IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

16 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
LAME 3.99 is out, 2012-02-28: version 3.99.5 has been released
psycho
post Oct 26 2011, 18:40
Post #51





Group: Members
Posts: 241
Joined: 14-October 05
Member No.: 25099



My results (samples taken from http://ff123.net/samples.html):

My CPU: AMD Athlon 64 X2 4000+ (Brisbane)
Endodes done with command line: -V 0

Rarewares 3.99 build:

LisztBMinor sample:
15.219x - 246.6 kbps

ATrain sample:
14.614x - 256.3 kbps

BachS1007 sample:
15.988x - 229.8 kbps

DaFunk sample:
14.185x - 287.6 kbps

ExitMusic sample:
15.921x - 250.4 kbps


My 3.99 build (MinGW 5.1.6 with MSYS-1.0.11 with yasm-1.1.0-win32.exe for nasm.exe):

LisztBMinor sample:
16.363x - 242.7 kbps

ATrain sample:
15.729x - 254.0 kbps

BachS1007 sample:
16.583x - 227.2 kbps

DaFunk sample:
15.520x - 285.6 kbps

ExitMusic sample:
15.909x - 250.1


It's curious to see how my build is faster and produces smaller mp3 files...


--------------------
lame -V 0
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
psycho
post Oct 26 2011, 19:54
Post #52





Group: Members
Posts: 241
Joined: 14-October 05
Member No.: 25099



I forgot to mention:

OS: WinXP SP3 32-bit


Can't edit my previous post, so I will post my next test results here:

Here are the results with 3.98.4:

Rarewares 3.98.4 build:

LisztBMinor sample:
18.444x - 217.9 kbps

ExitMusic sample:
18.947x - 225.1 kbps


http://lame.bakerweb.biz/ 3.98.4 build:

LisztBMinor sample:
14.077x - 217.9 kbps

ExitMusic sample:
14.648x - 224.1 kbps


My 3.98.4 build (MinGW 5.1.6 with MSYS-1.0.11 with yasm-1.1.0-win32.exe for nasm.exe):

LisztBMinor sample:
15.770x - 217.9 kbps

ExitMusic sample:
16.742x - 224.6 kbps


Question for john33: I have Microsoft Visual C++ 6.0 - how can I compile lame with it?

This post has been edited by psycho: Oct 26 2011, 19:57


--------------------
lame -V 0
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Alex B
post Oct 26 2011, 20:51
Post #53





Group: Members
Posts: 1303
Joined: 14-September 05
From: Helsinki, Finland
Member No.: 24472



QUOTE (psycho @ Oct 26 2011, 21:54) *
Rarewares 3.98.4 build:

LisztBMinor sample:
18.444x - 217.9 kbps

ExitMusic sample:
18.947x - 225.1 kbps

Which Rarewares build? The old "main" compile:
QUOTE
From: http://web.archive.org/web/20110722042821/...lame-bundle.php

LAME 3.98.4
2010-03-23

Bundle compiled with Intel Compiler 11.1.
Download (563kB)

... or the currently available "VC6/Intel Compiler 9.1" compile:
QUOTE
From: http://www.rarewares.org/mp3-lame-bundle.php

LAME 3.98.4
2009-06-06

Bundle compiled with VC6/Intel Compiler 9.1 - intended for older Windows OSs.
Download (494kB)


I used the "Intel Compiler 11.1" version in my 3.98.4 test.

This post has been edited by Alex B: Oct 26 2011, 21:00


--------------------
http://listening-tests.freetzi.com
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
robert
post Oct 26 2011, 21:21
Post #54


LAME developer


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



QUOTE (psycho @ Oct 26 2011, 20:54) *
Question for john33: I have Microsoft Visual C++ 6.0 - how can I compile lame with it?


With LAME sources comes a Makefile.MSVC, I used that to build LAME from the command line using VC6, back in the days.

CODE
lame v399: -V0 --noreplaygain LoveSexy.wav

m:ss    x    kbps    

2:06    21.3    260.8    gcc4.1.2    x86/makefile.unix CFG=RH_SSE

2:42    16.617    257.5    VC9 Express    x86/Release
2:02    22.099    259.8    VC9 Express    x86/ReleaseSSE

2:23    18.790    256.3    VC11 D-Prev    x86/Release
1:52    23.925    256.3    VC11 D-Prev    x86/ReleaseSSE

2:02    22.152    256.3    VC11 D-Prev    x64/Release
1:45    25.689    256.3    VC11 D-Prev    x64/ReleaseSSE

machine: Athlon 64x2 4000+ Brisbane @2.4GHz 8GB Win7 64bit / Suse 10.2 x86
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
psycho
post Oct 26 2011, 21:28
Post #55





Group: Members
Posts: 241
Joined: 14-October 05
Member No.: 25099



Alex B, I used the "VC6/Intel Compiler 9.1" compile of Rarewares' 3.98.4.

john33, thanks, I'll try Makefile.MSVC.


--------------------
lame -V 0
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Alex B
post Oct 26 2011, 21:54
Post #56





Group: Members
Posts: 1303
Joined: 14-September 05
From: Helsinki, Finland
Member No.: 24472



QUOTE (psycho @ Oct 26 2011, 23:28) *
Alex B, I used the "VC6/Intel Compiler 9.1" compile of Rarewares' 3.98.4.

When I tested the 3.98.4 compiles in early October "VC6/Intel Compiler 9.1" was sligthly slower than "Intel Compiler 11.1" -- but perhaps not insignificantly because on average the speed difference was constantly reproducible (I ran the tests several times):
QUOTE (Alex B @ Oct 3 2011, 20:49) *
3.98.4 (the main bundle from Rarewares)
Total encoding time: 0:40.922, 134.34x realtime

3.98.4 (the VC6 compile from Rarewares)
Total encoding time: 0:41.625, 132.07x realtime

I really would not like to sacrifice any of the encoding speed just because of the new version is out. In the past a slightly improved encoding speed has often been a good reason to upgrade to the new version. 3.98.4 has been a fine LAME version and I may continue to use it (at least for now).

This post has been edited by Alex B: Oct 26 2011, 21:55


--------------------
http://listening-tests.freetzi.com
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Alex B
post Oct 26 2011, 22:08
Post #57





Group: Members
Posts: 1303
Joined: 14-September 05
From: Helsinki, Finland
Member No.: 24472



QUOTE (lvqcl @ Oct 26 2011, 18:56) *
Results of "lame -S -V2 --noreplaygain test.wav nul" on Intel Core2: encoding time in seconds

Rarewares compiles:
x32: 148 s

My compiles (MSVS 2010, fast math + SSE enabled):
x32 NASM: 125 s
x32 SSE2: 135 s

Also, Rarewares Lame 3.98.4:
x32: 130 s

Your 32-bit 3.99 compiles are interesting. The NASM compile is actually faster than the Rarewares 3.98.4 version. What does "NASM" mean in this case?

This post has been edited by Alex B: Oct 26 2011, 22:11


--------------------
http://listening-tests.freetzi.com
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
psycho
post Oct 26 2011, 22:10
Post #58





Group: Members
Posts: 241
Joined: 14-October 05
Member No.: 25099



john33, I managed to compile lame.exe with VC6, however it doesn't encode. smile.gif

If I just run lame.exe with no command line options, it displays the version info normally, however if I want to encode with it, I get an error:



Well... I'm ready to give up... just wanted to see if VC6 compile will be faster on my system... If someone is willing to compile 3.99 with VC6, I'd be happy to test it. wink.gif


--------------------
lame -V 0
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
robert
post Oct 26 2011, 22:53
Post #59


LAME developer


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



QUOTE (Alex B @ Oct 26 2011, 23:08) *
Your 32-bit 3.99 compiles are interesting. The NASM compile is actually faster than the Rarewares 3.98.4 version. What does "NASM" mean in this case?


NASM compile uses "Netwide Assembler" code for some routines. Btw., using the very same VC9 and compiling 3.99 and 3.98.4 (ReleaseNASM configuration), there is not much of an speed difference:

CODE
LAME 3.98.4 32bits (http://www.mp3dev.org/)
CPU features: MMX (ASM used), 3DNow! (ASM used), SSE (ASM used), SSE2
Using polyphase lowpass filter, transition band: 18671 Hz - 19205 Hz
Encoding w:\cd\Prince\1988-Lovesexy\01 Songs are in a continous sequence.wav
      to x.mp3
Encoding as 44.1 kHz j-stereo MPEG-1 Layer III VBR(q=2)
    Frame          |  CPU time/estim | REAL time/estim | play/CPU |    ETA
103492/103492(100%)|    2:22/    2:22|    2:22/    2:22|   18.913x|    0:00
32 [     0]
40 [     1] %
48 [     0]
56 [     1] %
64 [     0]
80 [     4] *
96 [   115] *
112 [  1580] %**
128 [  7331] %************
160 [ 40039] %%%***************************************************************
192 [ 33304] %%%%%%%%%%%********************************************
224 [ 11836] %%%%%***************
256 [  5489] %%********
320 [  3792] %%*****
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   kbps        LR    MS  %     long switch short %
  185.5       12.5  87.5        88.0   6.4   5.6
Writing LAME Tag...done

LAME 3.99 32bits (http://lame.sf.net)
CPU features: MMX (ASM used), 3DNow! (ASM used), SSE (ASM used), SSE2
Using polyphase lowpass filter, transition band: 18671 Hz - 19205 Hz
Encoding w:\cd\Prince\1988-Lovesexy\01 Songs are in a continous sequence.wav
      to x.mp3
Encoding as 44.1 kHz j-stereo MPEG-1 Layer III VBR(q=2)
    Frame          |  CPU time/estim | REAL time/estim | play/CPU |    ETA
103492/103492(100%)|    2:20/    2:20|    2:20/    2:20|   19.266x|    0:00
32 [     1] %
40 [     0]
48 [     0]
56 [     0]
64 [     0]
80 [     0]
96 [     2] %
112 [    81] %
128 [  5400] %********
160 [ 43295] %%%%%%************************************************************
192 [ 37019] %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%****************************************
224 [  8887] %%%%%*********
256 [  6608] %%%********
320 [  2199] %%**
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   kbps        LR    MS  %     long switch short %
  184.8       19.1  80.9        88.0   6.4   5.6
Writing LAME Tag...done


CODE
LAME 3.98.4 32bits (http://www.mp3dev.org/)
CPU features: MMX (ASM used), 3DNow! (ASM used), SSE (ASM used), SSE2
Using polyphase lowpass filter, transition band: 16538 Hz - 17071 Hz
Encoding w:\cd\Prince\1988-Lovesexy\01 Songs are in a continous sequence.wav
      to x.mp3
Encoding as 44.1 kHz j-stereo MPEG-1 Layer III (11x) 128 kbps qval=3
    Frame          |  CPU time/estim | REAL time/estim | play/CPU |    ETA
103492/103492(100%)|    3:17/    3:17|    3:17/    3:17|   13.677x|    0:00
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   kbps        LR    MS  %     long switch short %
  128.0        7.8  92.2        92.9   4.1   2.9
Writing LAME Tag...done

LAME 3.99 32bits (http://lame.sf.net)
CPU features: MMX (ASM used), 3DNow! (ASM used), SSE (ASM used), SSE2
Using polyphase lowpass filter, transition band: 16538 Hz - 17071 Hz
Encoding w:\cd\Prince\1988-Lovesexy\01 Songs are in a continous sequence.wav
      to x.mp3
Encoding as 44.1 kHz j-stereo MPEG-1 Layer III (11x) 128 kbps qval=3
    Frame          |  CPU time/estim | REAL time/estim | play/CPU |    ETA
103492/103492(100%)|    2:58/    2:58|    2:58/    2:58|   15.177x|    0:00
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   kbps        LR    MS  %     long switch short %
  128.0        8.5  91.5        92.6   4.1   3.3
Writing LAME Tag...done
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
krafty
post Oct 29 2011, 18:11
Post #60





Group: Members
Posts: 274
Joined: 20-March 10
Member No.: 79175



No one is going to explain the lowpass thing?

Robert can you give any insight on that...

This post has been edited by krafty: Oct 29 2011, 18:12
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ShotCaller
post Oct 30 2011, 18:32
Post #61





Group: Members
Posts: 34
Joined: 8-August 11
Member No.: 92854



Considering -V 0 now uses no lowpass filter, would it make sense to disable the lowpass filter for my CBR 320 encodes via the command "--lowpass -1"? Also, does anyone know if the "--buffer-constraint" command is still useful?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
/mnt
post Oct 30 2011, 23:41
Post #62





Group: Members
Posts: 697
Joined: 22-April 06
Member No.: 29877



QUOTE (halb27 @ Oct 16 2011, 21:52) *
As a result I see a certain progress with 3.99. The spot at sec. 3.0 of eig shouldn't be overestimated. For judging pre-echo behavior we hopefully get other listening test results from members who are more concerned about pre-echo problems than I am.


I have done a quick test with LAME 3.99 against 3.97 at 320kbps, since new tunings have been introduced on the CBR modes.

Everything Is Green - sounds worse on LAME 3.99, an easy to spot artifact appears at the start on the 3.99 encode, plus the pre-echo artifacts throughout the sample is more noticable to me.

Musique Non Stop - sounds worse on LAME 3.99, really bad disortion at the 0:04 mark.

That's What I Get - sounds better on LAME 3.99, less smearing on the synth.

Homecomputer
and Show Me You Spine - sounds both equally bad on both encodes.


--------------------
"I never thought I'd see this much candy in one mission!"
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
chichazor
post Oct 31 2011, 01:25
Post #63





Group: Members
Posts: 60
Joined: 24-September 03
Member No.: 8994



¿There is a regression in sound quality with -V2? A made a quick test with the album Soundchaser of Rage, and with the 3.99 the bitrates are 20-30 kbps lower than the 3.98.4 and I can abx without problems :S


--------------------
Living forevermore, leaving today, back to my place, I've got: Nothing to say!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
DARcode
post Oct 31 2011, 12:41
Post #64





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 681
Joined: 10-January 05
From: Italy
Member No.: 18968



Is there a reson why the old "main" 2010-03-23 Intel Compiler 11.1 LAME 3.98.4 compile has been removed from RareWares please?


--------------------
WavPack 4.70.0 -b384hx6cmv/qaac 2.41 -V 100
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
john33
post Oct 31 2011, 12:49
Post #65


xcLame and OggDropXPd Developer


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



QUOTE (DARcode @ Oct 31 2011, 12:41) *
Is there a reson why the old "main" 2010-03-23 Intel Compiler 11.1 LAME 3.98.4 compile has been removed from RareWares please?

Yes! wink.gif I have always removed the previous released version when a new release becomes available.

If you require the older release, you can d/l it here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jfe1205/LAME/lame3.98.4.zip smile.gif


--------------------
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
My compiles and utilities are at http://www.rarewares.org/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
DARcode
post Oct 31 2011, 13:15
Post #66





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 681
Joined: 10-January 05
From: Italy
Member No.: 18968



Thank you John, I was actually looking the the LAME 3.98.4 64bit 2010-06-08 build please, sorry for the confusion I quoted Alex B to be quicker.
EDIT 2: Got it modding your link, thanks.

Is version 3.99 (I know it's beta 1 renamed) the HA recommended one already?

Anyway, why leave the 3.98.4 VC6/Intel Compiler 9.1 compile instead of the Intel Compiler 11.1 one available on RW? More universally compatible?

EDIT 1: grammar.

This post has been edited by DARcode: Oct 31 2011, 13:19


--------------------
WavPack 4.70.0 -b384hx6cmv/qaac 2.41 -V 100
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
john33
post Oct 31 2011, 13:20
Post #67


xcLame and OggDropXPd Developer


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



http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jfe1205/LAME/lame3.98.4-64.zip

There you go! smile.gif

I'm not sure whether the concensus is that 3.99 is better, or not, as yet! wink.gif


--------------------
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
My compiles and utilities are at http://www.rarewares.org/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
halb27
post Oct 31 2011, 20:04
Post #68





Group: Members
Posts: 2428
Joined: 9-October 05
From: Dormagen, Germany
Member No.: 25015



QUOTE (/mnt @ Oct 31 2011, 00:41) *
I have done a quick test with LAME 3.99 against 3.97 at 320kbps, since new tunings have been introduced on the CBR modes....

Since several Lame versions there are some question marks about improvements with CBR. Do you mind testing -V0?

This post has been edited by halb27: Oct 31 2011, 20:06


--------------------
lame3100m -V1 --insane-factor 0.75
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
john33
post Nov 1 2011, 19:37
Post #69


xcLame and OggDropXPd Developer


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



New compiles at Rarewares reflecting id3 tagging changes, plus 64 bit libsndfile 1.0.25 compile added. smile.gif


--------------------
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
My compiles and utilities are at http://www.rarewares.org/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
GeSomeone
post Nov 1 2011, 21:16
Post #70





Group: Members
Posts: 921
Joined: 22-October 01
From: the Netherlands
Member No.: 335



Thanks John,
this seems to be 3.99.1 beta (or even before that)
One of the files has a release date of next week wink.gif


--------------------
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
john33
post Nov 1 2011, 23:23
Post #71


xcLame and OggDropXPd Developer


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



QUOTE (GeSomeone @ Nov 1 2011, 21:16) *
Thanks John,
this seems to be 3.99.1 beta (or even before that)

Why do you say that?
QUOTE (GeSomeone @ Nov 1 2011, 21:16) *
One of the files has a release date of next week wink.gif

Doh! Fixed with yet another id3 update! wink.gif


--------------------
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
My compiles and utilities are at http://www.rarewares.org/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
sld
post Nov 2 2011, 02:53
Post #72





Group: Members
Posts: 1016
Joined: 4-March 03
From: Singapore
Member No.: 5312



Has anybody tried to compile with the Open64 compiler?

http://www.open64.net/home.html
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
GeSomeone
post Nov 2 2011, 13:23
Post #73





Group: Members
Posts: 921
Joined: 22-October 01
From: the Netherlands
Member No.: 335



QUOTE (john33 @ Nov 2 2011, 00:23) *
QUOTE (GeSomeone @ Nov 1 2011, 21:16) *
Thanks John,
this seems to be 3.99.1 beta (or even before that)

Why do you say that?

I looked at the updated history.html, not meaning to cause confusion.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
john33
post Nov 2 2011, 13:55
Post #74


xcLame and OggDropXPd Developer


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



Ah, OK, I thought it was perhaps something I had got wrong!! wink.gif

This post has been edited by db1989: Nov 2 2011, 20:14
Reason for edit: deleting unnecessary full quote of above post


--------------------
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
My compiles and utilities are at http://www.rarewares.org/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
john33
post Nov 2 2011, 15:13
Post #75


xcLame and OggDropXPd Developer


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



So as to be sure that my compiles work on both Intel and AMD CPUs, I've changed my development system to a Phenom II X4 840 with 8GB of Corsair DDR3.

Checking the latest compiles, I also produced VC10 compiles for comparison. The Intel compiles, after running through icc_patch are between 5% and 10% faster on the above system than the VC10 versions.


--------------------
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
My compiles and utilities are at http://www.rarewares.org/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

16 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > » 
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: 29th August 2014 - 09:30