Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: LAME 4.0 alpha 6 (Read 47854 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

LAME 4.0 alpha 6

Reply #25 –
hehe! yeah its kind of hard to compare with two different settings  but, i'd be interested in your results when you re-test it

LAME 4.0 alpha 6

Reply #26 –
Quote
hehe! yeah its kind of hard to compare with two different settings   but, i'd be interested in your results when you re-test it


What are you talking about?

LAME 4.0 alpha 6

Reply #27 –
Quote
Quote
hehe! yeah its kind of hard to compare with two different settings   but, i'd be interested in your results when you re-test it


What are you talking about?

you said that its better to test with 2 of the same either both extreme or both standard than have two different bitrates tested. I just meant that its incomparible if you have two different settings to look at back to back so in other words ( i like to say that) i was agreeing

LAME 4.0 alpha 6

Reply #28 –
We need to petition Dibrom back for -alt preset tuning & tweaks once 4.0 is released  .

LAME 4.0 alpha 6

Reply #29 –
LAME 3.90 + LAME 3.94 + LAME 4 = LAME 5

How about creating another LAME 5 branch,
compile all three branches of LAME into one (3-in-one) B)

Remove all the quality string -q 0 to 9
and change it to

-fast      =  LAME 4
-med(ium)  =  LAME 3.94
-hi(gh)    =  LAME 3.90

must be kidding?
Quote
For High Quality backups:

Ripper: Christoph Schmelnik's Digital Audio Copy - WinDAC
- Analog, SB Live
- Normalize 100%

Encoder: Xing X3Enc
-128kbps
-ID3v2 tags

LAME 4.0 alpha 6

Reply #30 –
Long time not writing here, but it seems this is time to do so....

First, DO NOT COMPLAIN ABOUT LAME4. LAME4 IS COMPLETELY PRE ALPHA STAGE.

I am currently focussing on developping LAME4. I want LAME4 to be completely brand new encoder.
Gabriel is doing good job on official LAME 3.94 tuning and I only advise on some point for LAME3.94.

There were LAME4 alpha1-6. But all of them are completely experimental.

Still fatal bugs are arround (for some songs, it goes infinite loop or segmentation fault.)
Some switches(-k or so) are not tested at all.

VBR code is completely rewritten, based on vbr-new and vbr-old is removed. But there's still some bugs, rooms to improve speed, and so on. And, note that almost all the VBR presets are broken.

Psymodel is very optimized and fixed many odd "features"(not bug:p) based on nspsytune and gpsycho is removed. There's some room to improve, but I feel some barrier to improve. My "goal" is to build completely new psymodel. I am checking nspsytune2 code and I think it's hard but I can do.

Intensity stereo is "must" item before public testing, but it is completely new code and it takes long time to finish implementing.

ABR/CBR noise shaping code are almost finished. But bit resovoir code need to be tuning for short blocks and lower bitrate. This tuning will start after implementing i-stereo.

Assembler code from GoGo is "should" item before official LAME4 release. Currently no new asm-code are ported from GOGO. From this point of view, it is same since LAME3.9x.

Many many things are planned to do, and it takes long time to complete them.

And, Last of all, I repeat the caution.

LAME4 IS COMPLETELY PRE ALPHA STAGE.
LAME4 IS COMPLETELY PRE ALPHA STAGE.
LAME4 IS COMPLETELY PRE ALPHA STAGE.
May the source be with you! // Takehiro TOMINAGA

LAME 4.0 alpha 6

Reply #31 –
Quote
Intensity stereo is "must" item before public testing, but it is completely new code and it takes long time to finish implementing.


Here my alarm bell rang. Please make sure this doesn't destroy Dolby Surround (2) recordings/encodings. Though current Lame is not perfect in maintaining this, it does it in a decent manner. Or you could even tweak the new encoder to specifically take care of it, as most (really!) music is DS encoded!

LAME 4.0 alpha 6

Reply #32 –
Quote
Quote
Intensity stereo is "must" item before public testing, but it is completely new code and it takes long time to finish implementing.


Here my alarm bell rang. Please make sure this doesn't destroy Dolby Surround (2) recordings/encodings. Though current Lame is not perfect in maintaining this, it does it in a decent manner. Or you could even tweak the new encoder to specifically take care of it, as most (really!) music is DS encoded!

Don't worry.  The lack of intensity stereo is the main reason why fhg is better than lame at <128kbps. It'll be an additional feature and is not supposed to replace the other stereo modes.
Let's suppose that rain washes out a picnic. Who is feeling negative? The rain? Or YOU? What's causing the negative feeling? The rain or your reaction? - Anthony De Mello

LAME 4.0 alpha 6

Reply #33 –
Original Wave = Avril Lavigne - Sk8er Boi

Quote
E:\>lame4 --preset standard -Z -b 128 "t.wav" "lame4.mp3"
LAME version 4.0 MMX, 3DNow!(alpha 6, May  9 2003 16:14:24) (http://www.mp3dev
rg/)
CPU features: i387, MMX (ASM used), SIMD, SIMD2
Using polyphase lowpass  filter, transition band: 18671 Hz - 19205 Hz
Encoding t.wav to lame4.mp3
Encoding as 44.1 kHz VBR(q=3) j-stereo MPEG-1 Layer III (ca. 8.2x) qval=5
    Frame          |  CPU time/estim | REAL time/estim | play/CPU |    ETA
  7832/7835  (100%)|    0:29/    0:29|    0:29/    0:29|  6.9610x|    0:00
32 [  51] %
128 [ 261] %***
160 [ 331] %%***
192 [ 278] %***
224 [ 630] %********
256 [1373] %%%****************
320 [4911] %%%%%%************************************************************
average: 281.5 kbps  LR: 942 (12.02%)  MS: 6893 (87.98%)

E:\>lame394 --preset standard -Z -b 128 "t.wav" "lame394.mp3"
LAME version 3.94 MMX (alpha 13, Apr 20 2003 18:47:06) (http://www.mp3dev.org/
warning: alpha versions should be used for testing only
CPU features: i387, MMX (ASM used), SIMD, SIMD2
Using polyphase lowpass  filter, transition band: 18671 Hz - 19205 Hz
Encoding t.wav to lame394.mp3
Encoding as 44.1 kHz VBR(q=4) j-stereo MPEG-1 Layer III (ca. 10x) qval=3
    Frame          |  CPU time/estim | REAL time/estim | play/CPU |    ETA
  7832/7834  (100%)|    1:11/    1:11|    1:11/    1:11|  2.8740x|    0:00
32 [  53] %*
128 [  96] %*
160 [ 261] %%****
192 [1621] %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%***************
224 [3209] %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%**************************
256 [1749] %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%******************
320 [ 846] %%%%%%%%%%%*******
average: 230.3 kbps  LR: 4246 (54.19%)  MS: 3589 (45.81%)



E:\>lame --alt-preset standard "t.wav" "lame390.mp3"
LAME version 3.90.3 MMX  (http://www.mp3dev.org/)
CPU features: i387, MMX (ASM used), SIMD, SIMD2
Using polyphase lowpass  filter, transition band: 18671 Hz - 19205 Hz
Encoding t.wav to lame390.mp3
Encoding as 44.1 kHz VBR(q=2) j-stereo MPEG-1 Layer III (ca. 7.3x) qval=2
    Frame          |  CPU time/estim | REAL time/estim | play/CPU |    ETA
  7832/7835  (100%)|    0:52/    0:52|    0:52/    0:52|  3.8970x|    0:00
32 [  53] %*
128 [  65] %*
160 [ 230] %*****
192 [ 809] %%%%%%%%%**********
224 [1520] %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%**************
256 [2306] %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%******************
320 [2852] %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%*******************
average: 261.1 kbps  LR: 4863 (62.07%)  MS: 2972 (37.93%)

E:\>lame --alt-preset fast extreme -q 3 "t.wav" "lame390fastex.mp3"
LAME version 3.90.3 MMX  (http://www.mp3dev.org/)
CPU features: i387, MMX (ASM used), SIMD, SIMD2
Using polyphase lowpass  filter, transition band: 19383 Hz - 19916 Hz
Encoding t.wav to lame390fastex.mp3
Encoding as 44.1 kHz VBR(q=2) j-stereo MPEG-1 Layer III (ca. 7.3x) qval=3
    Frame          |  CPU time/estim | REAL time/estim | play/CPU |    ETA
  7832/7835  (100%)|    0:40/    0:40|    0:40/    0:40|  5.0869x|    0:00
32 [  53] %
128 [ 115] %**
160 [ 228] %****
192 [ 550] %%%%*******
224 [1237] %%%%%%%%%%%%%%*********
256 [2034] %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%**************
320 [3618] %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%****************
average: 269.8 kbps  LR: 5022 (64.10%)  MS: 2813 (35.90%)



my processor is P4 1.4 GHz

Summary

Quote
LAME              Settings         speed (X)      bitrate (kbps)     m/s stereo (%)
3.90.3            standard          3.897             261.1                  37.93
3.90.3            fast extreme    5.0869          269.8                  35.90
3.94.a14        standard          2.874             230.3                  45.81
4.a6               standard          6.961             281.5                  87.98
1.15r (MPC)     standard          9.12              181.1             
gt3b1 (OGG)    -q 5                 5.3846           189.6             


why there is no SSE2 opt.?????????
and too many j-s

LAME 4.0 alpha 6

Reply #34 –
Quote
The lack of intensity stereo is the main reason why fhg is better than lame at <128kbps.

GoGo 3 sounds better to me at lower bitrate when forced m/s is used............but GoGo has more "ring ring" effect while "hiss" on FhG

LAME 4.0 alpha 6

Reply #35 –
Quote
Original Wave = Avril Lavigne - Sk8er Boi

my processor is P4 1.4 GHz

Summary

Quote

LAME              Settings         speed (X)      bitrate (kbps)     m/s stereo (%)
3.90.3            standard          3.897             261.1                  37.93
3.90.3            fast extreme    5.0869          269.8                  35.90
3.94.a14        standard          2.874             230.3                  45.81
4.a6               standard          6.961             281.5                  87.98
1.15r (MPC)     standard          9.12              181.1             
gt3b1 (OGG)    -q 5                 5.3846           189.6             


why there is no SSE2 opt.?????????
and too many j-s 

Is your computer ok? My P4 2,533GHz 3.90.2 -aps (without -Z) runs on 4,5-5x and 4.00a6 speed was almost 6 times faster.

LAME 4.0 alpha 6

Reply #36 –
I ripped a few tracks with 3.90.3 and 4alpha6 and there were no obvious differences.  I'm sure in the morning I'll find some problem spots, but overall it was quite listenable.  I can't wait for stable builds.

LAME 4.0 alpha 6

Reply #37 –
Quote
why there is no SSE2 opt.?????????
and too many j-s

Maybe because, like Takehiro said, this is a pre-alpha, hence not feature complete or even stable.

LAME 4.0 alpha 6

Reply #38 –
Whoa that is a lot of stuff Takehiro is going to do, and if he is going to optimise Lame4 like Gogo, is it possible that it'll be faster to encode a CD in mp3 than to boot a computer? I'm looking forward to it!

LAME 4.0 alpha 6

Reply #39 –
It sounds reasonable even though it's a pre-alpha version and the speed is amazing! I can't believe people already cuttin' on it saying it's a regression in quality bla bla bla... hello?!

Interesting to hear that there's LOTS of improvements to be made! HEh he heh..! Takko, you da man!

LAME 4.0 alpha 6

Reply #40 –
Did a little more tinkering this morning. Some results...

Using --alt-preset extreme

Time to encode format mm:ss

4.0 alpha 6:

Time to encode - 1:41

File size - 15.479MB


3.93:

Time to encode - 1:22

File size - 11.294MB


3.90.2

Time to encode - 1:30

File size - 11.633MB



Using 192CBR


4.0 alpha 6:

Time to encode - 2:25

File size - 9.510MB


3.93:

Time to encode - 00:23

File size 9.510MB

3.90.2:

Time to encode - 00:22

File size - 9.510MB

Obviously this isn't very scientific, but it shows there are some areas where the older encoders have significant speed advantage over this alpha. And that should be expected at this point I'd think.

For just downright fast encoding, the fast addition when using the alt presets works pretty good. Kind of a personal thing I suppose.

I'm looking forward to seeing where this will go.

LAME 4.0 alpha 6

Reply #41 –
Quote
Is your computer ok? My P4 2,533GHz 3.90.2 -aps (without -Z) runs on 4,5-5x and 4.00a6 speed was almost 6 times faster.

3.90 with -Z is around 4x that's ok but  lame4 is twice faster only 6x

GoGo3      192 kbps mmx/3dnow    joint-stereo        ~34x
FhG fastenc mmjb 7.5  192 kbps      joint-stereo        ~20x

my machine ok? i'm using xp...  256mb pc800

LAME 4.0 alpha 6

Reply #42 –
Huh  stronger ringing with the ultimate commandline!!! Great improvement!

However, in Lame 4.0 --noshort command doesn't exist, so Bubblebath-II.0©®™ algorithm doesn't work at its full

EDIT: The ultimate commandline's purpose is to freak newbies so they avoid using r3mix-type commandlines (because the result is really catastrophic)

LAME 4.0 alpha 6

Reply #43 –
why don't LAME developers stop developing lame 3.9x and focus only on LAME 4?

LAME 4.0 alpha 6

Reply #44 –
Quote
Quote
Is your computer ok? My P4 2,533GHz 3.90.2 -aps (without -Z) runs on 4,5-5x and 4.00a6 speed was almost 6 times faster.

3.90 with -Z is around 4x that's ok but  lame4 is twice faster only 6x

lame4.00a6 is 6x faster than lame3.00.2 so encoding speed is around 27-29x speed from normal play speed.
I should be more acurate next time.

LAME 4.0 alpha 6

Reply #45 –
Quote
why don't LAME developers stop developing lame 3.9x and focus only on LAME 4?

You should read Takehiros last post. I think after Lame 3.94 final all Lame developers will begin to develope Lame 4. But this is just reading between the lines of Takehiros last post and all other posts in this  thread.

LAME 4.0 alpha 6

Reply #46 –
Judging from the time that has passed developing 3.94, developing 4.00 will take at least a year?
"There's nothing as pathetic as an aging hipster."

LAME 4.0 alpha 6

Reply #47 –
@John33:  Do you think you could give a quick explaination of how to get the code for this branch in CVS?

LAME 4.0 alpha 6

Reply #48 –
Quote
why don't LAME developers stop developing lame 3.9x and focus only on LAME 4?

I think the quality control of 3.9x is better.

Takehiro want to do something else (speed, new code) but the fine tuning psymodel in 3.9x will have some feedback and the result will become good pratice to improve LAME4.

Thanks Takehiro.
Hong Kong - International Joke Center (after 1997-06-30)

LAME 4.0 alpha 6

Reply #49 –
Why does this alpha score only 3.6X on my PIII@500 with a simple -b192, while 3.90.2 does about 6.8X?
3.6X is about the same encoding speed of ap CBR 192 (always with 4.0a6), which is about 2.8X with 3.90.2...