IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

16 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
LAME 3.99 is out, 2012-02-28: version 3.99.5 has been released
lvqcl
post Oct 15 2011, 18:07
Post #1





Group: Developer
Posts: 3399
Joined: 2-December 07
Member No.: 49183



October 15 2011: 3.99 beta 1 becomes 3.99

Download: http://www.rarewares.org/mp3-lame-bundle.php

Changelog: http://lame.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/lam...ml/history.html


This post has been edited by greynol: Nov 9 2011, 21:10
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
IgorC
post Oct 16 2011, 08:36
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 1576
Joined: 3-January 05
From: ARG/RUS
Member No.: 18803



Congratulations to developers of LAME with their new release 3.99.

Thank You for keeping the development of high quality and open source MP3 encoder.

So what will be next? 3.100?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
halb27
post Oct 16 2011, 13:34
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 2436
Joined: 9-October 05
From: Dormagen, Germany
Member No.: 25015



Thanks a lot for the new version.

Tuning on VBR scale / resulting bitrate is much appreciated, as there was a large gap between -V0 and -b 320 - those settings which are generally expected to yield the highest quality.

I'm curious about the tuning on PSY model.


--------------------
lame3100m -V1 --insane-factor 0.75
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
no404error
post Oct 16 2011, 14:59
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 55
Joined: 23-May 08
From: Rzeczpospolita
Member No.: 53744



x86 (lame3.99.zip)
LAME 3.99 32bits (http://lame.sf.net)
CPU features: MMX (ASM used), SSE (ASM used), SSE2

x64 (lame3.99-64.zip)
LAME 3.99 64bits (http://lame.sf.net)
CPU features: , SSE (ASM used), SSE2

This post has been edited by greynol: Nov 9 2011, 21:11
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ShotCaller
post Oct 16 2011, 18:49
Post #5





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



So is the best plan to wait for a few more .1 revisions? I heard some complaints about artifacts and buggy psy model in 3.99 beta, have those been fixed? There's nothing in the changelog that would make one think so...
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
halb27
post Oct 16 2011, 18:54
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 2436
Joined: 9-October 05
From: Dormagen, Germany
Member No.: 25015



For learning about 3.99's average bitrate for -Vx i encoded my usual test set of various pop music:

-V5:  3.98.4: 136 kbps  3.99: 126 kbps
-V4:  3.98.4: 152 kbps  3.99: 147 kbps
-V3:  3.98.4: 166 kbps  3.99: 167 kbps
-V2:  3.98.4: 188 kbps  3.99: 191 kbps
-V1:  3.98.4: 207 kbps  3.99: 224 kbps
-V0:  3.98.4: 233 kbps  3.99: 258 kbps

I like this behavior of 3.99.
For the many -V3 and -V2 users things don't really change.
From -V2 to -V0 it's adequate to increase the average bitrate steps from one quality level to the next because audible differences can only be expected with a higher amount of bitrate difference than in the range below -V2.
-V5 now matches pretty well 128 kbps, which is roughly the expected average bitrate for -V5. This is especially welcome for 128 kbps listening tests.

This post has been edited by halb27: Oct 16 2011, 18:55


--------------------
lame3100m -V1 --insane-factor 0.75
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lvqcl
post Oct 16 2011, 19:35
Post #7





Group: Developer
Posts: 3399
Joined: 2-December 07
Member No.: 49183



My test set:

CODE
         3.98.4       3.99
-V6:     126 kbps     116 kbps
-V5:     139 kbps     131 kbps
-V4.999: 140 kbps     138 kbps
-V4:     155 kbps     151 kbps
-V3:     169 kbps     171 kbps
-V2.999: 179 kbps     182 kbps
-V2:     200 kbps     197 kbps
-V1:     222 kbps     232 kbps
-V0:     252 kbps     270 kbps

-V2 -Y:  181 kbps     185 kbps
-V1 -Y:  197 kbps     214 kbps
-V0 -Y:  220 kbps     242 kbps


This post has been edited by lvqcl: Oct 16 2011, 19:41
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lameboy
post Oct 16 2011, 20:48
Post #8





Group: Members
Posts: 44
Joined: 3-September 08
Member No.: 57866



A big Thank You to the LAME devs for the important work they're doing! (as you can see by my username, I'm a big fan)

An open source, high-quality MP3 encoder continually developed is in my opinion very important, because it still is the de-facto standard for most people when it comes to music files, and it keeps users independent from commercial companies.

I want to donate some money to the LAME project, but I couldn't find a "donate"-button on the site. Does anyone know where it is (if there is one)?





--------------------
XLD // FLAC // LAME
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
halb27
post Oct 16 2011, 21:52
Post #9





Group: Members
Posts: 2436
Joined: 9-October 05
From: Dormagen, Germany
Member No.: 25015



I did a short listening test comparing 3.99 against 3.98.4.

I chose samples which are real ugly with CBR 128 (better, but still very bad with -V5):

harp40_1 (harpsichord is a problem for mp3 - I concentrate on the chords around sec. 10.0)
lead-voice (a strong tremolo at sec. 0.0-2.0)
eig (strong pre-echo, with a special problem at around sec. 3.0)
herding_calls (at sec. 0.9-3.7 an artifact is audible)
trumpet (an artifact / an inaccuracy which sounds a bit like that in herding_calls)

The samples with all the encoded mp3 variants can be downloaded from here.

I started comparing -V5.
The result can be summed up quickly: it's all bad, for none of the samples did I have a preference for one of the versions. From that the good message is: 3.99 behaves like 3.98.4, in spite of a somewhat lower average bitrate.

I continued with -V2 and found some differences.
The problem spot with eig at sec. 3.0 is more pronounced with 3.99. On the other hand herding_calls was harder to ABX with 3.99 than with 3.98.4. I was astonished about lead-voice and trumpet: lead-voice because it was so extremely easy to ABX (with both versions), and trumpet because it was rather hard (with both versions).

I finished with -V0.
eig is nearly fine for me as I'm not sensitive for pre-echo. It's just the spot at sec. 3.0 which has me ABX eig rather easily. Again the problem is more pronounced with 3.99. I am also very content with harp40_1 which wasn't easy to ABX (harder with 3.99). The difference with herding_calls was rather strong: With volume set up the right way for this sample (not too loud!) ABXing with 3.98.4 was rather easy, with 3.99 it was very noticeably harder. I ABXed lead-voice easily with both versions. trumpet was hard for me, and with the restricted time I allowed for the test, I could not get sufficiently good ABX results for 3.98.4. With 3.99 I succeeded, but it was very hard, and I consider the 3.99 result to be fine, too. I will redo trumpet tomorrow morning when I hopefully feel fresher than I just did.

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.

This post has been edited by halb27: Oct 16 2011, 22:00


--------------------
lame3100m -V1 --insane-factor 0.75
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
IgorC
post Oct 16 2011, 22:46
Post #10





Group: Members
Posts: 1576
Joined: 3-January 05
From: ARG/RUS
Member No.: 18803



Interesting report.

QUOTE (halb27 @ Oct 16 2011, 17:52) *
As a result I see a certain progress with 3.99. The spot at sec. 3.0 of eig shouldn't be overestimated.

I saw You have tested a short time (4 sec) of eig sample. That's why You have found only one pulsive artifact. The artifacts are more clear on longer version of the sample because it's now the whole train of them.

I found that 3.99 does better than 3.98.4 for eig in my last report.


P.S. But if it was me you will probably saying "There must have gone something wrong" wink.gif. You see we are all different listeners, there is no "wrong".

This post has been edited by IgorC: Oct 16 2011, 23:01
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
halb27
post Oct 16 2011, 23:39
Post #11





Group: Members
Posts: 2436
Joined: 9-October 05
From: Dormagen, Germany
Member No.: 25015



Sorry for having said "There must have gone something wrong" about your first report you gave on trumpet behavior. My remark was for the report as such, especially as I missed one result, and I was afraid that you mixed up your 3.97 result with that of a later version. It was not meant to be about your listening experience. When you explained this it's true I was astonished that you preferred 3.97 over 3.98. You're right, we're all different listeners, and our listening experience can vary under different circumstances.

As for eig probably everybody is more adequate to report on pre-echo behavior than I am. That's why I hoped I made it clear that I can only report differences about the spot at sec. 3.0. As for this spot though I'd be surprised if somebody would prefer 3.99. It is possible of course because as you said: we're all different listeners.

I'll have a look at the entire eig sample. I shortened it a long time ago because this allowed me to crank up volume. Later in the track the 'music' gets very loud which prevented me from listening very loud in the first 4 seconds, and with my extract I thought I had the important impulse part. I'll have a look into it.

This post has been edited by halb27: Oct 17 2011, 00:15


--------------------
lame3100m -V1 --insane-factor 0.75
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
IgorC
post Oct 17 2011, 00:10
Post #12





Group: Members
Posts: 1576
Joined: 3-January 05
From: ARG/RUS
Member No.: 18803



It's ok smile.gif, halb27. My sarcasm sometimes drives me crazy.

Now it makes me wonder what other people hear on eig sample.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Wombat
post Oct 17 2011, 03:58
Post #13





Group: Members
Posts: 1047
Joined: 7-October 01
Member No.: 235



I didnīt really test anything because i donīt use mp3 much anymore. I encoded my old samples suite with V2 and found no regression on these.
I hear eig with 398.4 and V2 not worse in the whole sample, at least the 15second sample i have. The most obvious difference is the clear artifact at ~second 3 and 9 with 3.99 but me also isnīt to good on typical pre-echo samples.

Edit: Around second 9 both add some artifact that is louder to me with 3.99 also. Besides that i canīt listen such music for to long, so it doesnīt really matter smile.gif

This post has been edited by Wombat: Oct 17 2011, 04:13
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
halb27
post Oct 17 2011, 08:07
Post #14





Group: Members
Posts: 2436
Joined: 9-October 05
From: Dormagen, Germany
Member No.: 25015



I just retested trumpet, and this morning it was not extremely hard to ABX the 3.98.4 result. Today ABXing 3.99 was harder for me. The very effect you ran upon, IgorC.
As both results are so good to me that in practical listening situations with no reference to the original I really wouldn't complain, I'd call both results fine.

As for eig I tried the full sample, and became quickly aware again why I shortened the track for my purpose. The bass after sec. 4 is so strong that I can't hear any issue, not even at around sec. 9.
The discussion on eig made me one thing very clear: I will not report on pre-echo behavior again. I'm well aware now that I used eig in a kind of 'oh, me too can hear some pre-echo problem', but if I can only report about a specific spot within a track full of pre-echo prone impulses, I better am quiet. Guess I will still listen to that spot and possibly report about it, but in the sense of a specific artifact, not in the sense of pre-echo.
As for 3.99 V0's pre-echo behavior I expect it to be better than that of 3.98.4 because 3.99 uses a frame packaging strategy with the target of avoiding a large percentage of otherwise inaccurately encoded frames, and because 3.99 -V0 has higher accuracy demands than has 3.98.4 -V0.

This post has been edited by halb27: Oct 17 2011, 08:31


--------------------
lame3100m -V1 --insane-factor 0.75
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
TuNk77
post Oct 17 2011, 18:23
Post #15





Group: Members
Posts: 136
Joined: 1-December 06
From: Norway
Member No.: 38241



I don't know if this is the right place to ask this question, but I am wondering why LAME 3.99 32-bits and LAME 3.99 64-bits make mp3's that are different in size.
One example is this: an mp3 made with LAME 3.99 32-bits is 7,76 MB (8 138 854 bytes) in size, but the same song encoded with LAME 3.99 32-bits is 7,75 MB (8 137 291 bytes) in size.
The song was ripped with EAC 10. B3 and not modified in any way.
But, I am puzzled about that 1563 bytes in filesize difference

Edit: I forgot to mention that I used LAME 3.99 Bundle compiled with Intel Compiler 11.1. and LAME 3.99 64bit Bundle compiled with Intel Compiler 11.1. Downloaded from rarewares yesterday.

This post has been edited by TuNk77: Oct 17 2011, 18:25
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
john33
post Oct 17 2011, 19:10
Post #16


xcLame and OggDropXPd Developer


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



Quite simply, it's the fact that one is generating a compile for 32 bit using the internal 'nasm routines' whereas the 64 bit compile uses the compiler's internal processor optimisations. In this case the same compiler is used, but if compiles for the same target are created using different compilers, the encoded output will differ in size to a small extent because the internal math routines differ, amongst other things. I hasten to add that no one, to the best of my knowledge, has yet been able to discern any audible differences between any of the differing outputs generated by the encoders created with different compilers.

This post has been edited by db1989: Oct 18 2011, 19:34
Reason for edit: deleting pointless 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
TuNk77
post Oct 17 2011, 19:21
Post #17





Group: Members
Posts: 136
Joined: 1-December 06
From: Norway
Member No.: 38241



Thank you for replying john33 and thanks for clarifying and explaining the filesize difference for me (and others) smile.gif

This post has been edited by db1989: Oct 18 2011, 19:34
Reason for edit: ditto
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
inrobert
post Oct 17 2011, 23:06
Post #18





Group: Members
Posts: 5
Joined: 13-January 06
Member No.: 27082



Hello. I have a problem with new version.
After upgrading to version 3.99 id3v2.3|id3v1 tags are automatically created during WAV encoding process, showing field <ENCODING SETTINGS> : LAME 32bits version 3.99 (http://lame.sf.net) in foobar2000 v1.1.8.
My LAME parameters in foobar2000 are: --silent --noreplaygain -V0 - %d. With EXACTLY the same parameters id3 tags are not created with LAME 3.98.4.
How to prevent LAME 3.99 from creating id3 tags? I was experimenting with parameters, reading LAME documentation, but couldn't find solution.

This post has been edited by inrobert: Oct 17 2011, 23:10


--------------------
iRiver H10 20 GB - Rockbox
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
robert
post Oct 18 2011, 01:06
Post #19


LAME developer


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



Confirmed, fixed sources are available from SF.net.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ShotCaller
post Oct 18 2011, 04:09
Post #20





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



What is everyone's thoughts on -V 0 now using the full spectrum and no low pass filter? Is there really any reason to preserve frequencies above 20 kHz? Would manually applying a low pass filter be wise? I'm also wondering why CBR 320 encodes are not using full spectrum too considering it now uses the same psymodel as VBR.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
halb27
post Oct 18 2011, 06:29
Post #21





Group: Members
Posts: 2436
Joined: 9-October 05
From: Dormagen, Germany
Member No.: 25015



Thanks for the info.
I don't like having no or an extremely high low-pass. It's probably a concession towards those people who come up here occasionally demanding for the settings which allow for the 'full range'.

But it's not a problem as we can use --lowpass. Maybe it's not bad to find out for ourselves where to put the lowpass.


--------------------
lame3100m -V1 --insane-factor 0.75
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
john33
post Oct 18 2011, 10:40
Post #22


xcLame and OggDropXPd Developer


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



QUOTE (robert @ Oct 18 2011, 01:06) *
Confirmed, fixed sources are available from SF.net.

Fresh compiles from the amended sources are now at Rarewares. smile.gif


--------------------
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
My compiles and utilities are at http://www.rarewares.org/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Northpack
post Oct 18 2011, 10:59
Post #23





Group: Members
Posts: 455
Joined: 16-December 01
Member No.: 664



QUOTE (ShotCaller @ Oct 18 2011, 03:09) *
What is everyone's thoughts on -V 0 now using the full spectrum and no low pass filter? Is there really any reason to preserve frequencies above 20 kHz? Would manually applying a low pass filter be wise? I'm also wondering why CBR 320 encodes are not using full spectrum too considering it now uses the same psymodel as VBR.

Very good question. Any explanation for this kind of inconsistency? It seems completely illogical to me to have a lowpass at CBR 320 and no lowpass at -V0
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
robert
post Oct 18 2011, 11:19
Post #24


LAME developer


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



Tuning CBR/ABR is something I have planned to do in 3.100.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
temp1
post Oct 18 2011, 11:36
Post #25





Group: Members
Posts: 17
Joined: 23-September 06
Member No.: 35512



QUOTE (john33 @ Oct 18 2011, 03:40) *
QUOTE (robert @ Oct 18 2011, 01:06) *
Confirmed, fixed sources are available from SF.net.

Fresh compiles from the amended sources are now at Rarewares. smile.gif

thank u, i love L.A.M.E smile.gif
my favorite
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

16 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: 1st October 2014 - 20:43