IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >  
Closed TopicStart new topic
LAME 3.97 Stable, Progress Report Request
ChiGung
post May 7 2005, 22:24
Post #26





Group: Members
Posts: 439
Joined: 9-February 05
From: county down
Member No.: 19713



fwiw, this IChing looks auspicious...
QUOTE (http://flytrapinteractive.com/~complimentary/iching/)
The answer to the question, "should i expect lame 397 before august" is:

May 7, 105
19. Lin - Approach
          -- --
          -- --    above    K'un  The Receptive, Earth
          -- --
          -- --
          -----    below    Tui    The Joyous, Lake
          -----

    The Judgement
          Approach has supreme success.
          Perseverance furthers.
          When the eighth month comes,
          There will be misfortune.

    The Image
          The earth above the lake:
          The image of Approach.
          Thus the superior man is inexhaustible
          In his will to teach,
          And without limits
          In his tolerance and protection of the people.

    Changing Lines
          Changing yang at the bottom means:
          Joint approach. Perseverance brings good fortune.

          Changing yang in the second place means:
          Joint approach. Good fortune. Everything furthers.

          Changing yin in the third place means:
          Comfortable approach. Nothing that would further.
          If one is induced to grieve over it, One becomes free of blame.

          Changing yin in the fourth place means:
          Complete approach. No blame.

          Changing yin in the fifth place means:
          Wise approach. This is right for a great prince.Good fortune.

          Changing yin at the top means:
          Greathearted approach.
          Good fortune. No blame.


--------------------
no conscience > no custom
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
music_man_mpc
post May 7 2005, 23:17
Post #27





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



QUOTE (alfa156 @ May 7 2005, 12:56 PM)
when should we expect LAME 4.0?
*

Probably anytime between a month or two from now and next year. Beta testing should be coming along *fairly soon*, but I'm not sure exactly how long *fairly soon* is and I have absolutely no idea how long it will be in beta stage before we see a stable release.
QUOTE (alfa156 @ May 7 2005, 12:56 PM)
Any quality differences besides the speed?
*

Yes, the quality will be initially worse than recent 3.9X releases but LAME 4.0 should be capable of better quality than 3.9X in the long run. However it will probably need to be tuned considerably first I don't think anyone could reasonably estimate how long said tuning will take.
QUOTE (alfa156 @ May 7 2005, 12:56 PM)
When should we expect the LAME 3.97?
*

Also *fairly soon.* It could be released tomorrow, it could take another month or two. Your guess is as good as anyone's at this point.
QUOTE (alfa156 @ May 7 2005, 12:56 PM)
And when should we expect HO.org to update their recommended encoder?
*

As soon as 3.97 stable is released, this has been stated a number of times.


--------------------
gentoo ~amd64 + layman | ncmpcpp/mpd | wavpack + vorbis + lame
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Busemann
post May 7 2005, 23:58
Post #28





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



QUOTE (music_man_mpc @ May 7 2005, 02:17 PM)
As soon as 3.97 stable is released, this has been stated a number of times.
*


I might have missed the obvious, but why will 3.97 be recommended without any testing, while 3.96.1 which went through lots of thorough testing still isn't?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
guruboolez
post May 8 2005, 00:08
Post #29





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 3474
Joined: 7-November 01
From: Strasbourg (France)
Member No.: 420



I've counted the number of ABX tests I performed during january-march for 3.97 alphas : ~800. It corresponds to more than 10.000 ABX trials. Just look on the MP3-TECH forum.
Other people also posted positive tests for 3.97 alphas.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Gen912
post May 8 2005, 03:22
Post #30





Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 19-April 05
Member No.: 21560



QUOTE (Danimal @ May 7 2005, 03:50 PM)
...especially when the question you are asking has already been answered in the thread that is linked to by an earlier post in this one.
QUOTE (jaybeee @ May 6 2005, 05:31 PM)

Gabriel's post confirms that.
*

*



Ok, sorry. I must admit that I didn't read the post Jaybeee linked to before answering rjamorim.

Gabriels post he linked to, plus post #19 by Jean Luc and your post #20 answer my question below.


QUOTE (Gen912 @ May 7 2005, 07:14 AM)
QUOTE (rjamorim @ May 7 2005, 05:17 AM)

QUOTE (Gen912 @ May 7 2005, 12:05 AM)

Ok, let me rephrase my question:
Why is there work being done on  a 4.x version, when there isn't a stable/final release of 3.97 yet?
Does this have to do with different teams of developers?
*

To make things simple: Takehiro works on 4.0, Gabriel and Robert work on 3.x
So, yeah, you could consider them "different teams"
*


...why isn't Takehiro working on 3.97 together with Gabriel and Robert?
Or vice versa...., why not drop further developement of 3.97 and concentrate all efforts on 4.x?
*



In conclusion; I'm not in a hurry for a new version. I prefer developers taking their time to deliver quality than them getting rushed into delivering something nobody's really happy with.

Succes wished to the developers.


--------------------
I have no particular talent, I am merely inquisitive. Albert Einstein
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
schonenberg
post May 8 2005, 05:20
Post #31





Group: Banned
Posts: 133
Joined: 28-February 05
Member No.: 20225



QUOTE (Gen912 @ May 6 2005, 11:14 PM)
Maybe I'm getting on your nerves now (don't mean to) but, why isn't Takehiro working on 3.97 together with Gabriel and Robert?
Or vice versa...., why not drop further developement of 3.97 and concentrate all efforts on 4.x?
*


Why not read takehiro's posts:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....lluser&mid=2067

read the LAME4 TODO:
http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/lame...07-experimental

This post has been edited by schonenberg: May 8 2005, 05:27
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ShowsOn
post May 8 2005, 08:20
Post #32





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 369
Joined: 28-June 02
From: South Australia, AUSTRALIA
Member No.: 2421



I read part of the LAME4 Todo list, one of the points states this:

"90.
Use intensity stereo. This is a must-have for low bitrates, but if the
algorythm is very good it could also be used in every case."

Does that mean that a high quality VBR file (say -V 2) could use intensity stereo on low bitrate frames, in order improve the quality of those frames to keep the bit rate even lower?

The last to-do list item is to make LAME as fast as fast as FASTENC, exactly how fast is FASTENC compared with the LAME4 alphas?

How does the quality of FASTENC compare with 3.9x and 4 alpha?


--------------------
www.petitiononline.com/RHCPWBCD/petition.html
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
alfa156
post May 8 2005, 08:52
Post #33





Group: Members
Posts: 126
Joined: 19-December 02
From: Athens, Greece
Member No.: 4152



QUOTE (Busemann @ May 8 2005, 12:58 AM)
QUOTE (music_man_mpc @ May 7 2005, 02:17 PM)
As soon as 3.97 stable is released, this has been stated a number of times.
*


I might have missed the obvious, but why will 3.97 be recommended without any testing, while 3.96.1 which went through lots of thorough testing still isn't?
*



quality tests included of course...
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ChiGung
post May 8 2005, 15:02
Post #34





Group: Members
Posts: 439
Joined: 9-February 05
From: county down
Member No.: 19713



QUOTE (guruboolez @ May 8 2005, 12:08 AM)
I've counted the number of ABX tests I performed during january-march for 3.97 alphas : ~800. It corresponds to more than 10.000 ABX trials. Just look on the MP3-TECH forum.
Other people also posted positive tests for 3.97 alphas.

That is quite amazing - you deserve honours for that.
I was thinking the only way to get that volume of testing done, would
be to make an applet of the java abcx'er and collect surf-by responses.
To think that much testing has been done, just recently, by one person..

'more power to your elbow' guruboolez


--------------------
no conscience > no custom
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Gabriel
post May 8 2005, 16:55
Post #35


LAME developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 2950
Joined: 1-October 01
From: Nanterre, France
Member No.: 138



Some things can grab a lot of time, like job or moving to a new apartment. Some things can be problematic for developement, like DSL connection not yet restored due to recent moving...
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rjamorim
post May 8 2005, 17:32
Post #36


Rarewares admin


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



QUOTE (ShowsOn @ May 8 2005, 04:20 AM)
"90.
Use intensity stereo. This is a must-have for low bitrates, but if the
algorythm is very good it could also be used in every case."

Does that mean that a high quality VBR file (say -V 2) could use intensity stereo on low bitrate frames, in order improve the quality of those frames to keep the bit rate even lower?


It means a high quality VBR file could use intensity stereo in ALL frames.

QUOTE
The last to-do list item is to make LAME as fast as fast as FASTENC, exactly how fast is FASTENC compared with the LAME4 alphas?

How does the quality of FASTENC compare with 3.9x and 4 alpha?
*


It's nothing but a disservice to start doing these comparisions now, while 4 is barely past alpha stage.


--------------------
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
Madrigal
post May 8 2005, 19:02
Post #37





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



QUOTE (Gabriel @ May 8 2005, 10:55 AM)
Some things can grab a lot of time, like job or moving to a new apartment. Some things can be problematic for developement, like DSL connection not yet restored due to recent moving...
*
For the record, Gabriel, by starting this thread I certainly didn't mean to criticise or complain about your efforts. I realize you have a life away from LAME, and that development is a big, time-consuming, and sometimes apparently thankless job. I had no idea you were in the middle of a move -- had I known, I would probably not have started this thread.

Thank you from the bottom of my heart for your labor of love, and all the hours of audio pleasure it has given me. I look forward to the day when we can all celebrate the release of a stable 3.97.

Once again, many thanks.

Regards,
Madrigal
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
callmeace
post May 10 2005, 00:06
Post #38





Group: Members
Posts: 54
Joined: 20-March 04
Member No.: 12869



QUOTE (Madrigal @ May 8 2005, 10:02 AM)
........Thank you from the bottom of my heart for your labor of love, and all the hours of audio pleasure it has given me......


That goes for me too Gabriel and all others that have put a lot of time and effort into the development of LAME. I've used it quite a bit directly - and I know LAME has been implememnted in other software which I have used also. I certainly appreciate it smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
IgorC
post May 10 2005, 01:33
Post #39





Group: Members
Posts: 1575
Joined: 3-January 05
From: ARG/RUS
Member No.: 18803



3.90 3.96 3.97 4.xx
Iīm not trying to say that LAME is dead. However is there really big difference between 3.90 and 3.97 or 4.00? May be here some optimization, tuning , etc. , rebuliding algoritms. But when I try to go a bit less bitrate VBR 121 kbit/s of 3.96 or
3.97 is getting worse(or in the best case the quality is igual) than 128 kbits 3.90.
So gain is small 128/121 = 1,057..... (5-6% for 4-5 years of LAMEīs develompent) (for me 3.90.3 is still best)
As I understand future new versions of LAME will provide more stability, optimization,speed, tuning etc, but quality gain will be smallest. However there is cense to keep development of LAME , since MP3 is very popular audiocodec and wisely supported

This post has been edited by IgorC: May 10 2005, 02:18
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
beto
post May 10 2005, 02:39
Post #40





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 713
Joined: 8-July 04
From: Sao Paulo
Member No.: 15173



I really think you are trolling, but I'll give you another chance.

LAME 3.97 (3.96.1) is faster than the 3.90 branch. Recently guruboolez made several ABX tests and it was decided that 3.97, once stable, will be the new recommended version. There were improvements qualitywise (or, better saying there were no significant regressions).

As for LAME4 it is expected to be faster than the 3.9X series, but with lower quality in a first moment. This will be reverted when proper tuning is done.

Next time do some ABX testing before posting claims about quality like you did.

This post has been edited by beto: May 10 2005, 02:41


--------------------
http://volutabro.blogspot.com
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ShowsOn
post May 10 2005, 02:54
Post #41





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 369
Joined: 28-June 02
From: South Australia, AUSTRALIA
Member No.: 2421



QUOTE
It's nothing but a disservice to start doing these comparisions now, while 4 is barely past alpha stage

I wasn't expecting a detailed comparison, just a rough idea if that last goal on the todo list is close, or still a long way off.

Each stable version of LAME seems to be getting faster, where as FASTENC is a stationary a target. I've never used FASTENC so I have no idea exactly how fast it is.


What is the benefit of using intensity stereo on all frames? Is there somewhere that I can read more about the advantages of intensity stereo?

This post has been edited by ShowsOn: May 10 2005, 02:58


--------------------
www.petitiononline.com/RHCPWBCD/petition.html
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
westgroveg
post May 10 2005, 02:56
Post #42





Group: Members
Posts: 1236
Joined: 5-October 01
Member No.: 220



4.0 is a complete re-write of the LAME code & because they have the 3.x code to look at for mistakes & possible improvements I don't see why anyone would think 4.0 will produce lower quality audio than 3.x. I think 4.0 will be a HUGE improvement over yearly versions of LAME & make development & tweaks much easier.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
beto
post May 10 2005, 03:09
Post #43





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 713
Joined: 8-July 04
From: Sao Paulo
Member No.: 15173



QUOTE (westgroveg @ May 9 2005, 10:56 PM)
4.0 is a complete re-write of the LAME code & because they have the 3.x code to look at for mistakes & possible improvements I don't see why anyone would think 4.0 will produce lower quality audio than 3.x. I think 4.0 will be a HUGE improvement over yearly versions of LAME & make development & tweaks much easier.
*


I guess you misread my post. Of course it will be an improvement. But the fact of it being a complete rewrite of the code is likely to introduce new bugs IN A FIRST MOMENT.
You can read here to see that the main goal at this moment is not quality but remove obstacles on tweaking.


--------------------
http://volutabro.blogspot.com
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
IgorC
post May 10 2005, 03:09
Post #44





Group: Members
Posts: 1575
Joined: 3-January 05
From: ARG/RUS
Member No.: 18803



QUOTE (beto @ May 9 2005, 05:39 PM)
I really think you are trolling, but I'll give you another chance.

LAME 3.97 (3.96.1) is faster than the 3.90 branch. Recently guruboolez made several ABX tests and it was decided that 3.97, once stable, will be the new recommended version. There were improvements qualitywise (or, better saying there were no significant regressions).

As for LAME4 it is expected to be faster than the 3.9X series, but with lower quality in a first moment. This will be reverted when proper tuning is done.

Next time do some ABX testing before posting claims about quality like you did.
*


I donīt care about speed. 3.90.3 is still best for my ears. 3.96 seems to cut a bit much high freq. Sometimes Iīve tested 3.97 alpha 5 .... 10 , I liked alpha 5 and 6.
Itīs not about professional comparison or anything like that (not a numeric test).
Just IMHO, not your smile.gif . Here you canīt say me how to listen.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Danimal
post May 10 2005, 04:43
Post #45





Group: Members
Posts: 132
Joined: 16-June 03
From: Ohio
Member No.: 7209



QUOTE (IgorC @ May 9 2005, 09:09 PM)
QUOTE (beto @ May 9 2005, 05:39 PM)
I really think you are trolling, but I'll give you another chance.

LAME 3.97 (3.96.1) is faster than the 3.90 branch. Recently guruboolez made several ABX tests and it was decided that 3.97, once stable, will be the new recommended version. There were improvements qualitywise (or, better saying there were no significant regressions).

As for LAME4 it is expected to be faster than the 3.9X series, but with lower quality in a first moment. This will be reverted when proper tuning is done.

Next time do some ABX testing before posting claims about quality like you did.
*


I donīt care about speed. 3.90.3 is still best for my ears. 3.96 seems to cut a bit much high freq. Sometimes Iīve tested 3.97 alpha 5 .... 10 , I liked alpha 5 and 6.
Itīs not about professional comparison or anything like that (not a numeric test).
Just IMHO, not your smile.gif . Here you canīt say me how to listen.
*



He may not be able to tell you how to listen but the terms of service are quite specific as to what is required when you are talking here about what you claim you're hearing. Click on terms of service at the top and look at no. 8.

If 3.96 "Seems to cut a bit much high freq." as you claim, then you ought to be able to pick that out when doing a double blind test and post your abx results here. If you can't, then you are talking about placebo effect (you think that 3.96 cuts a bit too much high freq. because you either expect it to, or for any reason want it to). If you can identify this problem in a double blind test then you have found something that would be of value for the LAME devs to hear more about. If not, well the internet is full of places where uninformed speculation and opinions are the norm and welcomed with open arms. This particular forum isn't one of them.

The entire reason HA was started was that the leader of another forum had developed his own set of mp3 tunings and refused to stop recommending them even after the alt presets were shown to be better.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ChiGung
post May 10 2005, 05:10
Post #46





Group: Members
Posts: 439
Joined: 9-February 05
From: county down
Member No.: 19713



QUOTE (Danimal @ May 10 2005, 04:43 AM)
If 3.96 "Seems to cut a bit much high freq." as you claim, then you ought to be able to pick that out when doing a double blind test and post your abx results here.

Agreed hes talking nonsense, just doesnt realise yet, that doesnt go down well here wink.gif

About 397s release - I think it should be held back until 4.xx release. That way we can be sure to get the most tweaks Gabriel has left in him for it, and there will be a clear recommended version for 4xx to work towards.
Release 4xx after and lots of mistaken people will be 'upgrading' to it. -embrace their confusion release 4xx first happy.gif

This post has been edited by ChiGung: May 10 2005, 05:23


--------------------
no conscience > no custom
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
music_man_mpc
post May 10 2005, 10:25
Post #47





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



QUOTE (ChiGung @ May 9 2005, 08:10 PM)
Release 4xx after and lots of mistaken people will be 'upgrading' to it. -embrace their confusion release 4xx first  happy.gif
*

This sounds like a good point to me, I wonder how much longer LAME4 stable will take then LAME 3.97? Certainly if they're releases are less then a month apart this may well be worth looking into for the developers but I don't think 3.97 should be held back for any undue amount of time just for the sake of n00b confusion.


--------------------
gentoo ~amd64 + layman | ncmpcpp/mpd | wavpack + vorbis + lame
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Madrigal
post May 10 2005, 15:57
Post #48





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



QUOTE (ChiGung @ May 9 2005, 11:10 PM)
About 397s release - I think it should be held back until 4.xx release. That way we can be sure to get the most tweaks Gabriel has left in him for it, and there will be a clear recommended version for 4xx to work towards.
If I understand it correctly, the release of 3.97 has already been held back significantly, in order to yield a "clear recommended version" -- to that end, all needed tweaks will certainly be applied beforehand.

But to hold back 3.97 until 4.xx is ready for release seems just plain silly to me. 3.97 is slated to have a significant role in the ongoing saga of LAME, before the release of 4.xx, and the former should be released as soon as humanly possible so that we can all enjoy the benefits of it.

EDIT: @music_man_mpc -- Amen. 3.97 should NOT be held back for any undue amount of time, just for the sake of n00b confusion.

Regards,
Madrigal

This post has been edited by Madrigal: May 10 2005, 16:02
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
IgorC
post May 10 2005, 17:56
Post #49





Group: Members
Posts: 1575
Joined: 3-January 05
From: ARG/RUS
Member No.: 18803



Iīm not tending to troll. I read here http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....topic=30547&hl=. I analyzed the results of 3.90 , 3.96, 3.97alpha 5
There wasnīt single result which has shown wich is the best version. Also there are differnet settings play with it(q0, ABR,VBR etc even MP3gain) and different points of view how to test.
Iīll try to do some ABX test this week with a lot of samples not for change somebody īs opinion , but maybe mine own.

Where is 397alpha5? On rarewares thereīs only last alpha10.

This post has been edited by IgorC: May 10 2005, 17:58
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Madrigal
post May 10 2005, 18:07
Post #50





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



If you're not intending to troll, then you seem to be doing a pretty good job of it without intending to.

Have a nice day.

Regards,
Madrigal
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: 20th September 2014 - 06:07