Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: LAME 3.98 Final
Hydrogenaudio Forums > Hydrogenaudio Forum > Validated News
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4
ZinCh
After 2 years of development and 8 beta versions LAME 3.98 has been released. Highlights from changelog:
  • LAME now has its own psy model, a derivation from NSPSY
  • LAME now accepts a floating point value in the range [0,...,10[ as VBR quality setting, like -V5.678
  • Ability to set user-defined ID3v2.3 frame and include albumArt in ID3v2.3 tag
  • The newer VBR code is now LAME's default VBR routine
More - changelog
Source - lame-398.tar.gz
Website - www.mp3dev.org
Binaries - windows, debian, osx
krmathis
Great news! biggrin.gif
Lame 3.98 for Mac OS X (universal binary) available on my website.
Squeller
Thank you.
john33
QUOTE (krmathis @ Jul 4 2008, 14:23) *
Great news! biggrin.gif
Lame 3.98 for Mac OS X (universal binary) available on my website.

Uploaded to Rarewares. smile.gif
nZero
QUOTE (ZinCh @ Jul 4 2008, 08:08) *
  • LAME now accepts a floating point value in the range [0,...,10] as VBR quality setting, like -V5.678


To what end?
razer
*cheers* biggrin.gif
TheQat
QUOTE (nZero @ Jul 4 2008, 06:17) *
QUOTE (ZinCh @ Jul 4 2008, 08:08) *
  • LAME now accepts a floating point value in the range [0,...,10] as VBR quality setting, like -V5.678


To what end?


Whatever end you want wink.gif
krmathis
QUOTE (john33 @ Jul 4 2008, 16:10) *
Uploaded to Rarewares. smile.gif

biggrin.gif
ZinCh
Some spelling/grammar fixed, pm me if I miss something unsure.gif
lvqcl
Oops... "LAME 3.98 using libsndfile 1.0.17" @rarewares -- invalid link:
http://www.rarewares.org/files/mp3/lame3.98b8-libsndfile.zip
john33
QUOTE (lvqcl @ Jul 4 2008, 16:56) *
Oops... "LAME 3.98 using libsndfile 1.0.17" @rarewares -- invalid link:
http://www.rarewares.org/files/mp3/lame3.98b8-libsndfile.zip

Fixed, thanks! wink.gif
Canar
My congratulations to the LAME team on another awesome release!

I suppose now we're just one update away from 4.0? Or will the LAME team be humorous and release 3.100 instead? Find out next time on Hydrogenaudio!
.halverhahn
Free Beer for all developers! beer.gif beer.gif beer.gif
Slipstreem
Thankyou SO much! biggrin.gif

Cheers, Slipstreem. cool.gif
Wombat
Cool thing! Finaly smile.gif
Waiting for the first complaints about inreased bitrate at V2. My noise samples seem fine but higher in bitrate than older 3.98 betas i tested. Much higher than 3.97 for sure.
twostar
Thanks so much to the LAME devs!

Maybe it's time to update the recommended version here at HA as well.
Mike Giacomelli
Out of curiosity, are floating point V settings stored in the lame header, or just the integer part?
showdax
QUOTE (Mike Giacomelli @ Jul 4 2008, 13:28) *
Out of curiosity, are floating point V settings stored in the lame header, or just the integer part?


From what I could tell looking at the code, it isn't stored in the header, but can be inferred from the lowpass value. I don't know if it can be inferred reliably though, and I'm not even sure if the integer value is reliable now due to the fact that it just truncates the floating point number (making -V2.999 have an integer value of 2).

I asked about this in another thread but didn't get a reply. I'd really like to know as well, so I can update Dnuos.
Bodhi
Just great.

Thank you
johnsonlam
Thanks to all the developers!
Also krmathis's OSX port, when will LAMEdrop have OSX version wink.gif ?
lvqcl
QUOTE (ZinCh @ Jul 4 2008, 16:08) *
[*]LAME now accepts a floating point value in the range [0,...,10] as VBR quality setting, like -V5.678

One tiny correction: valid range is [0 ... 10[ . That is, it excludes 10 from the range.
(exact range is [0 ... 9.999] )
Agent69
My thanks to the LAME developers for their hard work and effort.
WonderSlug
Excellent!

Thank you for all the hard work and improvements made.
slimserver
Congrats and thanks to all involved. You truely ROCK!! cool.gif
DigitalMan
Many thanks - I use LAME quite a lot and love it.
Jebus
QUOTE (Canar @ Jul 4 2008, 10:05) *
My congratulations to the LAME team on another awesome release!

I suppose now we're just one update away from 4.0? Or will the LAME team be humorous and release 3.100 instead? Find out next time on Hydrogenaudio!




I don't believe there is much (if any) activity on 4.0 anymore... at least there wasn't the last time I checked.
john33
QUOTE (Jebus @ Jul 4 2008, 22:29) *
QUOTE (Canar @ Jul 4 2008, 10:05) *
My congratulations to the LAME team on another awesome release!

I suppose now we're just one update away from 4.0? Or will the LAME team be humorous and release 3.100 instead? Find out next time on Hydrogenaudio!




I don't believe there is much (if any) activity on 4.0 anymore... at least there wasn't the last time I checked.

There's been no activity for about 2 and a half years. I imagine Takehiro's life has gone in a different direction. wink.gif
DARcode
Many thanks an excellent new build devs, appreciated!

I've surely missed something in the MP3 forums, but what's the reason behind Gabriel's limited involvement with this release please?
IgorC
QUOTE (Wombat @ Jul 4 2008, 13:41) *
Cool thing! Finaly smile.gif
Waiting for the first complaints about inreased bitrate at V2. My noise samples seem fine but higher in bitrate than older 3.98 betas i tested. Much higher than 3.97 for sure.

V5 as well. Now it isn't anymore 130-135 kbits but more close to 140 and higher.


QUOTE (DARcode @ Jul 4 2008, 19:13) *
I've surely missed something in the MP3 forums, but what's the reason behind Gabriel's limited involvement with this release please?

He's doing well on x264 project.
IgorC
I made a fast ABC/HR test 3.97 vs 3.98 V5
I was enough compulsive but lame 3.97 benefits in most of the case. I don't pretend to anything. It is only personal and fast test.


Some observations:

3.98 has only 1 sample with score lower than 4.0 while 3.97 has 5 of such samples. 3.98 has more constant quality (less desviation)

There was some audible issue with 3.98 aplaud sample while 3.97 makes it better. http://ff123.net/samples/applaud00.flac
MatMaul
do you use --vbr-new with lame 3.97 or the old vbr mode ?
garym
What' the difference between using the "LAME 3.98 using libsndfile 1.0.17" versus the other bundle of LAME 3.98. I don't recall this option before. I simply use LAME encoder as called by EAC or fb2k. Thanks for any insight on this.
hybridfan
Thanks LAME guys, will do some testing tonight, after I watch DR Who of course wink.gif
IgorC
QUOTE (MatMaul @ Jul 5 2008, 10:49) *
do you use --vbr-new with lame 3.97 or the old vbr mode ?

--vbr-new
halb27
QUOTE (IgorC @ Jul 5 2008, 09:05) *
...3.98 has only 1 sample with score lower than 4.0 while 3.97 has 5 of such samples. 3.98 has more constant quality (less desviation) ...

That's real progress IMO though your score differences aren't dramatic.
Canar
QUOTE (john33 @ Jul 4 2008, 14:38) *
There's been no activity for about 2 and a half years. I imagine Takehiro's life has gone in a different direction. wink.gif


Whoa. Shows how in-touch I keep these days... blush.gif
halb27
I just finished my first listening test.
With this I wanted to use a moderate bitrate where mp3 should be fine except for problem samples.
I will do a very high bitrate test later.

As a high quality moderate bitrate setting -V4, -V3 or -V2 are interesting settings and I decided to use -V3.

My most important test samples for such a setting are those which aren't specifically problematic, but with which I wasn't totally satisfied on occasion even with high bitrate mp3.
The samples I used:
  • Sandrine Kiberlain: La godiche
  • Camille: Là où je suis née
  • Smokie: Oh Carol
To make it short: I couldn't find any problem using -V3.

I continued with samples which I know they are a bit problematic for mp3, but of which I would expect of an mp3 encoder at such a quality setting to yield only a minor issue.
  • Wombat's sample Birds
  • herding_calls
  • trumpet
  • trumpet_myPrince
I abxed Birds 9/10, herding_calls 10/10, trumpet 10/10, trumpet_myPrince 8/10 - more or less as expected.
trumpet_myPrince is a minor issue, absolutely negligible. Not so clear to say so however for the other samples though the issues aren't very obvious.

I finished with samples where major issues have to be expected (and accepted) with a setting of -V3 due to mp3-intrinsic restricted temporal resolution:
  • castanets
  • harp40_1
  • eig
I abxed castanets 7/10, no need to abx harp and eig.
I'm personally totally satisfied with castanets, and to me eig too is encoded fine with this setting keeping in mind the extreme nature of this sample.
harp40_1 is the worst encoding among this group to me, the only sample among all I've tested I'd call really annoying. A non-subtle issue is to be expected though, harpsichord music can't be encoded with mp3, moderate bitrate, and high quality expectations.

For a comparison I also tested --abr 170 with part of the samples (Birds, castanets, eig, harp40_1, herding_calls, trumpet).
The result for Birds is clearly inferior to -V3.
I abxed castanets 10/10 though to me the quality is very good.
The eig result also is more obviously non-transparent than when using -V3 though it's still remarkable quality with respect to this sample.
The harp40_1 problem is very obvious though it's clearly better than -V3 to me.
Very bad is the ABR result of herding_calls: at second ~3.8 there's a gross error in the encoding which makes me wonder whether there is a real encoder bug when using ABR. With this result I didn't want to continue testing ABR.
I just tried trumpet for finishing up as this is a sample of special meaning to me. I abxed it 9/10, it's the same quality level to me as the -V3 result.

So for a moderate bitrate setting like -V3 it's better to use VBR than ABR, but I really wonder whether there's a real bug with ABR.

-V3 however works as expected: very good results for usual tracks, with more or less slight restrictions for tracks which are problematic to Lame (and other mp3 encoders).
/mnt
QUOTE (IgorC @ Jul 5 2008, 08:05) *
I made a fast ABC/HR test 3.97 vs 3.98 V5
I was enough compulsive but lame 3.97 benefits in most of the case. I don't pretend to anything. It is only personal and fast test.


Some observations:

3.98 has only 1 sample with score lower than 4.0 while 3.97 has 5 of such samples. 3.98 has more constant quality (less desviation)

There was some audible issue with 3.98 aplaud sample while 3.97 makes it better. http://ff123.net/samples/applaud00.flac

Is the samples "Replica FF" and "HK FF" are from Fear Factory by any chance?

I know for some reason LAME can have trouble on their songs such as Linchpin, Replica, Back The F**k Up and am just wondering if there was a problem on HK aswell.
IgorC
Yep, FF stands for Fear Factroy.
/mnt
QUOTE (IgorC @ Jul 6 2008, 00:11) *
Yep, FF stands for Fear Factroy.

I see, thanks for the response.

Am been wondering for a while, if I could hear a artifact on HK on my -V2 rip, but have not done a ABX test on it though atm and thought it was a placebo.
k.eight.a
QUOTE (garym @ Jul 5 2008, 15:20) *
What' the difference between using the "LAME 3.98 using libsndfile 1.0.17" versus the other bundle of LAME 3.98. I don't recall this option before. I simply use LAME encoder as called by EAC or fb2k. Thanks for any insight on this.
I'd love to know it either. cool.gif

Anyway many thanks to the developers for the new version and a step forward. smile.gif
IgorC
QUOTE (/mnt @ Jul 5 2008, 19:01) *
I know for some reason LAME can have trouble on their songs such as Linchpin, Replica, Back The F**k Up and am just wondering if there was a problem on HK aswell.

Particular reason to test on Fear Factory's cds that it's loud metal music with well recorded instruments especially drums (clicking double pedal, very clear and loud snare drum,hi-hat and cymbals as in HK ).
bilbo
QUOTE (johnsonlam @ Jul 4 2008, 14:30) *
Thanks to all the developers!
Also krmathis's OSX port, when will LAMEdrop have OSX version wink.gif ?

LAMEdrop have OSX version is right after the version that supports FLAC images with cue.
R.A.F.
On the whole, the bitrate-increase from V3.97 to 3.98 isn't that dramatic at all - at least with the most popular encoder-setting -V2 --vbr-new. The MP3-files are with V3.98 on average only about 4 % larger.

V3.97: 191 kbps
V3.98: 199 kbps = + 4,18 %.

Source:
Transcoded 6,893 FLAC-files (all kind of music, but mostly Rock + Pop) to LAME-MP3. Measured with MPEG-Audio-Collection V2.93.
Synthetic Soul
QUOTE (k.eight.a @ Jul 6 2008, 01:40) *
QUOTE (garym @ Jul 5 2008, 15:20) *
What' the difference between using the "LAME 3.98 using libsndfile 1.0.17" versus the other bundle of LAME 3.98. I don't recall this option before. I simply use LAME encoder as called by EAC or fb2k. Thanks for any insight on this.
I'd love to know it either. cool.gif
This option was present with 3.97 also (and presumably previous versions). Lame with libsndfile allows you to encode from numerous additional formats, including AIFF, SND, VOC, and FLAC. Check the site for the full list.
Hanky
It seems that there is something wrong with the current compiles with libsndfile. A few testruns with .flac files as input produced mp3 files with only noise in them.
Just a plain
CODE
LAME.EXE -V 3 "TRACK01.FLAC"

libsndfile-1.dll was in the workig directory of course

Could somebody confirm this please ?
Serge Smirnoff
I added Lame 3.98 (-V5) to SE 128 kbit/s group. My first impressions in comparison with 3.97b2 (-V5) that is also in the group:
  • Increased resulting bit rate on nine SE sound samples – 131.3 kbit/s vs. 112.7 kbit/s
  • The only two SE samples with obviously audible artifacts are harpsichord and lo-fi tape recording. All others could be roughly and preliminarily estimated as “around 5”. Version 3.97b2 also produced obviously audible artifacts on the above samples plus glockenspiel and castanets. Though, this quality comparison has not much sense as the bit rate increased significantly. Just notes.
  • The character of artifacts in SE samples (revealed by artifact amplification) is pretty much the same except preserving more high frequencies by 3.98.

So summing all of these factors I can predict slightly better results of Lame 3.98 over 3.97b2 in SE 128 kbit/s group which is not too informative due to increased bit rate. Comparison with other contenders will be more interesting as the competition is fairer now.
john33
QUOTE (Hanky @ Jul 6 2008, 10:33) *
It seems that there is something wrong with the current compiles with libsndfile. A few testruns with .flac files as input produced mp3 files with only noise in them.
Just a plain
CODE
LAME.EXE -V 3 "TRACK01.FLAC"

libsndfile-1.dll was in the workig directory of course

Could somebody confirm this please ?

I also have this problem. I am assuming that the precompiled libsndfile-1.dll that is provided with the libsndfile download was not compiled with FLAC support. I don't know this for a fact and, although I've hunted high and low, I can't find any definitive answer to this, but it certainly does not have any FLAC dll dependency. When I have the opportunity, I will try compiling with FLAC support.
Gabriel
QUOTE (IgorC @ Jul 5 2008, 01:59) *
QUOTE (DARcode @ Jul 4 2008, 19:13) *

I've surely missed something in the MP3 forums, but what's the reason behind Gabriel's limited involvement with this release please?

He's doing well on x264 project.

A reduced and different allocation of my spare time. (btw, x264 is not part of my spare time)
Alex B
QUOTE (Serge Smirnoff @ Jul 6 2008, 13:17) *
I added Lame 3.98 (-V5) to SE 128 kbit/s group. ...

Increased resulting bit rate on nine SE sound samples – 131.3 kbit/s vs. 112.7 kbit/s ...

So summing all of these factors I can predict slightly better results of Lame 3.98 over 3.97b2 in SE 128 kbit/s group which is not too informative due to increased bit rate.

LAME 3.98 allows intermediate quality settings. The old "-V5" has obviously changed. The bitrate increase may be partly caused by the now used higher low pass frequency:

3.98 -V5 "transition band: 16538 Hz - 17071 Hz"
3.98 -V5.7 "transition band: 15826 Hz - 16360 Hz"
3.97 -V5 --vbr new "transition band: 15826 Hz - 16360 Hz"

With my usual test sample set 3.98 -V 5.7 appears to be comparable with LAME 3.97 -V5 --vbr-new (3.98: 133.6 kbps vs. 3.97: 133.8 kbps)
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2009 Invision Power Services, Inc.