Okay, before I get flamed by people saying
"why don't you use 39xGOLD blah blah-nag nag.."
I personally like 387b and my question is not in the nature of any quality debate..


When I use 387b+razorlame and encode a bunch of mp3's.
my cpu-usage reaches 100% and encoding is kinda
slow. +-40 seconds for encoding 1 track (a 45-65 Meg wave)
This is very slow compared to recent lame versions
who encode a track in 10-12 seconds on my xp1600+ machine/winXP

Does anyone know of any encoding/processor-time issue related to

"LAME version 3.87 (Beta 1, Sep 30 2000)" ?

And if so, if there's any optimized 387b compile that does not have this problem?

thanks

"I use an old beta version and it's slower than newer versions, and I don't like that, but I don't want to use a newer version."

Well, you are out of luck then.

"I use an old beta version and it's slower than newer versions, and I don't like that, but I don't want to use a newer version."

I think you're the first person I've seen (or heard of--) use that version. Good luck with your lifetime endeavours. It's hard to program a database in punchcards.

Ok, now that you have said it, it's time for you to get flamed What's wrong with you? If it's slower AND crappier, why bother??

D5107AL, I would very much like to know why 3.87b is your favorite. (I'm not kidding nor judging, just wondering)

@D5107AL probably thinks that old encoders are like vintage wine ...

This was a version that used to be recommended by r3mix. There was an MMX compile.