Hi,

I'm about to encode my substantial collection of CDs into a digital format, and for portability reasons, I've chosen to use MP3, and LAME seems like the best of the encoders out there.

There was a thread earlier on about some potential problems[1] with LAME 3.96, so I'm wondering if 3.95.1 is a better alternative?

Did the issues with 3.96 ever get adressed and/or resolved (if required)?

Also, some people seem to swear by the 3.90.3 version. What gives?


Thanks in advance.

[1] http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....11&#entry202211

Ummm, what issues?

3.90.3 is the officially recommended encoder. However, 3.96 is probably just as good, and probably better at the lower bitrates. The tests comparing these two were inconclusive

Edit: from the same thread you linked:

I agree with Gabriel, who is to say that Lame 3.96 may break one sample, but fix 25 other samples? Unless it is tested more, you can't judge

3.90.3 is the 'officially' recommended LAME version: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=478

3.96 should be ok to use but it is not as thouroughly tested. It is faster though.

3.96.1 is the version to use. It is same as 3.96 but with known bugs fixed.

Do you have a link for 3.96.1? I can't see anywhere something between 3.96 "final" and 3.97 "alpha".

3.96.1 will soon be released

What are the changes? I suppose it'll fix the bug occuring with the "vbr-new" (IIRC) mode corrupting sometimes the output file. Other changes? Something in quality area?

Current Lame History

(always go to lame-cvs @ sourceforge, navigate to [cvs] / lame / lame / doc / html / history.html and choose 'download' at last revision)

3.90.3 is the officially recommended encoder. However, 3.96 is probably just as good, and probably better at the lower bitrates. The tests comparing these two were inconclusive


is the 3.90.3 version the same that i can find http://www.rarewares.org/mp3.html ?

That's strange,
I have always used this link to view the lame dev changelog.

It's not the same as yours, which one is correct then ?

Is the current 3.96 compile on Rarewares 3.96 or 3.96.1 then ?
[edit:] The 3.96 compile on Rarewares is dated 2004-04, so it's the old version

3.96.1 has been released, and the current development version is 3.97

I can't find a compiled 3.96.1 Windows binary in any of the usual places. Everything is labled 3.96, and looks to be from 4/2004.

Just posted now at Rarewares.

Thank you John

Why is this Bugfixrelease a silentupdate?
- No announcement in "Validated News"
- No update at http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/*che...y.html?rev=HEAD
- Windows binarys only on rarewares

It's just a question of time...

Sorry if you feel I'm pushing you.