LAME 3.96.1 is the official release right now and has been for well over a year now. Does anyone know when 3.97 will go from beta to an official release? Thanks.

Nobody knows...

Damn. I was hoping someone from the LAME team is on the forums and could shed some light. Going almost 1.5 years (and counting!) between (official) releases of a still-supported program seems awfully wrong. Maybe it's the Winamp bug that's preventing them from making it an official release? (I'm referring to the bug where the time is not displayed correctly on Winamp 5.x for non-CBR encoded MP3s.)

Maybe there won't be a 3.97 stable?
Now LAME 3.98 alpha is alraedy on rarewares, might LAME team just skip version 3.97 and make 3.98 the final?

That could very well be. It reminds me of how Netscape jumped from 4.x to 6.x or how Winamp went from 3.x to 5.x. I'm willing to wait for an official LAME release; until then, I will use 3.96.1, unless I learn of a compelling reason of why a beta 3.97 is better than a tried-and-true 3.96.1.

blind tests have already shown this...

And those blind tests are the reason 3.97b is the recommended version here now (replacing the venerable 3.90.3 after almost 4 long years mind you) and not 3.96.1. Despite the beta tag it is a very reliable version from what tests have shown and people have heard in their own encodings (myself included). Also LAME isn't the only recommended version that is beta. aoTuV b4 is one of the recommended versions of Vorbis and the current recommended Musepack encode 1.15v is alpha.

See the sticky on top of this forum.

Thanks for the replies. It does seem like a lot of people recommend 3.97 beta (just like almost everyone here recommends VBR over ABR or CBR). In general, the word "beta" scares me. But I guess I should warm up to the idea for LAME 3.97. I assume upgrading from 3.96.1 to 3.97 simply means replacing my lame_enc.dll file in my C:\Program Files\LAME directory. Or I guess I can simply uninstall 3.96.1 and install 3.97b to make it "clean".

All you need to do is replace the dll file. Keep in mind that beta means absolutely nothing as long as it have been extensivley tested. Look at EAC, it is STILL in Beta form and has been for quite a bit of time. A lot of people are actually frightened of Lame being beta. They think it is full of bugs or lacks the quality of a final release. HA would not have recomended Lame 3.97b1 if it lacked the quality that the Lame mp3 encoder is known for.

^ Good point, but I wonder why the LAME developers still call it a beta? Maybe that's their way "out" if someone finds a bug, they can claim, "Well, it's not an official release just yet". They did get burned back in 3.96 (and had to make 3.96.1) and I think a prior version as well. So maybe that's why - I'm just guessing.

OK, I'll replace that DLL file. I know I saw the link to it in a sticky. Thanks.

Some developers seem to prefer not naming their software as stable versions. 3.97 was alpha for a long long time and now is beta. aoTuV is beta and has never had a stable version (though libVorbis 1.1.0 and 1.1.1 are based almost entirely off aoTuV b2). It's just a tag and those betas are probably as stable or more stable than many stable numbered versions

It reminds me of how Google's "Froogle" search is still beta - even after at least one year. OK, I'll give 3.97 (beta) a shot for my next MP3 project.

Well known understatement behaviour of open source devs I'd say From the psychological point of view: They don't want to become adult.
*/me running away*