I would have no problem recommending 3.97 to newbies. 3.90 is old, slow and not better than 3.97 (to me).

JUST GREAT!

I POST ABOUT BEING AWARE THAT SOME PEOPLE ARE MAKING THEIR VERSIONS. THEY DONOT BELIEVE IN ABX. AND THEY SAY IT IS 3.97 MMX WHICH IS CERTAINLY NOT. EVEN GUESSING TOOLS ARE GUESSING THEM AS 3.97. I QUERY FOR ANSWER WHY THIS HAPPENS.

AND U R SUGGESTING THAT I SHOULD EMAIL THEM INFORMING WHAT THEY ARE DOIN IS NOT RIGHT. PLZ ADD ALPHA!

JUST GREAT!

jthz.com/mp3
It's misleading. It  offers download of Lame 3.97 MMX which isn't out yet.
jthz.com/~lame

I am totally mystified by your post. I have tried numerous times at both the above links to find this mysterious compile of LAME 3.97 MMX you speak of, and cannot find it. All binaries are clearly marked as alpha 10, and produce mp3's that encspot recognizes as such.

What gives?

Regards,
Madrigal

Please stop screaming.

To answer your question, I am 99% sure that the version info is written to the LAME tag, on which Encspot & Co. rely. All you need is an editor and a compiler.

You'd have to use cryptographic methods to ensure authenticity.

That jthz website is run by lunatics and there was already a warning here to avoid it (citay?). Just look at those pretty commandlines - how flattering !

In short - avoid that website or any site they link.

The "MMX" thing is merely telling you what CPU Features your CPU has!

That's pretty much correct. Julius, the guy responsible for that page, annoyed us with his "lamelines" since years ago on the r3mix.net forum and became the laughing stock of the forum and our chatrooms, due to his weird posts and recommendations. We also had a good time when Panos Stokas posted his listening test, which is linked from Julius' page.

He's reached a new low - he's now catching links from HA and redirecting them to a page where he rants about it!

Indeed. Well, let's stop linking to him then, shall we?

As far as LAME goes, we sometimes recompile our own releases with adaptations based on different opinions about certain settings. Being frequent users, we do many tests with it based on personal taste and personal interpretations. This webpage is maintained by me, my cousin and Jaap de Jong. We all use LAME and MP3 professionally (that is to say, we release MP3 files not just for our own listening pleasure, and are also involved with broadcast-uses of it). The settings mentioned on this page are used for the audio WE encode, they apply to the choice of LAME release one can download from this page (and NO other). Specialized collected presets, like for example the "alt-presets" are called "alt" for a reason; They are alternatives, and tend to go wrong on new versions of LAME. Plus, we like to stay in control of ALL parameters, since we disagree with the trade-offs done for standardized presets. We never follow results from "listening tests", especially not those controlled by people who refuse(d) to let us take part in it (using pathetic IP-blocks and the likes, two can play that game), i.e. everybody involved with (or strongly siding with) certain webfora that feel the need to call all of our writing "misinformation" - stay away from those fools! Quite often they're extremely biased (there's a lot of money involved in MP3, ISDN and APT-X codec sales, digistream and satellite audio uplink equipment and so on) and/or funded by codec-fanboys who are unable to deal with contradicting (often technically superior) opinions on sound. Furthermore results are unrealistic because tests have been done using EVERY random ear out there (as if suddenly expert knowledge would not count). So always check different LAME settings YOURSELVES, don't follow comments written by self-appointed 'experts', and you may decide on *our* expertise in the field by looking here, here or here.

... So always check different LAME settings YOURSELVES, don't follow comments written by self-appointed 'experts', and you may decide on *our* expertise in the field by looking here, here or here.