IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Closed TopicStart new topic
3.90.3 versus 3.96.1, ...it's not what it seems
earphiler
post Mar 6 2005, 05:05
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 168
Joined: 27-February 05
Member No.: 20208



Take the two LAME versions: 3.90.3 and 3.96.1

Now I'm not going to ask which has been more tested -- the answer is simple. However, I would like to know why you personally choose 3.90.3 or 3.96.1

To me, it makes no difference but I grabbed 3.96.1, I'm too lazy to switch back, no problems here, I'm not too paranoid, and newer just sounds cooler (not to say its better).

Others? I know this thread sounds rather peculiar laugh.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
smz
post Mar 6 2005, 05:08
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 601
Joined: 15-February 04
From: Venezia, Italia
Member No.: 12025



sounds like violating TOS#8, in this form...


--------------------
Sergio
Revox B150 + (JBL 4301B | Sennheiser HD430)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
earphiler
post Mar 6 2005, 05:14
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 168
Joined: 27-February 05
Member No.: 20208



this isn't violation of #8 as stated --

8. All members that put forth a statement concerning subjective sound quality, must -- to the best of their ability -- provide objective support for their claims. Acceptable means of support are double blind listening tests (ABX or ABC/HR) demonstrating that the member can discern a difference perceptually, together with a test sample to allow others to reproduce their findings. Graphs, non-blind listening tests, waveform difference comparisons, and so on, are not acceptable means of providing support.

I'm not asking for which is best and I'm not saying screw ABX test, all I'm asking is why you choose 3.90.3 or why you choose 3.96.1

I just want personal responses , that's all. If this seen as a violation in any way by the moderators -- apologies.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
smz
post Mar 6 2005, 05:23
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 601
Joined: 15-February 04
From: Venezia, Italia
Member No.: 12025



QUOTE (earphiler @ Mar 6 2005, 05:05 AM)
... and newer just sounds cooler (not to say its better).
*


3.96.1, anyway, because quality is adequate for my needs and it is faster.


--------------------
Sergio
Revox B150 + (JBL 4301B | Sennheiser HD430)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rjamorim
post Mar 6 2005, 06:09
Post #5


Rarewares admin


Group: Members
Posts: 7515
Joined: 30-September 01
From: Brazil
Member No.: 81



3.96.1. 3.90.3 is effete.


--------------------
Get up-to-date binaries of Lame, AAC, Vorbis and much more at RareWares:
http://www.rarewares.org
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
earphiler
post Mar 6 2005, 06:14
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 168
Joined: 27-February 05
Member No.: 20208



QUOTE (rjamorim @ Mar 6 2005, 12:09 AM)
3.96.1. 3.90.3 is effete.
*


is that a joke ? (not sure haha)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
p0wder
post Mar 6 2005, 08:24
Post #7





Group: Members
Posts: 347
Joined: 22-July 02
From: USA
Member No.: 2721



QUOTE (rjamorim @ Mar 5 2005, 10:09 PM)
3.96.1. 3.90.3 is effete.
*


Roberto your vocabulary is so copious I have to use the dictionary sometimes! biggrin.gif

My choice is 3.96.1.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
boojum
post Mar 6 2005, 08:50
Post #8





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 819
Joined: 8-November 02
From: Astoria, OR
Member No.: 3727



QUOTE (rjamorim @ Mar 5 2005, 09:09 PM)
3.96.1. 3.90.3 is effete.
*


Roberto! Your English is better than mine, and I am native-born. My Portuguese is just awful, too, other than feijoada. cool.gif


Way cool, buddy.


--------------------
Nov schmoz kapop.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
linus
post Mar 6 2005, 08:50
Post #9





Group: Members
Posts: 123
Joined: 10-April 04
Member No.: 13389



3.96.1
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Teqnilogik
post Mar 6 2005, 08:52
Post #10





Group: Members
Posts: 352
Joined: 25-January 04
From: USA
Member No.: 11500



3.96.1 here because its faster and there is no quality degradation to my ears using preset standard.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
VCSkier
post Mar 6 2005, 11:01
Post #11





Group: Members
Posts: 447
Joined: 26-January 05
From: LynchburgVA(US)
Member No.: 19325



wow! im suprised. ive been using 3.90.3, and probably still will, cause encoding speed isn't a factor to me, but i am going to at least reevaluate and take a second look at 3.96.1 (or 3.96b2) and see if i have been making the wrong decision... by the way, whats the difference between 3.96.1 and 3.96b2? of the two, which is generally *prefered*?


--------------------
a windows-free, linux user since 1/31/06.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Turing
post Mar 6 2005, 11:42
Post #12





Group: Banned
Posts: 28
Joined: 19-February 05
Member No.: 19982



QUOTE (VCSkier @ Mar 6 2005, 12:01 PM)
wow!  im suprised.  ive been using 3.90.3, and probably still will, cause encoding speed isn't a factor to me, but i am going to at least reevaluate and take a second look at 3.96.1 (or 3.96b2) and see if i have been making the wrong decision...  by the way, whats the difference between 3.96.1 and 3.96b2?  of the two, which is generally *prefered*?
*


3.96b2 is geek speek for version 3.96 beta 2 (second beta release). This should be close to 3.96.1 but I have not checked the change logs at sourceforge for the details.

3.96.1 is the latest official developer release (after the beta tests were considered completed). This version has been stable since July 2004. 3.96.1 is the current recommended stable version according to the folks who work on the program (see LAME at sourceforge).

There is also a 3.97alpha7 version in the works that should come out as 3.97 this year. Alpha versions are even more unstable than beta version and will cause your computer to explode and burn down your neighborhood (just kidding).
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
LadFromDownUnder
post Mar 6 2005, 11:46
Post #13





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 90
Joined: 30-July 03
From: New Zealand
Member No.: 8083



I switched from 3.90.3 to 3.96.1 for a bit, and noticed an easily discernable degradation when encoding some Strauss and some live Springsteen tracks (and I did ABX checks to confirm my suspicions). I've since switched back; I'm happy enough with the 3.90.3 encoding times. I used APS for both encoders.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Turing
post Mar 6 2005, 11:48
Post #14





Group: Banned
Posts: 28
Joined: 19-February 05
Member No.: 19982



QUOTE (LadFromDownUnder @ Mar 6 2005, 12:46 PM)
I switched from 3.90.3 to 3.96.1 for a bit, and noticed an easily discernable degradation when encoding some Strauss and some live Springsteen tracks (and I did ABX checks to confirm my suspicions).  I've since switched back; I'm happy enough with the 3.90.3 encoding times.  I used APS for both encoders.
*


What settings did you use? I suspect that 3.90.3 is better for some settings and 3.96.1 for others.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
LadFromDownUnder
post Mar 6 2005, 11:55
Post #15





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 90
Joined: 30-July 03
From: New Zealand
Member No.: 8083



QUOTE (Turing @ Mar 6 2005, 11:48 PM)
QUOTE (LadFromDownUnder @ Mar 6 2005, 12:46 PM)
I switched from 3.90.3 to 3.96.1 for a bit, and noticed an easily discernable degradation when encoding some Strauss and some live Springsteen tracks (and I did ABX checks to confirm my suspicions).  I've since switched back; I'm happy enough with the 3.90.3 encoding times.  I used APS for both encoders.
*


What settings did you use? I suspect that 3.90.3 is better for some settings and 3.96.1 for others.
*



I used "--preset standard" for both encoders.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jojo
post Mar 6 2005, 20:26
Post #16





Group: Members
Posts: 1361
Joined: 25-November 02
Member No.: 3873



another vote for LAME 3.96.1 . Overall, lower bitrates for --preset standard (in some cases 40kbps less) , faster encoding, more presets

This post has been edited by Jojo: Mar 6 2005, 20:28


--------------------
--alt-presets are there for a reason! These other switches DO NOT work better than it, trust me on this.
LAME + Joint Stereo doesn't destroy 'Stereo'
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Lyx
post Mar 6 2005, 20:44
Post #17





Group: Members
Posts: 3353
Joined: 6-July 03
From: Sachsen (DE)
Member No.: 7609



QUOTE (VCSkier @ Mar 6 2005, 12:01 PM)
wow!  im suprised.  ive been using 3.90.3, and probably still will, cause encoding speed isn't a factor to me, but i am going to at least reevaluate and take a second look at 3.96.1 (or 3.96b2) and see if i have been making the wrong decision...  by the way, whats the difference between 3.96.1 and 3.96b2?  of the two, which is generally *prefered*?
*

My proposal would be to stay with 3.90.3 and instead wait until 3.97 becomes stable - currently, it looks as if 3.97 when its finalized may offer more than just speed over 3.90.3 - or in other words, a more worthy update. That way, you will save yourself one update-step(you would then go 3.90.3 -> 3.97 final, instead of 3.90.3->3.96.1->3.97 )

Or in short: if you haven't yet changed to 3.96.1, then wait for 3.97 instead.

- Lyx


--------------------
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
AtaqueEG
post Mar 6 2005, 21:15
Post #18





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 1336
Joined: 18-November 01
From: Celaya, Guanajuato
Member No.: 478



QUOTE (rjamorim @ Mar 5 2005, 11:09 PM)
3.96.1. 3.90.3 is effete.
*


From Dictionary.com:
QUOTE
Marked by self-indulgence, triviality, or decadence


Wonderful.

I would have not dared to say it that way myself, though.
3.90.3 is nothing short of canonized around here.

I am using alpha 7. I have been getting used to the overnight transcodes from FLAC.
No much pain once you have you files properly tagged and encoded to lossless. You can try whatever encoder comes around when you feel like it.

I am still waiting for implementation of HE-AAC on the iPod, though, maybe then I could get some rest.


--------------------
I'm the one in the picture, sitting on a giant cabbage in Mexico, circa 1978.
Reseñas de Rock en Español: www.estadogeneral.com
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Acid Orange Juic...
post Mar 6 2005, 21:27
Post #19





Group: Banned
Posts: 69
Joined: 16-February 05
Member No.: 19879



QUOTE (Teqnilogik @ Mar 6 2005, 01:52 AM)
3.96.1 here because its faster and there is no quality degradation to my ears using preset standard.
*


exact situation for me.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Turing
post Mar 6 2005, 21:36
Post #20





Group: Banned
Posts: 28
Joined: 19-February 05
Member No.: 19982



QUOTE (Lyx @ Mar 6 2005, 09:44 PM)
QUOTE (VCSkier @ Mar 6 2005, 12:01 PM)
wow!  im suprised.  ive been using 3.90.3, and probably still will, cause encoding speed isn't a factor to me, but i am going to at least reevaluate and take a second look at 3.96.1 (or 3.96b2) and see if i have been making the wrong decision...  by the way, whats the difference between 3.96.1 and 3.96b2?  of the two, which is generally *prefered*?
*

My proposal would be to stay with 3.90.3 and instead wait until 3.97 becomes stable - currently, it looks as if 3.97 when its finalized may offer more than just speed over 3.90.3 - or in other words, a more worthy update. That way, you will save yourself one update-step(you would then go 3.90.3 -> 3.97 final, instead of 3.90.3->3.96.1->3.97 )

Or in short: if you haven't yet changed to 3.96.1, then wait for 3.97 instead.

- Lyx
*



Since 3.96b2 has not yet finished ABX testing, what is the basis for saying that 3.97 is better than either 3.96.1 or 3.90.3? This is not a hostile question, I just want to know.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Turing
post Mar 6 2005, 21:48
Post #21





Group: Banned
Posts: 28
Joined: 19-February 05
Member No.: 19982



QUOTE (AtaqueEG @ Mar 6 2005, 10:15 PM)
QUOTE (rjamorim @ Mar 5 2005, 11:09 PM)
3.96.1. 3.90.3 is effete.
*


From Dictionary.com:
QUOTE
Marked by self-indulgence, triviality, or decadence


3.90.3 is nothing short of canonized around here.

*



Interesting how if one were to recommended one version of software over another without ABX backup (e.g. 3.90.3 vs. 3.96.1) TOS rule #8 would be invoked by big brother. Yet this very sort of recommendation is unquestionable around here.

Who will watch the watchers?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Madrigal
post Mar 6 2005, 22:45
Post #22





Group: Members
Posts: 344
Joined: 8-December 01
From: Indiana, U.S.A.
Member No.: 608



3.96.1 -V1 --scale x.xxxx (as calculated by WaveGain).

Regards,
Madrigal
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Megaman
post Mar 6 2005, 23:06
Post #23





Group: Members
Posts: 148
Joined: 27-October 02
From: Buenos Aires
Member No.: 3626



From http://dictionary.reference.com

effete \eh-FEET; ih-\, adjective:
1. No longer capable of producing young; infertile; barren; sterile.
2. Exhausted of energy; incapable of efficient action; worn out.
3. Marked by self-indulgence or decadence; degenerate.
4. Overrefined; effeminate.


I consider 3.90.3 overrefined indeed smile.gif.

One could also say that 3.90.3 is "incapable of efficent action" if appropriate listening test were done, the results being 3.96.1 quality is equal or better than 3.90.3. Because speed is part of efficiency you know smile.gif.

95% of my MP3 encodings are 3.90.2/3.90.3. Nowadays I´m using 3.90.3 for the very rare MP3 encoding (generally for friends, don´t have a portable). Don´t care waiting for the extra time. Anyway for the highest efficiency I prefer vorbis.

This post has been edited by Megaman: Mar 6 2005, 23:08


--------------------
No se porqué
imaginé
que estabamos unidos
y me sentí mejor
pero aquí estoy
tan solo en la vida
que mejor me voy
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
AtaqueEG
post Mar 6 2005, 23:07
Post #24





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 1336
Joined: 18-November 01
From: Celaya, Guanajuato
Member No.: 478



QUOTE (Madrigal @ Mar 6 2005, 03:45 PM)
3.96.1 -V1 --scale x.xxxx (as calculated by WaveGain).

Regards,
Madrigal
*


V1? Isn't that a bit too much?


--------------------
I'm the one in the picture, sitting on a giant cabbage in Mexico, circa 1978.
Reseñas de Rock en Español: www.estadogeneral.com
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
earphiler
post Mar 7 2005, 00:45
Post #25





Group: Members
Posts: 168
Joined: 27-February 05
Member No.: 20208



I have to say I'm surprised. I would've thought nearly everyone would've said 3.90.3 because it has been more tested, and I stereotyped that you were all overly paranoid with mp3s. Guess not wink.gif You proved me wrong, and I'm glad you use 3.96.1 to try something else. I, too, am tired of beating a dead cow to death

and rjamorim -- very interesting bandwidth stats!

This post has been edited by earphiler: Mar 7 2005, 00:46
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
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: 22nd July 2014 - 16:15