IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

> Hydrogenaudio Forum Rules

- No Warez. This includes warez links, cracks and/or requests for help in getting illegal software or copyrighted music tracks!


- No Spamming or Trolling on the boards, this includes useless posts, trying to only increase post count or trying to deliberately create a flame war.


- No Hateful or Disrespectful posts. This includes: bashing, name-calling or insults directed at a board member.


- Click here for complete Hydrogenaudio Terms of Service

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >  
Closed TopicStart new topic
Which MP3 codec do you prefer?, LAME 3.90.3, 3.96.1, or something else?
Which MP3 codec do you prefer?
Which MP3 codec do you prefer?
LAME 3.90.3 [ 70 ] ** [19.94%]
LAME 3.96.1 [ 215 ] ** [61.25%]
yet another LAME version (please specify) [ 53 ] ** [15.10%]
another MP3 codec than LAME (please specify) [ 13 ] ** [3.70%]
Total Votes: 550
  
music_man_mpc
post Mar 11 2005, 08:27
Post #26





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 707
Joined: 20-July 03
From: Canada
Member No.: 7895



QUOTE (Acid Orange Juice @ Mar 10 2005, 11:01 PM)
I use Lame 3.96.1 for my personal use; but, from time to time for share some file with my friends I use the mp3 encoder from Audio Catalyst v2.0  tongue.gif  laugh.gif
*

Just out of curiosity:

Why would you use a different, and probably inferior, encoder for files that you give to your friends? Do you not like your friends? And BTW your avatar hurts my eyes.


--------------------
gentoo ~amd64 + layman | ncmpcpp/mpd | wavpack + vorbis + lame
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Synthetic Soul
post Mar 11 2005, 09:33
Post #27





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 4887
Joined: 12-August 04
From: Exeter, UK
Member No.: 16217



QUOTE (music_man_mpc @ Mar 11 2005, 07:27 AM)
And BTW your avatar hurts my eyes.

laugh.gif LMAO. I thought it was just me.

I just find it kinda freaky. I try to steer clear of Acid Orange Juice's posts if I can - if you get a few of those in a row it gives me the heebie-jeebies.

I think the Audiocatalyst thing just proves s/he is freaky. wink.gif


--------------------
I'm on a horse.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Polar
post Mar 11 2005, 11:45
Post #28





Group: Members
Posts: 266
Joined: 12-February 04
Member No.: 11970



QUOTE (Synthetic Soul @ Mar 8 2005, 12:33 UTC)
I agree that we need to compare the amount of feedback with other MP3-specific polls (and not a lossless poll).  I would personally hope for between 100 and 150 - considering the figures you quote, and the nature of the poll.

Thanks for the (offtopic) info re: the lossless poll.  5 weeks is a lot more acceptable.
*
There are those 100 votes you requested, in only 3.5 days wink.gif

Still surprised about 3.96.1's ascendancy though.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Synthetic Soul
post Mar 11 2005, 12:06
Post #29





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 4887
Joined: 12-August 04
From: Exeter, UK
Member No.: 16217



QUOTE (Polar @ Mar 11 2005, 10:45 AM)
There are those 100 votes you requested, in only 3.5 days wink.gif

Still surprised about 3.96.1's ascendancy though.

Damn, I was going to try to document the 100th vote. wink.gif

So, at 100 votes, we have:
  • 3.90.3 on 18 votes
  • 3.96.1 on 72 votes
  • Other LAME on 9 votes
  • Other codec on 1 vote
3.96.1 started off very well, probably because most of the initially interested parties had already outed themselves as 3.96.1 users. It was at over 80% for a while. More recently, 3.90.3 users have been speaking up, but it seems to have settled down to this 4:1 ratio.

You could say that 4 in 5 voting users don't use the recommended 3.90.3, or that 3 in 8 voting users don't use 3.96.1.

I hope that people continue to vote, to get the most accurate overview of the HA MP3 users.

Edit: clarified "voting users"

This post has been edited by Synthetic Soul: Mar 11 2005, 12:07


--------------------
I'm on a horse.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Acid Orange Juic...
post Mar 12 2005, 05:35
Post #30





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



QUOTE (Synthetic Soul @ Mar 11 2005, 02:33 AM)
I just find it kinda freaky.  I try to steer clear of Acid Orange Juice's posts if I can - if you get a few of those in a row it gives me the heebie-jeebies.

.................

For to be frank, I find his commentary very pathetic and childish.
I have a nephew of 12 years of age that is much more mature and respectful than you.

QUOTE (Synthetic Soul @ Mar 11 2005, 02:33 AM)
I think ... s/he is freaky.  wink.gif

I have the same opinion of you, as a result of this indiscreet and annoying commentary, of badly pleasure, product of your "creative mind" sick.gif .
From that moment (one month ago), I avoid to read any commentary of you, by to consider them of badly pleasure.

The difference between you and I is that I am discreet, and I did not say anything at that moment to not bother to anybody with my personal appreciation of your "incredible" commentary (including to you); but, however, you were unpolite and indiscreet in your appreciation (in the present moment with my commentary).

I recommend you that you thinks better before giving any imprudent commentary of badly pleasure. (as for example your present comment).

This post has been edited by Acid Orange Juice: Mar 12 2005, 07:05
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Acid Orange Juic...
post Mar 12 2005, 05:44
Post #31





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



QUOTE (music_man_mpc @ Mar 11 2005, 01:27 AM)
Why would you use a different, and probably inferior, encoder for files that you give to your friends?

That is not its problem... mad.gif

You would have to read very carefully this post before of to express an wrong opinion, and MAYBE you understand because I do not waste more my time making good mp3s with Lame for people who do not appreciate them. mad.gif

QUOTE (music_man_mpc @ Mar 11 2005, 01:27 AM)
Do you not like your friends?

I did not say this. You put words in my mouth that I have not said. mad.gif

QUOTE (music_man_mpc @ Mar 11 2005, 01:27 AM)
And BTW your avatar hurts my eyes.

I have the same opinion for your aggressive and unpolite commentary.

This post has been edited by Acid Orange Juice: Mar 12 2005, 08:26
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Brink
post Mar 12 2005, 07:33
Post #32





Group: Members
Posts: 139
Joined: 10-September 04
From: Brazil
Member No.: 16894



Acid, maybe Synthetic soul keeps away from your posts so he doesnt need to stare at your avatar. That's it. They are only saying that its ugly, and it is indeed.

Just a question, why do you use the codec from audio catalyst if its the worse thing to do? I think thats why they say you are freaky, a strange avatar with strange encoding behaviours.


--------------------
Alguém pare o mundo que eu quero descer!!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Synthetic Soul
post Mar 12 2005, 12:51
Post #33





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 4887
Joined: 12-August 04
From: Exeter, UK
Member No.: 16217



QUOTE (Acid Orange Juice @ Mar 12 2005, 04:35 AM)
I have the same opinion of you, as a result of this indiscreet and annoying commentary, of badly pleasure, product of your "creative mind" sick.gif .
From that moment (one month ago), I avoid to read any commentary of you, by to consider them of badly pleasure.

I apologise if my bad, and rather old, joke caused you offence. It certainly wasn't meant to be disrespectful.

I also apologise if my comments above offended you, as they appear to have. As Brink has tried to explain, my main comment was directed solely at your avitar, and in no way at yourself. They were also supposed to be light-hearted.

The final comment was supposed to be a joke, but it obviously fell flat. Even after reading your other post I still can't see why you encode using an inferior encoder for your friends - if they don't like LAME, let them get it somewhere else.

QUOTE (Acid Orange Juice @ Mar 12 2005, 04:35 AM)
The difference between you and I is that I am discreet

It appears that there are many more differences between us than that.


--------------------
I'm on a horse.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Synthetic Soul
post Mar 18 2005, 11:49
Post #34





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 4887
Joined: 12-August 04
From: Exeter, UK
Member No.: 16217



OK, it has been a week.

So, at 126 votes, we have:
  • 3.90.3 on 27 votes (22%)
  • 3.96.1 on 88 votes (70%)
  • Other LAME on 9 votes (7%)
  • Other codec on 2 votes (2%)
So still, four out of five voting MP3 users don't use the HA recommended version of Lame.

(I'm just trying to bump the thread to encourage users to vote, to get as accurate a vote as possible, and to document the results at various stages.)


Edit, 3/4hr later: See, I've already squeezed another two votes from your weary bones - that's more than we had all of yesterday! Just think what I could do if I posted here every hour! w00t.gif

This post has been edited by Synthetic Soul: Mar 18 2005, 12:39


--------------------
I'm on a horse.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ollie
post Mar 18 2005, 12:51
Post #35





Group: Members
Posts: 41
Joined: 29-August 04
Member No.: 16614



I use 3.96.1 mainly because i tried ABX'ing with quite a few samples on the type of music i listen to using the vbr new and the old version, and couldnt hear a difference. Havent really had much of a problem with them either.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Busemann
post Mar 18 2005, 17:04
Post #36





Group: Members
Posts: 730
Joined: 5-January 04
Member No.: 10970



3.96.1 for my mp3 needs. I think it's good to support ongoing development, and just the fact that 3.90.3 is "more tested" doesn't outweigh the other advantages to 3.96.1.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Supacon
post Mar 26 2005, 02:47
Post #37





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 543
Joined: 19-March 04
From: Alberta, Canada
Member No.: 12841



I generally just blindly use the newest codec, because I trust that the LAME development team, and the crowd here wouldn't allow an inferior codec get out. I'm guessing that may also be the case for many others here who voted for 3.96 series.

I'm not always willing to take the time to ABX and re-encode everything I rip. I would only do this when switching to an entirely different codec, perhaps. On the other hand, I am very thankful that there are many people around here that are willing to do this, because, providing that their tests are reliably conducted, it would save many other people a lot of time and effort.

BTW, Acid Orange Juice appears not to be a native english speaker, so perhaps he didn't get the idea that the previous comments were a joke. And as frightening as his avatar is, I do wonder where it came from. It looks vaguely familliar to me...

(Not that I don't look scary in my Avatar laugh.gif )
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jojo
post Mar 26 2005, 03:00
Post #38





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



when just considering LAME 3.96.1 and LAME 3.90.3 it's 77% : 23%

This post has been edited by Jojo: Mar 26 2005, 03:00


--------------------
--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
Synthetic Soul
post Mar 26 2005, 08:39
Post #39





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 4887
Joined: 12-August 04
From: Exeter, UK
Member No.: 16217



QUOTE (Jojo @ Mar 26 2005, 02:00 AM)
when just considering LAME 3.96.1 and LAME 3.90.3 it's 77% : 23%

Ah, you beat me to the bump. wink.gif

It does seem to be hovering around those percentages still.


--------------------
I'm on a horse.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Busemann
post Mar 26 2005, 12:01
Post #40





Group: Members
Posts: 730
Joined: 5-January 04
Member No.: 10970



QUOTE (Supacon @ Mar 25 2005, 05:47 PM)
I generally just blindly use the newest codec, because I trust that the LAME development team, and the crowd here wouldn't allow an inferior codec get out.  I'm guessing that may also be the case for many others here who voted for 3.96 series.
*


Many final releases have had issues, so using the latest just for the sake of it isn't a good idea imho.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Synthetic Soul
post Mar 27 2005, 22:05
Post #41





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 4887
Joined: 12-August 04
From: Exeter, UK
Member No.: 16217



QUOTE (Synthetic Soul @ Mar 8 2005, 12:33 PM)
I would personally hope for between 100 and 150 - considering the figures you quote, and the nature of the poll.

150 votes as of 22:00 BST 27 March 2005.

Cool.

Edit: Votes for 3.90.3 seem to have risen dramatically in the past day or so... (24%, 68%, 7%, 1%)

This post has been edited by Synthetic Soul: Mar 27 2005, 22:08


--------------------
I'm on a horse.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
k.eight.a
post Apr 9 2005, 12:25
Post #42





Group: Members
Posts: 434
Joined: 31-October 03
From: Europe, CZ
Member No.: 9571



QUOTE (music_man_mpc @ Mar 10 2005, 11:27 PM)
QUOTE (Acid Orange Juice @ Mar 10 2005, 11:01 PM)
I use Lame 3.96.1 for my personal use, but, from time to time for share some file with my friends I use the mp3 encoder from Audio Catalyst v2.0  tongue.gif  laugh.gif
Why would you use a different, and probably inferior, encoder for files that you give to your friends? Do you not like your friends?
Acid Orange Juice, can you explain us your strange behaviour with MP3 codecs used for your encoding and for your friends?

This post has been edited by k.eight.a: Apr 9 2005, 12:26


--------------------
Sorry for my poor English, I'm trying to get better... ;)
"The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled, was convincing the world he didn't exist."
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
servil
post Apr 9 2005, 16:47
Post #43





Group: Members
Posts: 18
Joined: 1-March 04
Member No.: 12396



greetings,

surprised me i didn't see a mention of FhG, is it dead for good? smile.gif
that might sound funny but i still find fhg better against lame, at least at bitrates < 200 i'm quite harder to distinguish fhg from original than lame (regardless of lame quality setting or preset which i use).
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jojo
post Apr 9 2005, 18:34
Post #44





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



QUOTE (servil @ Apr 9 2005, 07:47 AM)
that might sound funny but i still find fhg better against lame, at least at bitrates < 200 i'm quite harder to distinguish fhg from original than lame (regardless of lame quality setting or preset which i use).
*

you must be the only one then rolleyes.gif provide an ABX test or nobody wil take you seriously...and are you saying that you are able to tell the difference of LAME 200kbps encodings and the original? What setting did you use? Must have been a very bad one - or my guess is that you just suffer from the placebo effect...


--------------------
--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
Cool Dog
post Apr 20 2005, 04:55
Post #45





Group: Banned
Posts: 10
Joined: 19-April 05
Member No.: 21563



I add my vote in favor of Lame 3.96.1 smile.gif

3.96.1 is faster than 3.90.3 and for me both are transparent in --alt-preset standard setting; another interesting thing is that the average bitrate for the majority of my music is lower with 3.96.1 than with 3.90.3
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mathematician
post Jun 3 2005, 18:26
Post #46





Group: Members
Posts: 43
Joined: 25-May 05
Member No.: 22285



I had been using fraunhofer FastEnc for years, because I didn't know the true power of LAME.
I actually used 3.92 & 3.93 for some time, but it was CBR, and wan't much impressive.
Then I came to know about this forum, recommended ones, EAC etc.etc.
and finally I switched to Lame 3.90.3 Stable (as recommended by the administration)
But I have a lotta CDs to process, and hence I needed a stable ratio betn Speed & Quality.
After performing test on many songs I decided to switch to 3.96.1
(as I use --preset extreme, It's giving me Extreme Quality music and taking less time than its predecc.)
But I won't comment on actual quality of any of these releases since it's not allowed (TOS)


--------------------
"M"
Mathematician
Email: admin@mathematician.cjb.net
Website: mathematician.cjb.net
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
moozooh
post Jun 3 2005, 20:05
Post #47





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



QUOTE (mathematician @ Jun 3 2005, 08:26 PM)
But I won't comment on actual quality of any of these releases since it's not allowed (TOS)
*

It IS allowed and highly appreciated if only you manage to back it up by a solid proof like an ABX log. smile.gif


--------------------
Infrasonic Quartet + Sennheiser HD650 + Microlab Solo 2 mk3. 
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ckjnigel
post Jun 5 2005, 06:30
Post #48





Group: Members
Posts: 218
Joined: 12-October 01
Member No.: 278



4.0 tongue.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
zombiewerewolf
post Jun 5 2005, 09:06
Post #49





Group: Members
Posts: 119
Joined: 27-January 03
From: Perth, AU
Member No.: 4755



I use Fraunhofer IIS MPEG Audio Layer-3 ACM Codec 3.3.0.44 which is bundled in Windows Media Player 10 package. (I don't use WMP10 though, just extract the codec)
Usually use for .SPC, .PSF to .MP3 conversion with Winamp.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
amitpatel5000
post Aug 30 2005, 09:26
Post #50





Group: Members
Posts: 36
Joined: 30-August 05
Member No.: 24205



yet another lame version
3.97alpha


--------------------
Lame 3.97: -V2 --vbr-new
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: 29th July 2014 - 02:09