IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

4 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
LAME 4.0 alpha 6, Anyone like to play?
john33
post May 9 2003, 16:39
Post #1


xcLame and OggDropXPd Developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 3760
Joined: 30-September 01
From: Bracknell, UK
Member No.: 111



You can download this from here: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jfe1205/lame4.0a6.zip.

This is compiled from Takehiro's experimental branch so, BEWARE!! I've only made this available for people to try for fun, it's not ready for general consumption. It sounds reasonable, but it's main claim to fame is that it is about 4 - 5 times faster than the current encoder!

Please note, it's not likely that Takehiro is looking for any feedback at this time, but any comments may be of general interest.

Let me make this quite clear again, this is NOT for use for archival purposes, it's only to give an idea of the direction that LAME may be going.


--------------------
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
My compiles and utilities are at http://www.rarewares.org/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
chrisgeleven
post May 9 2003, 16:44
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 353
Joined: 13-April 02
From: Manchester, NH
Member No.: 1771



4 to 5 times faster? Damn! Gotta try this when I get home.

Just a little curious on what Takehiro's experimental branch will accomplish when it is ready other then speed. The same quality as the current recommended compile or will the quality be better?


--------------------
iTunes 10 - Mac OS X 10.6
256kbps AAC VBR
iPhone 4 32GB
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
neoufo51
post May 9 2003, 16:44
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 489
Joined: 13-June 02
Member No.: 2290



You bet I'll play.

Thanks for the release, John.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
el00343
post May 9 2003, 16:52
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 25
Joined: 27-November 01
Member No.: 547



jesus.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
JEN
post May 9 2003, 16:52
Post #5





Group: Banned
Posts: 1131
Joined: 19-September 02
Member No.: 3407



Its fast alright!!!

file size is also a little bigger:
lame3.9 @ alt preset standard was around 180k
lame4.0 @ alt preset standard is around 194k

With my really cheap speakers, I cant tell the difference between the two!!!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
atici
post May 9 2003, 16:55
Post #6





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 1180
Joined: 21-February 02
From: Chicago
Member No.: 1367



How many alpha branches of LAME is there? There's 3.90.3, 3.95 and now 4.0? How many of the features of 3.90.3 and 3.95 are incorporated into 4.0? What about -Z and -Y switches?


--------------------
The object of mankind lies in its highest individuals.
One must have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth to a dancing star.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dev0
post May 9 2003, 16:58
Post #7





Group: Developer
Posts: 1679
Joined: 23-December 01
From: Germany
Member No.: 731



3.90.x - Hydrogenaudio Branch; based on version 3.90
3.94 - Next stable official LAME version
4 - Takehiro's new experimental lame branch, which will become the next generation some day


--------------------
"To understand me, you'll have to swallow a world." Or maybe your words.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ViPER1313
post May 9 2003, 17:02
Post #8





Group: Members
Posts: 271
Joined: 19-August 02
From: Maryland
Member No.: 3109



LAME v4.0!!! Yea!!! I can't wait until I get home to try this out.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
atici
post May 9 2003, 17:07
Post #9





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 1180
Joined: 21-February 02
From: Chicago
Member No.: 1367



Hmm I wonder whether it's due to x86 specific optimizations (SSE, SSE2, 3DNow!, etc.) like Gogo uses.


--------------------
The object of mankind lies in its highest individuals.
One must have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth to a dancing star.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
JEN
post May 9 2003, 17:11
Post #10





Group: Banned
Posts: 1131
Joined: 19-September 02
Member No.: 3407



Just encoded 700Mb of wav files (whole CD) with --alt-preset standard in 3 minutes 29 seconds !!!

It was going well over 22x

Encoded the same CD with lame3.90.2 and it took 22 minutes 48 seconds !!!!

Thats nearly 7 times faster ohmy.gif

by the way, I have an xp1900+

This post has been edited by JEN: May 9 2003, 19:18
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
RIV@NVX
post May 9 2003, 17:13
Post #11





Group: Members
Posts: 574
Joined: 15-December 02
From: Rijeka, Croatia
Member No.: 4090



Wonder why they start with alpha6 or 7, why not alpha1?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Benjamin Lebsanf...
post May 9 2003, 17:18
Post #12





Group: Members
Posts: 761
Joined: 29-September 01
Member No.: 40



maybe we're just too late ? huh.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dense
post May 9 2003, 17:34
Post #13





Group: Members
Posts: 2
Joined: 9-May 03
Member No.: 6502



Just doing some comparison encodes right now. These results are on a wav file that is approximately 73 mins long. The performance improvements are amazing. No difference between alt-preset standard and alt-preset fast standard (giving practically identical results when binary compared so option does nothing).

lame --alt-preset standard Test.wav newlame.mp3

LAME version 4.0 MMX, 3DNow!(alpha 6, May 9 2003 16:14:24) (http://www.mp3dev.org/)
CPU features: i387, MMX (ASM used), 3DNow! (ASM used), SIMD
Using polyphase lowpass filter, transition band: 18671 Hz - 19205 Hz
Encoding Test.wav to newlame.mp3
Encoding as 44.1 kHz VBR(q=3) j-stereo MPEG-1 Layer III (ca. 8.2x) qval=5
Frame | CPU time/estim | REAL time/estim | play/CPU | ETA
169823/169827(100%)| 2:37/ 2:37| 2:37/ 2:37| 28.203x| 0:00
32 [ 825] %*
40 [ 1] *
48 [ 9] %
56 [ 11] %
64 [ 30] %
80 [ 675] %
96 [ 5055] %******
112 [ 16935] %********************
128 [ 28530] %%*********************************
160 [ 54157] %%%%**************************************************************
192 [ 29247] %%**********************************
224 [ 19122] %%**********************
256 [ 8940] %%*********
320 [ 6290] %%******
average: 170.7 kbps LR: 9829 (5.788%) MS: 159998 (94.21%)



lame --alt-preset fast standard Test.wav newfastlame.mp3

LAME version 4.0 MMX, 3DNow!(alpha 6, May 9 2003 16:14:24) (http://www.mp3dev.org/)
CPU features: i387, MMX (ASM used), 3DNow! (ASM used), SIMD
Using polyphase lowpass filter, transition band: 18671 Hz - 19205 Hz
Encoding Test.wav to newfastlame.mp3
Encoding as 44.1 kHz VBR(q=3) j-stereo MPEG-1 Layer III (ca. 8.2x) qval=5
Frame | CPU time/estim | REAL time/estim | play/CPU | ETA
169823/169827(100%)| 2:40/ 2:40| 2:40/ 2:40| 27.748x| 0:00
32 [ 825] %*
40 [ 1] *
48 [ 9] %
56 [ 11] %
64 [ 30] %
80 [ 675] %
96 [ 5055] %******
112 [ 16935] %********************
128 [ 28530] %%*********************************
160 [ 54157] %%%%**************************************************************
192 [ 29247] %%**********************************
224 [ 19122] %%**********************
256 [ 8940] %%*********
320 [ 6290] %%******
average: 170.7 kbps LR: 9829 (5.788%) MS: 159998 (94.21%)



lame392 --alt-preset standard Test.wav oldlame.mp3

LAME version 3.92 MMX (http://www.mp3dev.org/)
CPU features: i387, MMX (ASM used), 3DNow! (ASM used), SIMD
Using polyphase lowpass filter, transition band: 18671 Hz - 19205 Hz
Encoding Test.wav to oldlame.mp3
Encoding as 44.1 kHz VBR(q=2) j-stereo MPEG-1 Layer III (ca. 7.3x) qval=2
Frame | CPU time/estim | REAL time/estim | play/CPU | ETA
169824/169826(100%)| 15:24/ 15:24| 15:25/ 15:25| 4.7996x| 0:00
32 [ 825] %*
128 [ 22507] %%%%***************************
160 [ 49357] %%%%%%%%%%%%%%****************************************************
192 [ 40464] %%%%%%%%%%%%%%*****************************************
224 [ 27555] %%%%%%%%%%%%%%***********************
256 [ 18292] %%%%%%%%%%%**************
320 [ 10827] %%%%%%*********
average: 193.7 kbps LR: 44849 (26.41%) MS: 124978 (73.59%)

This post has been edited by Dense: May 9 2003, 17:36
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
robert
post May 9 2003, 17:38
Post #14


LAME developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 788
Joined: 22-September 01
Member No.: 5



there is no difference between the fast and none fast standard, because there is no vbr-old anymore. the formerly known vbr-mtrh is the only vbr code now.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Bobby Black
post May 9 2003, 17:39
Post #15





Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 11-October 02
Member No.: 3522



VERYYYYYYYYYYYY FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAST!!!

I hope quality its OK?!

First TEST...

CU
Bobby Black
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Gecko
post May 9 2003, 17:44
Post #16





Group: Members
Posts: 937
Joined: 15-December 01
From: Germany
Member No.: 662



This is interesting. I could use high speed + high quality to transcode my mpcs for my portable. If the quality is mediocre... no harm done.

How alpha is this version? Should we rather ensure a proper 3.94 final or start testing v4? Would testing at this early stage be usefull?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
johnsonlam
post May 9 2003, 17:55
Post #17





Group: Members
Posts: 226
Joined: 12-January 03
From: Kowloon, Hong Kong
Member No.: 4533



QUOTE (Gecko @ May 10 2003 - 12:44 AM)
How alpha is this version? Should we rather ensure a proper 3.94 final or start testing v4? Would testing at this early stage be usefull?

IMHO, 4.0alpha6 is for quick test only, no harm if doing something not require quality.

It's really amazing fast, but I'll still wait for the official 3.94.


--------------------
Hong Kong - International Joke Center (after 1997-06-30)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ottar
post May 9 2003, 17:59
Post #18





Group: Members
Posts: 17
Joined: 7-August 02
Member No.: 2978



The --nogap option is nice, but I am unclear on what this means:

Note: Disabling VBR Xing/Info tag since it interferes with --nogap

What does the VBR Xing/Info tag do for me? Will I miss it?

Is there a distinction between --preset standard and --alt-preset standard?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Gabriel
post May 9 2003, 18:05
Post #19


LAME developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 2950
Joined: 1-October 01
From: Nanterre, France
Member No.: 138



The speed improvements are not because of x86 assembly but mainly because of Takehiro's brain.
(btw think about how fast a Gogo based on this could be!)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Xenion
post May 9 2003, 18:15
Post #20





Group: Members
Posts: 1041
Joined: 23-May 02
From: DE
Member No.: 2107



does lame 4.0 also include gabriel's development (3.94...) or are 4.0 and 3.94 two independent developments ?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
LordSyl
post May 9 2003, 18:19
Post #21





Group: Members
Posts: 198
Joined: 19-October 02
From: Valencia
Member No.: 3577



Ha ha ha on my machine it encodes even faster than MPC, at 7x-8x and even 9x smile.gif
It only lacks of gapless playback and blah blah blah. I've also noticed that the algorithm used is q3 instead of q2 (did Takehiro tweak q3?)

This post has been edited by LordSyl: May 9 2003, 18:22
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Gecko
post May 9 2003, 18:45
Post #22





Group: Members
Posts: 937
Joined: 15-December 01
From: Germany
Member No.: 662



Speed is excellent (ca 15x on my Athlon TB 1333).

A quick test revealed problems with an Autechre track (no real surprise there) titled "Eidetic Casein". Right at the beginning there are some extremely short bursts of noise which I'd expect to cause smearing. However what first caught my attention was the slightly sound in the background (that "ding - ding - ding"). In the original the frequency is stable, in the mp3 it has a vibrato. No need to abx, damn obvious. My mother also noticed it right away over my pc speakers. The noisy reverb of the ding-ding sound is also shorter in the mp3.

First 6 seconds FLACed

edit: 3.90.2 aps sounds much better; would need abx for which I have no time now. Also worth mentioning are the bitrates for the short sample (no typo):
3.90.2 - 161
4.0a6 - 116

This post has been edited by Gecko: May 9 2003, 19:02
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ViPER1313
post May 10 2003, 03:44
Post #23





Group: Members
Posts: 271
Joined: 19-August 02
From: Maryland
Member No.: 3109



The quality seems to have taken a turn for the worse, at least in --preset standard using the fatboy sample. This is a super earley alpha, so this is to be expected though. I have very high hopes for v4.0 when it matures. FAST is an understatement!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
feces1223
post May 10 2003, 04:35
Post #24





Group: Banned
Posts: 154
Joined: 30-March 03
Member No.: 5756



whoah fast speeds biggrin.gif even on aps. I haven't tested lame since 3.94 alpha something and I have to say this is amazingly fast! LAME is definitely cleaning up the slow speeds, and lag on machines when encoding is gone.


4.77 mb - for the new alpha
4.37 mb - for 3.90.2

both are --alt-preset standard this makes me":angry:" because it is CONSIDERABLY higher, this makes me angry as either lames new compile is made to trick you into thinking its fast and more accurate while it could just randomly be picking bitrates and stumbling across encodes.


3.90.2 - 19 -128, 25 -160, 28 -192, 14 -224, 8 -256, 6 -320 average bitrate: 189
3.4 alpha whatever (the one you just linked wink.gif ) - 83 -192, 4 -224, 3 - 256, 9 -320

...used EncSpot as always!!!

My final guess (or conclusion either way you look at it)- It seems that LAME's speeds are a fluke. Sure they are significantly faster than 3.90.2 and may foul many of you but, comparing bitrates shows that its more like a non-variable bitrate, as most of them are 192. And you already get good speeds with 192 on 3.90.2. In other words, 3.4's aps ripping is a RIP and stick with 3.90.2 because I think thats the best compile we'll EVER find of LAME.


Lame 4.0 alpha whatever's alt-preset standard is a cheap, defective 192 kbps encode setting practically! If you want 192 or GOOD aps stick with --alt-preset standard.

This post has been edited by feces1223: May 10 2003, 04:37
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
MachineHead
post May 10 2003, 05:48
Post #25





Group: Members
Posts: 403
Joined: 17-September 02
From: Hell
Member No.: 3380



Used --alt-preset fast extreme for encoding both files.


Lame 4.0 alpha6:

MPEG-1 Layer 3
286 Kbit VBR (with Xing header)
44.1 Khz Joint stereo
Artist: Mazzy Star - Tell Me Now
File size 8.983MB
Encoding time for this was approx: 19 seconds (Info from external compressor window)



Lame3.93:

MPEG-1 Layer 3
256 Kbit VBR (with Xing header)
44.1 Khz Joint stereo
Artist: Mazzy Star - Tell Me Now
Filesize: 8.063MB
Encoding time for this was approx: 19 seconds (Info from external compressor window)

Maybe should have used extreme or standard for both (tomorrow). In any case, they both sound passable, but it is late here and music is not very loud right now. Not much speed difference on this machine using this particular preset. Filesizes are little different and so are bitrates. Bitrate # from Media Center, which I think takes an overall average for the bitrates.

Pretty good though for an alpha version.

edit: cleaned pasted info up

This post has been edited by MachineHead: May 10 2003, 05:53


--------------------
Looking for a digital idiot? Look no further.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

4 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 22nd July 2014 - 23:38