MP3 still seems to be the most popular lossy audio codec by far, especially out in the wild (outside Hydrogenaudio, I mean ), a phenomenon which is now even manifesting itself amongst HA members in the most recent multi lossy codec poll.

The question whether the tried-and-true version 3.90.3 of LAME still holds up against the newer v3.96.1 as the most widely preferred MP3 codec has recently arisen in this thread in the MP3 - General forum, along with the consequent remark that a poll would not have been a bad idea to find out.

So here goes.

Quite some people have IMHO rightly raised the almost philosophical question about which codec version Hydrogenaudio should promote as recommended, if e.g. v3.96.1 were to turn out the most popular one, especially if one or the other still isn't univocally considered the best choice quality-wise. Note that this poll does not really cover this official HA recommendation question. It is aimed at getting to know your personal preference only. The official recommendation issue could perhaps be debated later on, should poll results require so.

I would like to invite supporters of other (lossy/lossless) codecs than MP3 (i.e. any MP3 codec), who don't have any particular preference for this or that MP3 encoder version, to place a null vote, so as to get as clear a view as possible on MP3 users' preference.

I don't think this is the right time to start such a poll, since it doesn't seem it'll take long for 3.97 to be released.

Although I can see the reasoning behind your argument, I don't see the harm of a little curiosity for HA members' present-day preference.
After all, LAME 3.97 is still in alpha stage, so it could still take some months before a stable release, let alone several months before opinions be based on somewhat of an authoritative graduator of testing.

There should be a "both 3.90.3 & 3.96.1" option.

True that!

Currently what little mp3 encoding I do is with 3.96.1

Not entirely, because 3.97 might very well end up in the "not tested enough"-corner next to 3.96. This poll could give a good indication how many people still follow the HA-recommendation. I think people using 3.96 are more likely to switch to 3.97 then people still using 3.90.3.

Do you encode using one, listen, and then, if there are issues, encode using the other? If so, which do you try first (and stick with, if the individual result is acceptable)? I don't mean to be inquisitorial, I'm just intrigued by your thoroughness.

I have placed my vote for 3.96.1.

Edit: How many votes need to be placed for this poll to have any bearing I wonder? Polar's "What's your lossless codec of choice?" poll received 494 votes. I think anything short of this could still be seen as inconclusive. That took four months to undertake (I can't tell whether it is closed now or not). Still, you've got to start somewhere I guess.

If I didn't have a clearcut preference, I'd just do the same I've advised "supporters of other (lossy/lossless) codecs than MP3, who don't have any particular preference for this or that MP3 encoder version" to do, viz. "to place a null vote".
If you really can't make a choice, nobody's obliging you to.

I use 3.96.1 the few times I encode to mp3.
Simply because it encodes ~2 times as fast as 3.90.3.

3.97 alphas. I'm currently using LAME with ABR at mid bitrate, and according to my own tests, quality is clearly better than both 3.90.3 and 3.96.1 (and it's also twice faster than 3.90.3).

I'd rather say some 100 votes or so, i.e. at least a majority of all advocates of MP3 in the most recent multi lossy polls: 191 in Roberto's closed August 2004 poll and 113 so far in aabxx's current poll. You can't expect non-MP3 people to express their preference for a certain MP3 codec, if they just don't use any.
And I don't understand why the lossless poll would qualify better as a reference in this particular poll than the above-mentioned lossy ones.

<off topic>
Well, not quite. That lossless poll was started on August 3, 2004, and it's still not closed yet. It seems to have taken 5 weeks (i.e. by September 6) to reach the 350 cast votes stage.
</off topic>

@Polar

Yes, my mistake. I agree that we need to compare the amount of feedback with other MP3-specific polls (and not a lossless poll). I would personally hope for between 100 and 150 - considering the figures you quote, and the nature of the poll.

Thanks for the (offtopic) info re: the lossless poll. 5 weeks is a lot more acceptable.

The only mp3 encoding I do nowadays is for video. Since speed is mostly my concern in this instance, I'm using the Xing 1.5 encoder

At least use GoGo!!

Shame on you John! You don't even check my test results.

(Xing is at least as good as Gogo)

I still use good ol' 3.90.2 -aps. My ears aren't good enough to hear the difference between 3.90.3 -aps and 3.90.2 -aps, so the extra filesize from the built in -Z option isn't justified for me. I figure if I ever do hear a difference, I'll have the option to turn it on. BTW, just out of curiosity, is there a way to turn in off in 3.90.3?

No!

I use Qdesign and Blade!! There names are 5|_||>4R 1337!! So they must be the best choices for de 1337 |-|4><><0R!!

What i mean't is that i use them both. 3.90.3 with aps parameter and 3.96.1 for lower bitrates.

If you really believe QDesign is a 1337 name...

QDesign And Blade

I still use Lame 3.90.2, I think 3.97a7 is very good, too, and at least 3.90.3 of course.

Otherwise I'd use other lossy codecs instead of other MP3 codecs, because for me lame 3.90.2 is still the best one of all (of course 3.90.3 is for you better).

Musepack MPC (MPPENC) is my favorite alternate lossy codec.

I don't think there will be much better lame versions than 3.90.3 or 3.96.1...

I can't decide whether you are joking or not... so much paradox...

If you think 3.97a7 is very good why do you not think 3.97 will be better than 3.96.1?

voted for LAME 3.96



the world is improving.....many things are possible, i don't it's impossible to improve LAME

if LAME team release 3.97 i will definitely go for it!
3.97 is FAST

I use Lame 3.96.1 for my personal use; but, from time to time for share some file with my friends I use the mp3 encoder from Audio Catalyst v2.0

Just out of curiosity:

Why would you use a different, and probably inferior, encoder for files that you give to your friends? Do you not like your friends? And BTW your avatar hurts my eyes.

LMAO. I thought it was just me.

I just find it kinda freaky. I try to steer clear of Acid Orange Juice's posts if I can - if you get a few of those in a row it gives me the heebie-jeebies.

I think the Audiocatalyst thing just proves s/he is freaky.

There are those 100 votes you requested, in only 3.5 days

Still surprised about 3.96.1's ascendancy though.

Damn, I was going to try to document the 100th vote.

So, at 100 votes, we have:

• 3.90.3 on 18 votes
• 3.96.1 on 72 votes
• Other LAME on 9 votes
• Other codec on 1 vote

3.96.1 started off very well, probably because most of the initially interested parties had already outed themselves as 3.96.1 users. It was at over 80% for a while. More recently, 3.90.3 users have been speaking up, but it seems to have settled down to this 4:1 ratio.

You could say that 4 in 5 voting users don't use the recommended 3.90.3, or that 3 in 8 voting users don't use 3.96.1.

I hope that people continue to vote, to get the most accurate overview of the HA MP3 users.

Edit: clarified "voting users"

.................

For to be frank, I find his commentary very pathetic and childish.
I have a nephew of 12 years of age that is much more mature and respectful than you.


I have the same opinion of you, as a result of this indiscreet and annoying commentary, of badly pleasure, product of your "creative mind" .
From that moment (one month ago), I avoid to read any commentary of you, by to consider them of badly pleasure.

The difference between you and I is that I am discreet, and I did not say anything at that moment to not bother to anybody with my personal appreciation of your "incredible" commentary (including to you); but, however, you were unpolite and indiscreet in your appreciation (in the present moment with my commentary).

I recommend you that you thinks better before giving any imprudent commentary of badly pleasure. (as for example your present comment).

That is not its problem...

You would have to read very carefully this post before of to express an wrong opinion, and MAYBE you understand because I do not waste more my time making good mp3s with Lame for people who do not appreciate them.


I did not say this. You put words in my mouth that I have not said.


I have the same opinion for your aggressive and unpolite commentary.

Acid, maybe Synthetic soul keeps away from your posts so he doesnt need to stare at your avatar. That's it. They are only saying that its ugly, and it is indeed.

Just a question, why do you use the codec from audio catalyst if its the worse thing to do? I think thats why they say you are freaky, a strange avatar with strange encoding behaviours.

I apologise if my bad, and rather old, joke caused you offence. It certainly wasn't meant to be disrespectful.

I also apologise if my comments above offended you, as they appear to have. As Brink has tried to explain, my main comment was directed solely at your avitar, and in no way at yourself. They were also supposed to be light-hearted.

The final comment was supposed to be a joke, but it obviously fell flat. Even after reading your other post I still can't see why you encode using an inferior encoder for your friends - if they don't like LAME, let them get it somewhere else.


It appears that there are many more differences between us than that.

OK, it has been a week.

So, at 126 votes, we have:

• 3.90.3 on 27 votes (22%)
• 3.96.1 on 88 votes (70%)
• Other LAME on 9 votes (7%)
• Other codec on 2 votes (2%)

So still, four out of five voting MP3 users don't use the HA recommended version of Lame.

(I'm just trying to bump the thread to encourage users to vote, to get as accurate a vote as possible, and to document the results at various stages.)


Edit, 3/4hr later: See, I've already squeezed another two votes from your weary bones - that's more than we had all of yesterday! Just think what I could do if I posted here every hour!

I use 3.96.1 mainly because i tried ABX'ing with quite a few samples on the type of music i listen to using the vbr new and the old version, and couldnt hear a difference. Havent really had much of a problem with them either.

3.96.1 for my mp3 needs. I think it's good to support ongoing development, and just the fact that 3.90.3 is "more tested" doesn't outweigh the other advantages to 3.96.1.

I generally just blindly use the newest codec, because I trust that the LAME development team, and the crowd here wouldn't allow an inferior codec get out. I'm guessing that may also be the case for many others here who voted for 3.96 series.

I'm not always willing to take the time to ABX and re-encode everything I rip. I would only do this when switching to an entirely different codec, perhaps. On the other hand, I am very thankful that there are many people around here that are willing to do this, because, providing that their tests are reliably conducted, it would save many other people a lot of time and effort.

BTW, Acid Orange Juice appears not to be a native english speaker, so perhaps he didn't get the idea that the previous comments were a joke. And as frightening as his avatar is, I do wonder where it came from. It looks vaguely familliar to me...

(Not that I don't look scary in my Avatar )

when just considering LAME 3.96.1 and LAME 3.90.3 it's 77% : 23%

Ah, you beat me to the bump.

It does seem to be hovering around those percentages still.

Many final releases have had issues, so using the latest just for the sake of it isn't a good idea imho.

150 votes as of 22:00 BST 27 March 2005.

Cool.

Edit: Votes for 3.90.3 seem to have risen dramatically in the past day or so... (24%, 68%, 7%, 1%)

Acid Orange Juice, can you explain us your strange behaviour with MP3 codecs used for your encoding and for your friends?

greetings,

surprised me i didn't see a mention of FhG, is it dead for good?
that might sound funny but i still find fhg better against lame, at least at bitrates < 200 i'm quite harder to distinguish fhg from original than lame (regardless of lame quality setting or preset which i use).

you must be the only one then provide an ABX test or nobody wil take you seriously...and are you saying that you are able to tell the difference of LAME 200kbps encodings and the original? What setting did you use? Must have been a very bad one - or my guess is that you just suffer from the placebo effect...

I add my vote in favor of Lame 3.96.1

3.96.1 is faster than 3.90.3 and for me both are transparent in --alt-preset standard setting; another interesting thing is that the average bitrate for the majority of my music is lower with 3.96.1 than with 3.90.3

I had been using fraunhofer FastEnc for years, because I didn't know the true power of LAME.
I actually used 3.92 & 3.93 for some time, but it was CBR, and wan't much impressive.
Then I came to know about this forum, recommended ones, EAC etc.etc.
and finally I switched to Lame 3.90.3 Stable (as recommended by the administration)
But I have a lotta CDs to process, and hence I needed a stable ratio betn Speed & Quality.
After performing test on many songs I decided to switch to 3.96.1
(as I use --preset extreme, It's giving me Extreme Quality music and taking less time than its predecc.)
But I won't comment on actual quality of any of these releases since it's not allowed (TOS)

It IS allowed and highly appreciated if only you manage to back it up by a solid proof like an ABX log.

4.0

I use Fraunhofer IIS MPEG Audio Layer-3 ACM Codec 3.3.0.44 which is bundled in Windows Media Player 10 package. (I don't use WMP10 though, just extract the codec)
Usually use for .SPC, .PSF to .MP3 conversion with Winamp.

yet another lame version
3.97alpha