IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

9 Pages V  « < 2 3 4 5 6 > »   
Closed TopicStart new topic
lame 3.98.4, 3.99 alpha, 32- and 64-bit builds
robert
post Jun 8 2010, 10:58
Post #76


LAME developer


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



How much of a speed difference is there between 3.98.4 and 3.99.a10 ?

This post has been edited by robert: Jun 8 2010, 10:58
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
john33
post Jun 8 2010, 13:06
Post #77


xcLame and OggDropXPd Developer


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



On Q6600 systems @ 3.2GHz, 3.98.4 64bit runs at approx 37x and 32bit at approx 41x. With 3.99a10 the numbers are similar only reversed.


--------------------
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
My compiles and utilities are at http://www.rarewares.org/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
IgorC
post Oct 11 2010, 06:23
Post #78





Group: Members
Posts: 1553
Joined: 3-January 05
From: ARG/RUS
Member No.: 18803



john33,

I have a performance issue with 3.99a10 build from rarewares. It runs at half of speed comparing to 3.98.4 rarewares's build.
PC: AMD Turion II P540 http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/K10/AMD-Turi...540SGR23GM.html
Windows 7 32 bits.


Both build run equally fast at Intel PC.


tsnr's build 3.99a10 directly doesn't run.

This post has been edited by IgorC: Oct 11 2010, 06:28
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
john33
post Oct 11 2010, 13:25
Post #79


xcLame and OggDropXPd Developer


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



QUOTE (IgorC @ Oct 11 2010, 06:23) *
john33,

I have a performance issue with 3.99a10 build from rarewares. It runs at half of speed comparing to 3.98.4 rarewares's build.
PC: AMD Turion II P540 http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/K10/AMD-Turi...540SGR23GM.html
Windows 7 32 bits.


Both build run equally fast at Intel PC.


tsnr's build 3.99a10 directly doesn't run.

I'll take a look at this when I return home - I'm away at the moment, but it will probably not be until next week.


--------------------
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
My compiles and utilities are at http://www.rarewares.org/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
IgorC
post Oct 30 2010, 21:02
Post #80





Group: Members
Posts: 1553
Joined: 3-January 05
From: ARG/RUS
Member No.: 18803



If somebody experiences the slow encode with 3.99a on AMD here is lvqcl's compilation.
http://filekeeper.org/download/shared/lame_a10.rar
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lvqcl
post Oct 30 2010, 22:29
Post #81





Group: Developer
Posts: 3357
Joined: 2-December 07
Member No.: 49183



QUOTE (IgorC @ Oct 11 2010, 09:23) *
tsnr's build 3.99a10 directly doesn't run.


BTW: try to patch it with iccpatch utility (e.g. from here: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....74345&st=75 )
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
IgorC
post Oct 31 2010, 20:10
Post #82





Group: Members
Posts: 1553
Joined: 3-January 05
From: ARG/RUS
Member No.: 18803



Have tried with different versions of iccpatch (GUIed one too). Didn't work.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
IgorC
post Nov 20 2010, 05:53
Post #83





Group: Members
Posts: 1553
Joined: 3-January 05
From: ARG/RUS
Member No.: 18803



Some results for Windows 7 x64
CPU Turion II P540

LAME 3.99a10 (foobar converter, 2 cores)

Rarewares builds:
x64 - 47x
x32 - 24x

lvqcl's build http://filekeeper.org/download/shared/lame_a10.rar
x32 - 44-45x

tsnr build http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....st&p=708769
x64 - 42-43x
x32 - doesn't run.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
moozooh
post Dec 16 2010, 11:39
Post #84





Group: Members
Posts: 357
Joined: 22-September 04
From: Moscow
Member No.: 17192



Has anybody conducted any tests comparing the recent 3.99 alphas with 3.98.4? I'm lacking a proper equipment to test at the moment.


--------------------
Infrasonic Quartet + Sennheiser HD650 + Microlab Solo 2 mk3.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Fishman0919
post Jan 14 2011, 00:01
Post #85





Group: Members
Posts: 79
Joined: 18-December 03
Member No.: 10554



QUOTE (moozooh @ Dec 16 2010, 03:39) *
Has anybody conducted any tests comparing the recent 3.99 alphas with 3.98.4? I'm lacking a proper equipment to test at the moment.


I've run several test with Lame 3.98.4 and 3.99a10... as of right now both seem to produce the same file. I built both build with the same settings.

Here's a pic from both on the same file.





This post has been edited by Fishman0919: Jan 14 2011, 00:04
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Steve Forte Rio
post Jan 14 2011, 14:21
Post #86





Group: Members
Posts: 443
Joined: 4-October 08
From: Ukraine
Member No.: 59301



3.99a contains the new VBR mode which enables with --vbr-new key. In other modes the result will be the same as for lame 3.98.4
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Fishman0919
post Jan 14 2011, 19:32
Post #87





Group: Members
Posts: 79
Joined: 18-December 03
Member No.: 10554



QUOTE (Steve Forte Rio @ Jan 14 2011, 06:21) *
3.99a contains the new VBR mode which enables with --vbr-new key. In other modes the result will be the same as for lame 3.98.4


Sorry, yes, my bad... I don't use vbr-new because it make larger file using -V4 with 3.98.4 and 3.99a10.
Here are some shot of 3.97, 3.98.4 and 3.99a10 on the same file.







This post has been edited by Fishman0919: Jan 14 2011, 19:35
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Steve Forte Rio
post Jan 14 2011, 20:00
Post #88





Group: Members
Posts: 443
Joined: 4-October 08
From: Ukraine
Member No.: 59301



Hm, I see that bitrate distribution is different for two compiles:

Alpha 10 from here:
http://lame.bakerweb.biz/

and
QUOTE


--silent -V 2 --vbr-new --noreplaygain

bakerweb.biz - 216kbps avg
lvqcl's - 208 kbps avg

blink.gif

This post has been edited by Steve Forte Rio: Jan 14 2011, 20:01
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Fishman0919
post Jan 14 2011, 20:32
Post #89





Group: Members
Posts: 79
Joined: 18-December 03
Member No.: 10554



QUOTE (Steve Forte Rio @ Jan 14 2011, 12:00) *
Hm, I see that bitrate distribution is different for two compiles:

Alpha 10 from here:
http://lame.bakerweb.biz/

and
QUOTE


--silent -V 2 --vbr-new --noreplaygain

bakerweb.biz - 216kbps avg
lvqcl's - 208 kbps avg

blink.gif



Yes, different compiles produce different file.

My MVS VC9 Build


My MinGW Build


Bakerweb Build


Rareware Build


This post has been edited by Fishman0919: Jan 14 2011, 21:12
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Fishman0919
post Jan 14 2011, 21:59
Post #90





Group: Members
Posts: 79
Joined: 18-December 03
Member No.: 10554



4 Different builds. Same file using "lame.exe --noreplaygain -V 4 test.wav test.mp3"

Rareware Build


My MVS VC9 Build


Bakerweb Build


My MinGW Build


This post has been edited by Fishman0919: Jan 14 2011, 22:20
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Fishman0919
post Jan 14 2011, 22:36
Post #91





Group: Members
Posts: 79
Joined: 18-December 03
Member No.: 10554



Same file using -V2.

Rareware, My MSV VC9, Bakerweb, My MinGW build

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Steve Forte Rio
post Jan 14 2011, 22:46
Post #92





Group: Members
Posts: 443
Joined: 4-October 08
From: Ukraine
Member No.: 59301



QUOTE
Yes, different compiles produce different file.


But why??

This post has been edited by Steve Forte Rio: Jan 14 2011, 22:46
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Fishman0919
post Jan 14 2011, 23:10
Post #93





Group: Members
Posts: 79
Joined: 18-December 03
Member No.: 10554



QUOTE (Steve Forte Rio @ Jan 14 2011, 14:46) *
QUOTE
Yes, different compiles produce different file.


But why??


Different Libraries used in compilers, diff settings used when compiling, diff compilers... which boils down to in the end, different rounding of numbers.

Though not sure why vbr-old doesn't differ so much(same bitrate size, a few different bitrates here and there) as where vbr-new differs alot in bitrate size between compiles with 3.99a10

This post has been edited by Fishman0919: Jan 14 2011, 23:45
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Steve Forte Rio
post Jan 15 2011, 13:25
Post #94





Group: Members
Posts: 443
Joined: 4-October 08
From: Ukraine
Member No.: 59301



So, now I must ask: which is the best? Of course, in terms of quality

This post has been edited by Steve Forte Rio: Jan 15 2011, 13:26
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Fishman0919
post Jan 16 2011, 18:32
Post #95





Group: Members
Posts: 79
Joined: 18-December 03
Member No.: 10554



QUOTE (Steve Forte Rio @ Jan 15 2011, 05:25) *
So, now I must ask: which is the best? Of course, in terms of quality


That I can't answer... All of them I guess... I don't think there really is a BAD compiler for Final ver's of Lame.

Maybe robert or john33 could answer that better.

This post has been edited by Fishman0919: Jan 16 2011, 18:33
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
john33
post Jan 17 2011, 12:44
Post #96


xcLame and OggDropXPd Developer


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



QUOTE (Steve Forte Rio @ Jan 15 2011, 12:25) *
So, now I must ask: which is the best? Of course, in terms of quality

That question has been asked many times before and to the best of my knowledge no one has yet been able reliably to differentiate between the outputs from the encoders compiled with different compilers. So it's safe to say that you can use whichever takes your fancy. wink.gif


--------------------
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
My compiles and utilities are at http://www.rarewares.org/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Fishman0919
post Jan 26 2011, 07:58
Post #97





Group: Members
Posts: 79
Joined: 18-December 03
Member No.: 10554



Having an issue compiling Lame 3.98.4 or 3.99a10 with MSVS 2010... Lame 3.91-3.97 compiles fine.

Can compile Lame 3.98.4 and 3.99a10 fine with MSVS 2008.

Seems to be a linker option that is no longer valid but don't know where to start... any help would be appreciated.

QUOTE
Setting environment for using Microsoft Visual Studio 2010 x86 tools.

C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio 10.0\VC>cd lame3984

C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio 10.0\VC\lame3984>nmake -f Makefile.MSVC


Microsoft Program Maintenance Utility Version 10.00.30319.01
Copyright Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
building LAME featuring RH
+ ASM
+ MMX
using MS COMPILER
+ optimizing for Pentium II/III
+ using Single precision
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pass GTK=YES to build the frame analyzer. (requires installed GTK)
.
.
.
main.c
LINK : fatal error LNK1117: syntax error in option 'opt:NOWIN98'
NMAKE : fatal error U1077: '"C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio 10.0\VC\BI
N\link.EXE"' : return code '0x45d'
Stop.

C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio 10.0\VC\lame3984>


This post has been edited by Fishman0919: Jan 26 2011, 08:34
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
robert
post Jan 26 2011, 08:53
Post #98


LAME developer


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



Edit Makefile.MSVC and remove /opt:NOWIN98 around line 236.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Fishman0919
post Jan 26 2011, 16:32
Post #99





Group: Members
Posts: 79
Joined: 18-December 03
Member No.: 10554



QUOTE (robert @ Jan 26 2011, 00:53) *
Edit Makefile.MSVC and remove /opt:NOWIN98 around line 236.


Thank You
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Steve Forte Rio
post Jan 26 2011, 17:01
Post #100





Group: Members
Posts: 443
Joined: 4-October 08
From: Ukraine
Member No.: 59301



QUOTE (john33 @ Jan 17 2011, 09:44) *
QUOTE (Steve Forte Rio @ Jan 15 2011, 12:25) *
So, now I must ask: which is the best? Of course, in terms of quality

That question has been asked many times before and to the best of my knowledge no one has yet been able reliably to differentiate between the outputs from the encoders compiled with different compilers. So it's safe to say that you can use whichever takes your fancy. wink.gif


I asked the same question about different bitstream of 320 CBR encoded with two compiles. The difference between them was a small digital 1-bit noise. These could be the results of some processing optimizations.
But here we have different bitrates, and I think this is very strange and must affect quality.

Again:

john33 build - 191 kbps
tsnr (bakerweb.biz) - 185 kbps
lvqcl - 185 kbps

This post has been edited by Steve Forte Rio: Jan 26 2011, 17:21
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

9 Pages V  « < 2 3 4 5 6 > » 
Closed 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 August 2014 - 08:36