IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Different results from RareWares’ LAME+libsndfile x86 vs. x64 compiles
gottkaiser
post Jan 7 2013, 02:07
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 171
Joined: 7-January 05
From: Germany
Member No.: 18891



Hello,

I was wondering why the rarewares "LAME 3.99.5 using libsndfile 1.0.25" x86 and x64 compiles give different results (mp3) with the same source file (flac) and options. The difference is very settle (4 bytes) but the audio stream is different when bit-compared with foobar2000.
Shouldn't the audio stream stay the same?
Maybe john33 could check on that?

Edit: The title got truncated. It should have been -> different results with rarewares "LAME 3.99.5 using libsndfile 1.0.25" x86 and x64 compiles

This post has been edited by gottkaiser: Jan 7 2013, 02:12
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
db1989
post Jan 7 2013, 02:36
Post #2





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 5275
Joined: 23-June 06
Member No.: 32180



Binaries compiled with different settings/optimisations/etc. may produce insignificantly differing bitstreams. This is a non-issue in reality. Also, it has been discussed numerous times before, so you might prefer to search for historical instances rather than waiting for people to repeat themselves.

Also, why was this in General Audio? emot-cop.gif

QUOTE
Edit: The title got truncated.
Fixed. There’s a limit of 70 characters, fewer if HTML-unfriendly symbols are involved.

This post has been edited by db1989: Jan 7 2013, 02:40
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
eahm
post Jan 7 2013, 02:39
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 1085
Joined: 11-February 12
Member No.: 97076





--------------------
/lwAsIimz
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
gottkaiser
post Jan 7 2013, 02:53
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 171
Joined: 7-January 05
From: Germany
Member No.: 18891



@db1989
Sorry that I did not realize that it is a non issue. I'm not a "professional".
My initial search didn't give any satisfying result. Thats why I asked.
A link to one of this numerous threads would have sufficed. Instead I get a rather annoyed answer and I get the feeling I have to justify my question.
Anyway thanks for moving the thread in the right topic and correcting the title.

@eahm
I compared the results of the x64 and x86 "libsndfile" builds

This post has been edited by gottkaiser: Jan 7 2013, 02:57
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
saratoga
post Jan 7 2013, 03:09
Post #5





Group: Members
Posts: 4968
Joined: 2-September 02
Member No.: 3264



QUOTE (gottkaiser @ Jan 6 2013, 20:53) *
A link to one of this numerous threads would have sufficed. Instead I get a rather annoyed answer and I get the feeling I have to justify my question.


Search better? If you want to know about differences between lame compiles, searching for 'lame compile differences' turns up quite a lot of threads. Here is one of them, which i'm picking just because it is my post explaining it:

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....st&p=784395
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
gottkaiser
post Jan 7 2013, 03:17
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 171
Joined: 7-January 05
From: Germany
Member No.: 18891



Thanks for the objective part of the answer and the link.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
eahm
post Jan 7 2013, 03:34
Post #7





Group: Members
Posts: 1085
Joined: 11-February 12
Member No.: 97076



I just selected all four, foobar2000 divided the two.

Tested again:





This post has been edited by eahm: Jan 7 2013, 03:35


--------------------
/lwAsIimz
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
db1989
post Jan 7 2013, 05:01
Post #8





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 5275
Joined: 23-June 06
Member No.: 32180



QUOTE (gottkaiser @ Jan 7 2013, 01:53) *
@db1989
Sorry that I did not realize that it is a non issue. I'm not a "professional".
My initial search didn't give any satisfying result. Thats why I asked.
A link to one of this numerous threads would have sufficed. Instead I get a rather annoyed answer and I get the feeling I have to justify my question.
Anyway thanks for moving the thread in the right topic and correcting the title.
I didn’t mean to sound annoyed or imply that you had to explain yourself, but I thought it was something quite easy to find with search; YMMV. And you’re welcome for the rename/move, of course.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
gottkaiser
post Jan 7 2013, 11:05
Post #9





Group: Members
Posts: 171
Joined: 7-January 05
From: Germany
Member No.: 18891



QUOTE (db1989 @ Jan 7 2013, 05:01) *
I didn’t mean to sound annoyed or imply that you had to explain yourself, but I thought it was something quite easy to find with search; YMMV. And you’re welcome for the rename/move, of course.

All right biggrin.gif Thanks for clarification.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
bandpass
post Jan 7 2013, 13:08
Post #10





Group: Members
Posts: 326
Joined: 3-August 08
From: UK
Member No.: 56644



QUOTE (eahm @ Jan 7 2013, 02:34) *

Is that 0.022 relative to 1? If so, it's larger than the difference one would usually expect between 64-bit vs. 32-bit compiles (e.g 1 LSB at 16-bit is 0.00003).
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

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: 21st September 2014 - 09:34