IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

5 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
LAME 3.97 beta recommendation, At last.
dev0
post Oct 4 2005, 09:00
Post #1





Group: Developer
Posts: 1679
Joined: 23-December 01
From: Germany
Member No.: 731



LAME 3.97beta is now the officially recommended LAME version and switching is recommended to everybody.

This recommendation marks the death of the 3.90.X branch of LAME and the --alt-presets (or --presets) developed and tuned by Dibrom with help of many original members of this site in late 2001 establishing "the most concise, well tuned, and most thought out MP3 quality "paradigm" at the time.

The --alt-presets are now being abandoned in favour of the more flexible -V settings.

Thanks go out to the LAME developers and the (few) members of this site, who helped testing recent LAME versions. An outstanding amount of that work has been done by Guruboolez, whom this community owes a lot for all the days and nights he spent testing and discussing.

The recommended settings thread already accomodates this anticipated change and should answer most questions about the new -V system and --vbr-new.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Maurits
post Oct 4 2005, 09:21
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 414
Joined: 30-September 05
From: London, Europe
Member No.: 24805



Congratulations!

Just one thing, isn't it time for it to finally lose it's beta status? It seems a bit odd (and confusing to less experienced users) to have a piece of software that has been declared safe and even highly recommended after rigorous testing and tuning by experts to have a beta status. The whole purpose of beta-status is being a warning actually. All mp3's made by this lame-build will show up in Encspot c.s. as being build by the beta version of an encoder...

Any idea when the developers might agree on removing the beta-tag?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Vietwoojagig
post Oct 4 2005, 09:27
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 248
Joined: 28-November 02
From: Germany, Trier
Member No.: 3916



QUOTE (dev0 @ Oct 4 2005, 09:00 AM)
LAME 3.97beta is now the officially recommended LAME version and switching is recommended to everybody.

This recommendation marks the death of the 3.90.X branch of LAME and the --alt-presets (or --presets) developed and tuned by Dibrom with help of many original members of this site in late 2001 establishing "the most concise, well tuned, and most thought out MP3 quality "paradigm" at the time.
*
A "beta" is the new recommended version? How will you tell in future anyone not to use beta versions until they are final?

To wait the one or two weeks until 3.97 is final was not possibe?
And what about the testing of the beta? An overview of tests that shows the improvements towards 3.96 and 3.90 would make me feel much better.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Lyx
post Oct 4 2005, 09:30
Post #4





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



Yay! It was about time....... back to reality, from now on.

edit: those who complain about beta-status obviously did not follow up on what happened in the recent months and weeks. Besides, a beta is not that bad..... i would begin to worry if it would be an alpha, but beta nowadays doesnt mean that much..... unless its foobar2000 ;-)

This post has been edited by Lyx: Oct 4 2005, 09:33


--------------------
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
guruboolez
post Oct 4 2005, 09:34
Post #5





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



QUOTE (Vietwoojagig @ Oct 4 2005, 09:27 AM)
A "beta" is  the new recommended version? How will you tell in future anyone not to use beta versions until they are final?
*

3.90 alpha was originally recommended, and nobody complained about it. The DON'T USE ALPHA/BETA attitude is very specific in recommendations (it didn't apply to 3.90, it still doesn't apply to mppenc, and nobody is worrying about using EAC which is/was/will be in alpha, pre-beta, sub-alpha or beta stage wink.gif )

This post has been edited by guruboolez: Oct 4 2005, 09:34
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Garf
post Oct 4 2005, 09:57
Post #6


Server Admin


Group: Admin
Posts: 4886
Joined: 24-September 01
Member No.: 13



http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=28125

Might want to update this?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Maurits
post Oct 4 2005, 09:58
Post #7





Group: Members
Posts: 414
Joined: 30-September 05
From: London, Europe
Member No.: 24805



QUOTE (Lyx @ Oct 4 2005, 10:30 AM)
edit: those who complain about beta-status obviously did not follow up on what happened in the recent months and weeks.
*

I know it's safe to use, I know it 'took' 12 beta-versions to get up to this point, I know why it should be recommended. I followed it's stages to reach this point.

The question is whether the name reflects this and whether it's wise to keep on calling it a beta when it's obviously safe to use. People who haven't followed it's development will have a choice between 3.90.3, 3.96.1 and 3.97beta, the 3.90.3 numbering-issue (with the code-fork) is hard enough as it is. We all want everyone to use this, not just frequent HA-visitors, don't we?

I am aware though that its up to the developers to decide, not to the people on HA making recommendations, it was merely a question as to when the word beta gets stripped...


EAC is a funny example but don't forget there are no non-betas to obtain of EAC whereas there are a lot of non-betas available for Lame, even the dreaded 3.93 is a non-beta!


This post has been edited by Maurits: Oct 4 2005, 10:02
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dev0
post Oct 4 2005, 10:14
Post #8





Group: Developer
Posts: 1679
Joined: 23-December 01
From: Germany
Member No.: 731



QUOTE (Garf @ Oct 4 2005, 09:57 AM)


Done.


--------------------
"To understand me, you'll have to swallow a world." Or maybe your words.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kritip
post Oct 4 2005, 11:46
Post #9





Group: Members
Posts: 531
Joined: 15-January 02
From: Warwickshire -- England
Member No.: 1036



Just curious how any why it suddenly became recommended, was there a disscussion between the mods in the background. Just wondering as it seemed to leap out of nowhere that it became recommended.

Kristian
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jaybeee
post Oct 4 2005, 12:20
Post #10





Group: Members
Posts: 410
Joined: 20-October 04
From: UK
Member No.: 17750



QUOTE (dev0 @ Oct 4 2005, 10:14 AM)
QUOTE (Garf @ Oct 4 2005, 09:57 AM)


Done.
*


@devo - the 'LAME Versions' updated date at the top of this post could also do with being updated.
Also, it would be useful, I think, to have dates alongside each of the LAME version updates. Is that possible or is that gonna be a hassle?

Thanks

This post has been edited by jaybeee: Oct 4 2005, 12:31


--------------------
http://www.health4ni.com/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
earphiler
post Oct 4 2005, 12:48
Post #11





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



Ha, I've been using LAME 3.97 for a while.

Alpha and Beta, but this is great news. 3.97 is faster, and results are really close in my opinion, with no quality loss and even smaller files.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Egor
post Oct 4 2005, 12:59
Post #12





Group: Members
Posts: 826
Joined: 29-September 04
Member No.: 17374



QUOTE (Maurits @ Oct 4 2005, 03:58 PM)
...
The question is whether the name reflects this and whether it's wise to keep on calling it a beta when it's obviously safe to use.
...

Probably it should be renamed to 'Release Candidate' or 'Technical Preview' not to confuse people. Descriptive wording would certainly result in increased attraction and therefore intense usage. (I assume the change of the recommended version was a measure to put release candidate to mass testing.)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
PoisonDan
post Oct 4 2005, 13:26
Post #13





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 678
Joined: 10-December 01
From: Belgium
Member No.: 622



QUOTE (kritip @ Oct 4 2005, 12:46 PM)
Just curious how any why it suddenly became recommended, was there a disscussion between the mods in the background. Just wondering as it seemed to leap out of nowhere that it became recommended.

Kristian
*

I beg your pardon? Could it be that you haven't been following HA much lately? IMO there was nothing "sudden" about it.


--------------------
Over thinking, over analyzing separates the body from the mind.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kritip
post Oct 4 2005, 13:31
Post #14





Group: Members
Posts: 531
Joined: 15-January 02
From: Warwickshire -- England
Member No.: 1036



QUOTE (PoisonDan @ Oct 4 2005, 01:26 PM)
QUOTE (kritip @ Oct 4 2005, 12:46 PM)
Just curious how any why it suddenly became recommended, was there a disscussion between the mods in the background. Just wondering as it seemed to leap out of nowhere that it became recommended.

Kristian
*

I beg your pardon? Could it be that you haven't been following HA much lately? IMO there was nothing "sudden" about it.
*



Of course I have been following the related threads closely, there has been lots of discussion over the new stickies, etc. But not much talk, that I noticed, about wether it should or should not be accepted? Maybe i have missed something, hence my question, but don't worry about it, I'm not overly fussed, just curious. It just seemed to me, like people were pre-empting its acceptance, by planning stickies, etc, and then suddenly, a new thread pops up, saying its not the recommended encoder.

Kristian
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
DigitalDictator
post Oct 4 2005, 13:57
Post #15





Group: Members
Posts: 313
Joined: 9-August 02
From: SoFo
Member No.: 3002



Then you know this would become the recommended version when it finally reached beta.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dev0
post Oct 4 2005, 14:05
Post #16





Group: Developer
Posts: 1679
Joined: 23-December 01
From: Germany
Member No.: 731



I can't find any earlier information, but I announced that 3.97 would become the recommended version once it's released in April 2005:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....ndpost&p=290263

Some members would consider waiting for the beta a delay rather than an decision out of nowhere.


--------------------
"To understand me, you'll have to swallow a world." Or maybe your words.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Lyx
post Oct 4 2005, 14:16
Post #17





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



QUOTE (kritip @ Oct 4 2005, 02:31 PM)
It just seemed to me, like people were pre-empting its acceptance, by planning stickies, etc, and then suddenly, a new thread pops up, saying its no(w) the recommended encoder.

Kristian
*

Umm, you really think multiple forums members would put that much effort and detailed planning into a *fictive* event?!? Wow, that would be incredible.... not even most real events on ha.org get that much care.


--------------------
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
KikeG
post Oct 4 2005, 14:18
Post #18


WinABX developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 1578
Joined: 1-October 01
Member No.: 137



Great work. Thanks to developers, testers, and all people involved, for the great amount of time and effort put into achieving this.

This post has been edited by KikeG: Oct 4 2005, 14:21
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Vietwoojagig
post Oct 4 2005, 14:42
Post #19





Group: Members
Posts: 248
Joined: 28-November 02
From: Germany, Trier
Member No.: 3916



QUOTE (guruboolez @ Oct 4 2005, 09:34 AM)
QUOTE (Vietwoojagig @ Oct 4 2005, 09:27 AM)
A "beta" is  the new recommended version? How will you tell in future anyone not to use beta versions until they are final?
*

3.90 alpha was originally recommended, and nobody complained about it. The DON'T USE ALPHA/BETA attitude is very specific in recommendations (it didn't apply to 3.90, it still doesn't apply to mppenc, and nobody is worrying about using EAC which is/was/will be in alpha, pre-beta, sub-alpha or beta stage wink.gif )
*



Sorry, but obviously I do have a different attitude on how to label different versions of software. I don't think we should make the worst examples to our model.

1. Alpha-Version: Early version of software. Feature-set not fixed. Features not complete. Bugs and errors possible and known. Accessible only by developers. Stability not guranteed.
2. Beta-Version: Feature-Set fixed. Bugs and errors possible and maybe not known. Assessable by Beta-testers. Stability unknown.
3. Gamma-Version/Release Candidate: Bugs and errors fixed. Available for publicity to find the latest unknown bugs and errors. Stable.
4. Final-Version: Latest bugs and errors fixed. Stable.
5. Patch-Version: Fixing of further bugs and errors. Stable.

If you think, that 3.97 has no bugs, than make it a final or a relase candidate. If you think it is a beta and has bugs, than do not recommend it.
Give me the reason, why you call it beta AND recommend it.

This post has been edited by Vietwoojagig: Oct 4 2005, 14:43
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Lyx
post Oct 4 2005, 14:52
Post #20





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



QUOTE (Vietwoojagig @ Oct 4 2005, 03:42 PM)
If you think, that 3.97 has no bugs

There is no software which has no bugs, except maybe a 64kb-app :)

QUOTE
...than make it a final or a relase candidate. If you think it is a beta and has bugs, than do not recommend it.
Give me the reason, why you call it beta AND recommend it.

Who is "you"? You, the lame-devs? You, the majority of ha.org-users who dont used the recommended version anymore? You, who took part in testing 3.97x? You, the ha.org-staff?

This post has been edited by Lyx: Oct 4 2005, 14:59


--------------------
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Vietwoojagig
post Oct 4 2005, 15:15
Post #21





Group: Members
Posts: 248
Joined: 28-November 02
From: Germany, Trier
Member No.: 3916



QUOTE (Lyx @ Oct 4 2005, 02:52 PM)
QUOTE (Vietwoojagig @ Oct 4 2005, 03:42 PM)
If you think, that 3.97 has no bugs

There is no software which has no bugs, except maybe a 64kb-app smile.gif
Yes I know. But you know that this is not the point, don't you?
QUOTE (Lyx @ Oct 4 2005, 02:52 PM)
QUOTE
...than make it a final or a relase candidate. If you think it is a beta and has bugs, than do not recommend it.
Give me the reason, why you call it beta AND recommend it.

Who is "you"? You, the lame-devs? You, the majority of ha.org-users who dont used the recommended version anymore? You, who took part in testing 3.97x? You, the ha.org-staff?
*

OK, let me try it that way:
It's all about trust and how this trust has been derived.
I am not able to judge the quality of the current version. So I have to trust someone who is able to do this.

Personally I trust the developers to make heavy testing and doing a great job.
So why shouldn't we accept their own reservations against their current version? They must have reasons, why they call it a Beta. Otherwise they would call it Release-Candidate or Final.

But maybe someone has asked, and the answer was: "We are planning to release in near future the final version and this version has no differences to the current beta because we couldn't find any more bugs and errors."
Who knows? But then I would shut my mouth and would not say any more word.

This post has been edited by Vietwoojagig: Oct 4 2005, 15:19
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Lyx
post Oct 4 2005, 15:29
Post #22





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



QUOTE (Vietwoojagig @ Oct 4 2005, 04:15 PM)
Personally I trust the developers to make heavy testing and doing a great job.
So why shouldn't we accept their own reservations against their current version?

Then the recommendet compiles and settings of ha.org are irrelevant to you. The lame developers AFAIK recommend to use the latest stable version - which is 3.96.1. Before that, they recommended 3.95, and so on. T

QUOTE (Vietwoojagig @ Oct 4 2005, 04:15 PM)
They must have reasons, why they call it a Beta. Otherwise they would call it Release-Candidate or Final.

Or maybe they simply have a few more improvements and ideas which they would like to try out. Or maybe they are currently short on time to do the finishing strokes. Or maybe........ it doesn't matter. Lame developers dont make the ha.org recommended settings - their input is taken into consideration and valued, but they are not responsible for the ha.org-recommended versions. Else you would not have had 3.90.3 for so long(if i remember right, the lame devs were quite dissatisfied with ha.orgs "conservative"-views). In the end, it doesnt matter...... all which matters are test-results and propabilities. And currently, its most probable that 3.97b1 is better than 3.90.3. That was already the case with 3.97alpha, and there was considerable pressure to make one of those alphas the recommended version...... but simply because of the word alpha - NOT because of the stability of the code - the recommendation was postponed.... just to get a more nice name.

By your logic, the person which is currently the most responsible for vorbis-improvement has never trusted his code - because his code never left beta-stage :) And this "beta"-code is now part of the "stable" vorbis version.

This post has been edited by Lyx: Oct 4 2005, 15:33


--------------------
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
t.g.deck
post Oct 4 2005, 15:31
Post #23





Group: Members
Posts: 103
Joined: 29-June 03
Member No.: 7464



Sometimes I doubt the usefulness of the whole 'alpha-beta-rc-final' naming convention. Many developers are just so much more scrupulos than others about naming their product 'final'. If I just think about XviD 1.0 for example which many people didn't use because of the 'beta-tag' although it had been clearly superior to the 'stable' version - while so many of us have been using beta-versions of Windows labeled 'final' for years...

No, I find it absolutely rectified that those dignified members and mods of the forum recommend a beta version that simply is better than the stable one. smile.gif

This post has been edited by t.g.deck: Oct 4 2005, 15:32
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Lyx
post Oct 4 2005, 15:59
Post #24





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



QUOTE (t.g.deck @ Oct 4 2005, 04:31 PM)
Sometimes I doubt the usefulness of the whole 'alpha-beta-rc-final' naming convention. Many developers are just so much more scrupulos than others about naming their product 'final'. If I just think about XviD 1.0 for example which many people didn't use because of the 'beta-tag' although it had been clearly superior to the 'stable' version - while so many of us have been using beta-versions of Windows labeled 'final' for years...

I guess the reason is not just different scales of "quality" but also conflicting interpretations: Some - at least subconsciously - equal "final/stable" to "done".... but what if the code is stable and good, but you dont consider it done yet? You could call it something like "preview" then...... but lame has never done "preview"-releases. Or you could just do a quick stable release, and another stable afterwards..... but lame is running out of version-number-space for 3.xx :-)

This post has been edited by Lyx: Oct 4 2005, 16:06


--------------------
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
guruboolez
post Oct 4 2005, 16:06
Post #25





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



From the current recommendation:

CODE
-V 0 --vbr-new  = --preset fast extreme  245      230260
-V 0            = --preset extreme       245      230260
-V 1 --vbr-new                           225      200250
-V 1                                     225      200250


May I suggest you to lower the minimal bitrate for -V0, which looks exagerated?
For classical music 230 kbps is a pretty high value (on average I obtained 221 kbps, with a minimal value corresponding to less than 180 kbps). 215...220 is more reasonable in my opinion.

See my table.

This post has been edited by guruboolez: Oct 4 2005, 16:07
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

5 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
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: 28th December 2014 - 12:55