IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

16 Pages V  « < 11 12 13 14 15 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
LAME 3.99 is out, 2012-02-28: version 3.99.5 has been released
apodtele
post Dec 15 2011, 17:59
Post #301





Group: Members
Posts: 39
Joined: 16-November 11
Member No.: 95199



QUOTE (DoctorO @ Dec 15 2011, 10:39) *
yes the Winamp mp3 encoder settings dialog isn't great / needs to be updated to whatever the suggested guidelines are now, but it otherwise works.


DrO,

Take a look at http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=LAME for the guidelines

In comparison to Winamp mp3 plugin, the modern LAME recommendations
-- do not even mention -q
-- do not dwell on bitrates
-- instead settle on --vbr-new by making it default
-- instead explain a lot about -V for VBR that are not offered by Winamp

That is how much Winamp mp3 plugin is behind.

A.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lvqcl
post Dec 15 2011, 18:34
Post #302





Group: Developer
Posts: 3435
Joined: 2-December 07
Member No.: 49183



QUOTE (apodtele @ Dec 15 2011, 20:59) *
-- instead explain a lot about -V for VBR that are not offered by Winamp


Yes they are:

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
apodtele
post Dec 15 2011, 18:57
Post #303





Group: Members
Posts: 39
Joined: 16-November 11
Member No.: 95199



That is -q rather than -V, it never changes from 2 with any --preset or quality setting,

This post has been edited by db1989: Dec 16 2011, 14:22
Reason for edit: removing pointless full quote of above post
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lvqcl
post Dec 15 2011, 20:24
Post #304





Group: Developer
Posts: 3435
Joined: 2-December 07
Member No.: 49183



-q is "Quality" when it is equal to Low / Normal / High / Very High. And then "VBR Q" is -V switch.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
apodtele
post Dec 15 2011, 21:48
Post #305





Group: Members
Posts: 39
Joined: 16-November 11
Member No.: 95199



QUOTE (lvqcl @ Dec 15 2011, 14:24) *
-q is "Quality" when it is equal to Low / Normal / High / Very High. And then "VBR Q" is -V switch.


When I read this http://lame.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/lame/lame/USAGE
I expect -q to be either numeric or Fast / Slow / ... as an algorithm speed rating
and -V is either numeric or High / Low / ... as in quality/kbps or whatever.

Do you see my confusion while lacking Winamp documentation?
The layout is also confusing because VBR Q appears to be the least important (bottom) setting.

What you said and what I see simply does not chime with the Lame documentation.
The only thing that rings the correct bells is "--preset fast standard" and this is what I use.

This post has been edited by apodtele: Dec 15 2011, 22:02
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
DoctorO
post Dec 16 2011, 00:30
Post #306





Group: Members
Posts: 29
Joined: 11-April 11
Member No.: 89722



apodtele: the link you've directed at me doesn't seem to be the one i remember seeing some time back on what is meant to be done in a UI for controlling lame. which was http://lame.sourceforge.net/lame_ui_example.php and as i've not followed things closely, my comment was worded as such to cater for things having changed with those suggested guidelines (though looks like i remember it being).

either way, no one is disagreeing that Winamp's mp3 encoder config needs to be overhauled, but trying to base what is currently there against documentation which has most likely changed since the encoder's ui was created (which if i remember correctly goes back to the original Winamp dev team) is never going to match up. also without checking, i was under the impression that the encoder's defaults have changed over time time to better fit with more of the 'preferred' options even if it's still based on the -preset method.

then again if you don't like it, you don't have to use it and just use whatever actually fits with what you want to use / get the results you deem important smile.gif (plus i'm pretty sure the mp3 encoder is only available if you're a pro user...).

-daz

This post has been edited by DoctorO: Dec 16 2011, 00:32
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
krafty
post Dec 16 2011, 01:18
Post #307





Group: Members
Posts: 280
Joined: 20-March 10
Member No.: 79175



Is it a good time to encode with 3.99 or should I stick with 3.98...
Audibly both doesn't matter, but in matter of bugs and the new -V0 lowpass extended, does it make any sense?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dxiv
post Dec 16 2011, 08:35
Post #308





Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: 23-December 01
Member No.: 732



QUOTE (lvqcl @ Dec 15 2011, 14:49) *
I cannot see why such DLL is better for Winamp users. huh.gif

The INI-driven DLL wasn't invented just for Winamp users. Other rippers/encoders used to offer less than satisfactory control over LAME's options, older PlexTools for one.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
john33
post Dec 16 2011, 10:33
Post #309


xcLame and OggDropXPd Developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 3761
Joined: 30-September 01
From: Bracknell, UK
Member No.: 111



QUOTE (dxiv @ Dec 16 2011, 07:35) *
QUOTE (lvqcl @ Dec 15 2011, 14:49) *
I cannot see why such DLL is better for Winamp users. huh.gif

The INI-driven DLL wasn't invented just for Winamp users. Other rippers/encoders used to offer less than satisfactory control over LAME's options, older PlexTools for one.

Actually, I did it originally for older versions of CDex, but any software that uses the old .dll can take advantage of it. wink.gif


--------------------
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
My compiles and utilities are at http://www.rarewares.org/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SnakeSnoke
post Dec 18 2011, 13:25
Post #310





Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 18-February 03
Member No.: 5054



Hi,

not sure where to post this. I just encoded a 32000Hz wav file with foobar and LAME 3.99.3 64bit (from rarewares) with the setting "-V 5". For the result mp3 file Foobar says: Codec Profile: MP3 VBR V3 (132kbps)

I didn't make any more tests.

Something is wrong here, I guess.

This post has been edited by SnakeSnoke: Dec 18 2011, 13:28
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
halb27
post Dec 18 2011, 14:11
Post #311





Group: Members
Posts: 2439
Joined: 9-October 05
From: Dormagen, Germany
Member No.: 25015



I ran upon this phenomenon while working on 3.99.3x.
-V level is remapped when using 32 kHz sampling frequency. It's a feature.
It would be better of cause if the user demanded -V level would be used to compute the quality item within the Lame tags which tools like foobar use for recalculating the -V level (the -V level isn't stored directly in the mp3 file).

If this is something that bothers you, you can use 3.99.3x where I fixed this. When using 3.99.3x with the usual -V n 3.99.3x works exactly like 3.99.3 does.


--------------------
lame3100m -V1 --insane-factor 0.75
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lvqcl
post Dec 18 2011, 14:28
Post #312





Group: Developer
Posts: 3435
Joined: 2-December 07
Member No.: 49183



test32.wav is a 32kHz test file;

lame.exe -V 5 test32.wav => 118.6 kbps

lame.exe --resample 32 -V 5 test32.wav => 102.4 kbps


There is no difference between "-V 5" and "-V 5 --resample 44" for files with 44 kHz samplerate.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
exx
post Dec 19 2011, 00:30
Post #313





Group: Members
Posts: 3
Joined: 9-October 11
Member No.: 94241



Posted in the old 3.98 topic; might as well post here again.smile.gif


Was using dbPowerAmp (which uses LAME) to convert some FLAC for my ipod and noticed it wasn't using my CPU to its full potential.

http://i.imgur.com/Kv9bR.png

Only goes up to ~15% per process (max would be 25%). Total encoding speed was around 120-130x, which is much slower than normal. I was doing the same thing yesterday and all 4 cores were maxed. I don't have anything running in the background. Could it be a HD speed issue? The input and output paths were on the same drive, but it's a WD Black so it's not terribly slow, and I didn't hear any drive noise.
Update: have since tried writing to a RAM disk as well as a different drive than the source; it goes a bit faster, but I still can't reliably max out each core. I feel as if there is wasted potential here. The CPU will often be maxed at the start of the batch, but drop off soon after.

Any ideas?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
d_headshot
post Dec 21 2011, 04:15
Post #314





Group: Members
Posts: 195
Joined: 28-September 08
Member No.: 58729



What's the deal with the lowpass filter? Is it on both v3.98 and 3.99? Has anyone viewed the frequency spectrum of two files at the same quality setting?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
antman
post Jan 2 2012, 04:29
Post #315





Group: Members
Posts: 103
Joined: 3-January 07
From: Texas
Member No.: 39241



My observations:

1. My library with 3.98 V0 clocked in at 35GB, with 3.99 V0 it's at 36.8GB.

2. Usually something NIN or metal is highest encoded song in my collection, with 3.99, it's Nirvana - From the Muddy Banks of the Wishkah - 08 - Sliver @ 307kbps (?!).

3. In Windows Explorer (WinXP) when I highlight over that song, and all 3.99 encodes for that matter, the bitrate comes up at 656kbps.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
DARcode
post Jan 3 2012, 11:59
Post #316





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 682
Joined: 10-January 05
From: Italy
Member No.: 18968



As mentioned a bitrate increase is to be expected, and I subscribe to shadowking's take on the matter here http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....st&p=769219.


--------------------
WavPack 4.70.0 -b384hx6cmv/qaac 2.43 -V 100
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
apodtele
post Jan 3 2012, 17:11
Post #317





Group: Members
Posts: 39
Joined: 16-November 11
Member No.: 95199



QUOTE (DARcode @ Jan 3 2012, 05:59) *
As mentioned a bitrate increase is to be expected, and I subscribe to shadowking's take on the matter here http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....st&p=769219.


I did not get this. If you equate VBR V3 from 2011 and CBR 256kbps from 2000, that's a big big progress. Just compare the file sizes and bitrates.

To V0 people: If you are so paranoid about the quality, stop complaining about the size.

This post has been edited by apodtele: Jan 3 2012, 17:12
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Jan 3 2012, 17:20
Post #318





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10249
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



QUOTE (d_headshot @ Dec 20 2011, 19:15) *
What's the deal with the lowpass filter? Is it on both v3.98 and 3.99? Has anyone viewed the frequency spectrum of two files at the same quality setting?

Are you suggesting that there is a difference that you can actually hear and it has gotten worse with the new version?

If not then I fail to see why this matters!

This post has been edited by greynol: Jan 3 2012, 17:21


--------------------
Your eyes cannot hear.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
d_headshot
post Jan 3 2012, 22:41
Post #319





Group: Members
Posts: 195
Joined: 28-September 08
Member No.: 58729



QUOTE (greynol @ Jan 3 2012, 10:20) *
QUOTE (d_headshot @ Dec 20 2011, 19:15) *
What's the deal with the lowpass filter? Is it on both v3.98 and 3.99? Has anyone viewed the frequency spectrum of two files at the same quality setting?

Are you suggesting that there is a difference that you can actually hear and it has gotten worse with the new version?

If not then I fail to see why this matters!


By George of course I'm not wink.gif

All versions of lame are transparent to me so I'm not concerned about any difference in sound. I'm just curious about it because I'm in engineering and people like me are interested in stuff like that lol.

This post has been edited by d_headshot: Jan 3 2012, 22:41
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
instaud
post Jan 8 2012, 14:11
Post #320





Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 14-July 09
Member No.: 71459



QUOTE (greynol @ Jan 3 2012, 18:20) *
If not then I fail to see why this matters!

As a reader who finds valuable information on this great board I have to say that the only posts distracting from the flow of information are your regular attempts to shove in reminders about TOS #8, even if it was not the typical "320kbps rulez" kind of post.

If you own thousands of CDs you try to inform yourself thoroughly before switching your encoder and reencode. Technical background information and details about the developer's motivation to change things in the code helps with that decision.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
naturfreak
post Jan 25 2012, 22:40
Post #321





Group: Members
Posts: 176
Joined: 16-October 03
Member No.: 9338



Update to Version 3.99.4 a few hours ago...

QUOTE
Changelog:
LAME 3.99.4 January 25 2012

* Robert Hegemann
o Fix for tracker item [ 3475581 ] lame crashes at .w64 input file
o Addressing things brought to attention by tracker item [ 3463197 ] 3.99.x problem WFED and PCST frames
+ WFED and PCST frames can now be added, to tag podcasts iTunes recognizes
+ USER frames are now supported
+ COMM frames can now have a description, when passed via --tv "COMM=description=full text"
+ possible divide-by-zero exception should be fixed
+ adding malformed user-defined-frames could result in abnormal program termination, fixed


This post has been edited by naturfreak: Jan 25 2012, 22:43
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
john33
post Jan 25 2012, 23:31
Post #322


xcLame and OggDropXPd Developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 3761
Joined: 30-September 01
From: Bracknell, UK
Member No.: 111



I have all the new compiles ready to go, but I am currently unable to access Rarewares FTP to update the site!! I have emailed Roberto to find out what's up and am awaiting a response.

Temporarily, they can be downloaded from here:

EDIT: Link removed - see below. smile.gif

but please don't pass the link around otherwise my ISP will hit on me for too much traffic!! wink.gif

I'll get them up on Rarewares as soon as I'm able.

This post has been edited by db1989: Jan 28 2012, 11:43
Reason for edit: Please stop unnecessarily full-quoting.


--------------------
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
My compiles and utilities are at http://www.rarewares.org/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
john33
post Jan 27 2012, 13:58
Post #323


xcLame and OggDropXPd Developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 3761
Joined: 30-September 01
From: Bracknell, UK
Member No.: 111



All compiles now available on Rarewares so the above link is removed. smile.gif


--------------------
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
My compiles and utilities are at http://www.rarewares.org/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
bbrabant
post Jan 28 2012, 10:53
Post #324





Group: Members
Posts: 44
Joined: 4-April 07
Member No.: 42201



QUOTE (john33 @ Jan 27 2012, 15:58) *
All compiles now available on Rarewares so the above link is removed. smile.gif


Thanks for the new Lame compiles but on my windows xp pc (32bit) I am unable to run these compiles. I had no problem running the previous compiles of Lame.
Do I need to install additional libraries ?

Greetz,

Ben
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
john33
post Jan 28 2012, 10:59
Post #325


xcLame and OggDropXPd Developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 3761
Joined: 30-September 01
From: Bracknell, UK
Member No.: 111



I don't believe there are any dependencies. These (32 bit compiles) were tested on Win 2000 Pro and worked fine. The compiler is unchanged. What error message do you get, if any?

I won't be able to reply further until Monday as I'm away now until then.

This post has been edited by db1989: Jan 28 2012, 11:44
Reason for edit: See post #323.


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

16 Pages V  « < 11 12 13 14 15 > » 
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: 23rd November 2014 - 08:24