

now hopefully the original question which Jam had in mind has been solved.
just don't use it for archival purposes, and don't jump to conclusions regardind quality.

end of thread?

Any suggestions?

well, wouldn't the "recycle bin" be a good candidate ?

isn't that what it's there for? this thread is useless, anyways...


later