IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

16 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
LAME 3.99 is out, 2012-02-28: version 3.99.5 has been released
no404error
post Oct 18 2011, 12:41
Post #26





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



QUOTE (john33 @ Oct 18 2011, 12:40) *
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

And once again

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

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

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
robert
post Oct 18 2011, 13:20
Post #27


LAME developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 789
Joined: 22-September 01
Member No.: 5



That's actually not a bug for the x64 compile, only a glitch in the display routine, nothing to worry about.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
markanini
post Oct 18 2011, 14:14
Post #28





Group: Members
Posts: 555
Joined: 22-December 03
From: Malmö, Sweden
Member No.: 10615



QUOTE (halb27 @ Oct 18 2011, 07:29) *
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.

Would this be recommended? My experiments with tones and filtered noise suggest I don't hear anything past 16kHz at sane levels. Which then bears the question: Should I use -Y switch or the lowpass switch?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
no404error
post Oct 18 2011, 15:22
Post #29





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



QUOTE (robert @ Oct 18 2011, 15:20) *
That's actually not a bug for the x64 compile, only a glitch in the display routine, nothing to worry about.

Bug, glitch, feature... Never mind, but it's looks like too lame xD
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
halb27
post Oct 18 2011, 17:00
Post #30





Group: Members
Posts: 2446
Joined: 9-October 05
From: Dormagen, Germany
Member No.: 25015



QUOTE (markanini @ Oct 18 2011, 14:14) *
QUOTE (halb27 @ Oct 18 2011, 07:29) *
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.
Would this be recommended? My experiments with tones and filtered noise suggest I don't hear anything past 16kHz at sane levels. Which then bears the question: Should I use -Y switch or the lowpass switch?

That's a question of taste. Both methods help. If you consider to use a high lowpass frequency > 17.5 kHz, -Y is expected to be more efficient. That's why it's automatically used internally with -V3 and below.
If you can allow for a lower limit frequency as it looks you can, I'd use a lowpass. I am very happy with using --lowpass 16.7.

This post has been edited by db1989: Oct 18 2011, 19:37
Reason for edit: fixing quote/attributions


--------------------
lame3100m -V1 --insane-factor 0.75
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
inrobert
post Oct 18 2011, 19:28
Post #31





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



QUOTE (john33 @ Oct 18 2011, 11:40) *
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

Thanks! Works well now.

This post has been edited by inrobert: Oct 18 2011, 19:28


--------------------
iRiver H10 20 GB - Rockbox
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Agent69
post Oct 18 2011, 20:01
Post #32





Group: Members
Posts: 192
Joined: 4-January 02
From: USA
Member No.: 912



QUOTE (john33 @ Oct 15 2011, 13:15) *
QUOTE (lvqcl @ Oct 15 2011, 18:07) *
http://lame.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/lam...ml/history.html

October 15 2011: 3.99 beta 1 becomes 3.99

And compiles are at Rarewares!! wink.gif


I just wanted to say thanks for providing these compiles John.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
punkrockdude
post Oct 18 2011, 21:22
Post #33





Group: Members
Posts: 267
Joined: 21-February 05
Member No.: 20022



John33: do you know why the x64 version does not work in Reaper x64 when your x86 compile works in Reaper x86? maybe difficult for you to answer if it is a Reaper issue. I have made a thread over at Reaper's forum as well. http://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?p=831811 . Regards.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
john33
post Oct 18 2011, 21:30
Post #34


xcLame and OggDropXPd Developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 3764
Joined: 30-September 01
From: Bracknell, UK
Member No.: 111



QUOTE (punkrockdude @ Oct 18 2011, 21:22) *
John33: do you know why the x64 version does not work in Reaper x64 when your x86 compile works in Reaper x86? maybe difficult for you to answer if it is a Reaper issue. I have made a thread over at Reaper's forum as well. http://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?p=831811 . Regards.

I'm afraid I have no idea as I don't even know what Reaper is!! wink.gif


--------------------
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
My compiles and utilities are at http://www.rarewares.org/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Steve Forte Rio
post Oct 18 2011, 21:41
Post #35





Group: Members
Posts: 474
Joined: 4-October 08
From: Ukraine
Member No.: 59301



Question for the LAME developer: may I ask you, what was a reason of rising the lowpass value (actually disabling it) for VBR V0 to the inaudible range (22100 Hz)?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lvqcl
post Oct 18 2011, 21:52
Post #36





Group: Developer
Posts: 3467
Joined: 2-December 07
Member No.: 49183



Apparently Reaper is a program that uses lame_enc.dll

The code from BladeMP3EncDLL:

CODE
typedef    unsigned long    HBE_STREAM;
typedef    HBE_STREAM    *PHBE_STREAM;
...
PHBE_STREAM phbeStream;
...
lame_global_flags* gfp = NULL;

// Init the global flags structure
gfp = lame_init();
*phbeStream = (HBE_STREAM)gfp;
...
lame_global_flags* gfp = (lame_global_flags*)hbeStream;


This code works only when sizeof (unsigned long) == sizeof(pointer).
(Or when the upper half of a pointer is 0. Maybe setting largeaddressaware=0 to Reaper executable should help)


QUOTE (punkrockdude @ Mar 8 2010, 02:20) *
This is in the change log of Reaper 3.35:
x64: now requires libmp3lame.dll or lame_enc64.dll (old x64 lame_enc.dll was broken)


IMHO 64-bit libmp3lame.dll is better than lame_encXX.

This post has been edited by lvqcl: Oct 18 2011, 22:09
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
punkrockdude
post Oct 18 2011, 22:23
Post #37





Group: Members
Posts: 267
Joined: 21-February 05
Member No.: 20022



lvqcl, thank you very much for the detailed reponse. DO you know where I can find the other dll using latest 3.99. I have only found lame_enc64.dll. Regards.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ShotCaller
post Oct 19 2011, 16:59
Post #38





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



QUOTE (Steve Forte Rio @ Oct 18 2011, 22:41) *
Question for the LAME developer: may I ask you, what was a reason of rising the lowpass value (actually disabling it) for VBR V0 to the inaudible range (22100 Hz)?


I'd be interested in hearing what the developers have to say about this as well. Are these high frequencies truly inaudible? Can their presence have an effect on the audible range?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lameboy
post Oct 20 2011, 15:19
Post #39





Group: Members
Posts: 47
Joined: 3-September 08
Member No.: 57866



For Mac-users there's a plugin available for XLD (scroll down to the download-section):

http://tmkk.pv.land.to/xld/index_e.html

Extract it to ~/Library/Application Support/XLD/PlugIns



--------------------
XLD // ALAC // OGG VORBIS
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kwanbis
post Oct 22 2011, 01:31
Post #40





Group: Developer (Donating)
Posts: 2390
Joined: 28-June 02
From: Argentina
Member No.: 2425



QUOTE (Steve Forte Rio @ Oct 18 2011, 20:41) *
Question for the LAME developer: may I ask you, what was a reason of rising the lowpass value (actually disabling it) for VBR V0 to the inaudible range (22100 Hz)?

I'll be interested on knowing too.


--------------------
MAREO: http://www.webearce.com.ar
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
IgorC
post Oct 22 2011, 09:00
Post #41





Group: Members
Posts: 1580
Joined: 3-January 05
From: ARG/RUS
Member No.: 18803



++
My guess is that it's something to do with pre echo handling.

This post has been edited by IgorC: Oct 22 2011, 09:01
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
krafty
post Oct 23 2011, 20:56
Post #42





Group: Members
Posts: 282
Joined: 20-March 10
Member No.: 79175



I too noticed that there is no lowpass using -V0.
Can this be to "compete" with iTunes which doesn't apply a lowpass with 256 kbps VBR setting anymore?
There may be people "feeling" more comfortable using AAC or OGG, than MP3 just because of this...

Any developer to explain this?

This post has been edited by krafty: Oct 23 2011, 20:59
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Gregory S. Chudo...
post Oct 24 2011, 20:53
Post #43





Group: Developer
Posts: 712
Joined: 2-October 08
From: Ottawa
Member No.: 59035



I'm using lame_enc.dll in CUETools, and have some problems with it's BladeEnc interface, for example it cannot write LAME header to files with Unicode paths, because beWriteInfoTag uses ASCII string.

lame_enc.dll also exposes alternative lame_* interface, and i was considering using it, but the .def file wasn't updated for a long time, so many of the functions are not available. It seems that Audacity has the same problem, so they use their own version of lame_enc.dll (http://lame1.buanzo.com.ar/) which exposes more functions, but there's only a 32-bit version there, and they also don't expose some important functions, such as lame_get_lametag_frame() and lame_set_VBR_quality().

John, would it be possible to make lame_enc.dll expose the full LAME API (like libmp3lame.dll)?

This post has been edited by Gregory S. Chudov: Oct 24 2011, 21:08


--------------------
CUETools 2.1.4
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lvqcl
post Oct 24 2011, 21:07
Post #44





Group: Developer
Posts: 3467
Joined: 2-December 07
Member No.: 49183



Why do you want to use lame_enc.dll, but not libmp3lame.dll?

( both x32 and x64 DLLs for LAME 3.98.4 are available at http://lame.bakerweb.biz/ )
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Gregory S. Chudo...
post Oct 24 2011, 21:13
Post #45





Group: Developer
Posts: 712
Joined: 2-October 08
From: Ottawa
Member No.: 59035



That would be the alternative, yes. But it still would be nice if people could use the builds from rarewares too. I wouldn't ask if blade_enc.dll was exposing _only_ BladeEnc API, but it does also expose some subset of LAME API, why not all of it? Such a .dll could probably work for all applications - EAC, Audacity, CUETools...

This post has been edited by Gregory S. Chudov: Oct 24 2011, 21:18


--------------------
CUETools 2.1.4
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
[JAZ]
post Oct 25 2011, 19:01
Post #46





Group: Members
Posts: 1797
Joined: 24-June 02
From: Catalunya(Spain)
Member No.: 2383



QUOTE (Gregory S. Chudov @ Oct 24 2011, 22:13) *
That would be the alternative, yes. But it still would be nice if people could use the builds from rarewares too. I wouldn't ask if blade_enc.dll was exposing _only_ BladeEnc API, but it does also expose some subset of LAME API, why not all of it? Such a .dll could probably work for all applications - EAC, Audacity, CUETools...


I'd say the answer is around the lines of why to use .mkv or .mp4 instead of .avi.

Remember that the API of blade_enc was defined more than 10 years ago. There was not even the concept of 64bits. (Aside of some Alpha stations and other types of supercomputers tongue.gif)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Frankie
post Oct 25 2011, 21:43
Post #47





Group: Members
Posts: 69
Joined: 14-June 03
Member No.: 7175



3.99 works fine but on my machine (Intel Dual Core E5300) runs ~12% slower then the latest 3.98 (both are from rarewares).
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Destroid
post Oct 26 2011, 11:28
Post #48





Group: Members
Posts: 555
Joined: 4-June 02
Member No.: 2220



I was about to post LAME 3.99 b1.2 test I ran compared to 3.98.4 that the newer LAME (at -V2) has better efficiency with tracks containing more mono data and that overall bit rate is the same if not more "flexible" for critical sounds. This was in light of my latest album release and wanted to analyze how lossy dealt with the tracks. I don't expect LAME 3.99 final to be too radically different.

Thanks LAME team and HA!


--------------------
"Something bothering you, Mister Spock?"
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Alex B
post Oct 26 2011, 13:19
Post #49





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



QUOTE (Alex B @ Oct 3 2011, 20:49) *
A quad-core AMD Phenom II, XP Pro 32-bit, foobar2000, four simultaneous encoding processes, -S -V2 --noreplaygain - %d, source: 25 various wave tracks.

3.98.4 (the main bundle from Rarewares)
Total encoding time: 0:40.922, 134.34x realtime

QUOTE (Alex B @ Oct 4 2011, 13:09) *
The 'icc-patcher' compile (x86):
Total encoding time: 0:51.359, 107.04x realtime

3.99 (the main bundle from Rarewares)
Total encoding time: 0:48.500, 113.35x realtime

The 3.99 release compile is yet again slightly faster than the last beta compile was, but 3.98.4 is still almost 20% faster on my machine. (I did my best to reproduce the earlier test conditions, run the test several times and picked the middle result.)


--------------------
http://listening-tests.freetzi.com
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lvqcl
post Oct 26 2011, 16:56
Post #50





Group: Developer
Posts: 3467
Joined: 2-December 07
Member No.: 49183



Results of "lame -S -V2 --noreplaygain test.wav nul" on Intel Core2: encoding time in seconds

Rarewares compiles:
x32: 148 s
x64: 116 s

My compiles (MSVS 2010, fast math + SSE enabled):
x32 NASM: 125 s
x32 SSE2: 135 s
x64 SSE2: 119 s

Also, Rarewares Lame 3.98.4:
x32: 130 s
x64: 144 s
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

16 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > » 
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: 21st December 2014 - 00:06