IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

7 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
LAME 3.98 Final, 2008-07-04 23:09
Jebus
post Jul 4 2008, 22:29
Post #26





Group: Developer
Posts: 1326
Joined: 17-March 03
From: Calgary, AB
Member No.: 5541



QUOTE (Canar @ Jul 4 2008, 10:05) *
My congratulations to the LAME team on another awesome release!

I suppose now we're just one update away from 4.0? Or will the LAME team be humorous and release 3.100 instead? Find out next time on Hydrogenaudio!




I don't believe there is much (if any) activity on 4.0 anymore... at least there wasn't the last time I checked.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
john33
post Jul 4 2008, 22:38
Post #27


xcLame and OggDropXPd Developer


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



QUOTE (Jebus @ Jul 4 2008, 22:29) *
QUOTE (Canar @ Jul 4 2008, 10:05) *
My congratulations to the LAME team on another awesome release!

I suppose now we're just one update away from 4.0? Or will the LAME team be humorous and release 3.100 instead? Find out next time on Hydrogenaudio!




I don't believe there is much (if any) activity on 4.0 anymore... at least there wasn't the last time I checked.

There's been no activity for about 2 and a half years. I imagine Takehiro's life has gone in a different direction. wink.gif


--------------------
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
My compiles and utilities are at http://www.rarewares.org/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
DARcode
post Jul 4 2008, 23:13
Post #28





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 682
Joined: 10-January 05
From: Italy
Member No.: 18968



Many thanks an excellent new build devs, appreciated!

I've surely missed something in the MP3 forums, but what's the reason behind Gabriel's limited involvement with this release please?


--------------------
WavPack 4.70.0 -b384hx6cmv/qaac 2.43 -V 100
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
IgorC
post Jul 5 2008, 00:59
Post #29





Group: Members
Posts: 1581
Joined: 3-January 05
From: ARG/RUS
Member No.: 18803



QUOTE (Wombat @ Jul 4 2008, 13:41) *
Cool thing! Finaly smile.gif
Waiting for the first complaints about inreased bitrate at V2. My noise samples seem fine but higher in bitrate than older 3.98 betas i tested. Much higher than 3.97 for sure.

V5 as well. Now it isn't anymore 130-135 kbits but more close to 140 and higher.


QUOTE (DARcode @ Jul 4 2008, 19:13) *
I've surely missed something in the MP3 forums, but what's the reason behind Gabriel's limited involvement with this release please?

He's doing well on x264 project.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
IgorC
post Jul 5 2008, 08:05
Post #30





Group: Members
Posts: 1581
Joined: 3-January 05
From: ARG/RUS
Member No.: 18803



I made a fast ABC/HR test 3.97 vs 3.98 V5
I was enough compulsive but lame 3.97 benefits in most of the case. I don't pretend to anything. It is only personal and fast test.


Some observations:

3.98 has only 1 sample with score lower than 4.0 while 3.97 has 5 of such samples. 3.98 has more constant quality (less desviation)

There was some audible issue with 3.98 aplaud sample while 3.97 makes it better. http://ff123.net/samples/applaud00.flac

This post has been edited by IgorC: Jul 5 2008, 08:40
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
MatMaul
post Jul 5 2008, 14:49
Post #31





Group: Members
Posts: 6
Joined: 30-December 06
Member No.: 39125



do you use --vbr-new with lame 3.97 or the old vbr mode ?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
garym
post Jul 5 2008, 15:20
Post #32





Group: Members
Posts: 524
Joined: 16-September 06
From: United States
Member No.: 35261



What' the difference between using the "LAME 3.98 using libsndfile 1.0.17" versus the other bundle of LAME 3.98. I don't recall this option before. I simply use LAME encoder as called by EAC or fb2k. Thanks for any insight on this.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
hybridfan
post Jul 5 2008, 18:45
Post #33





Group: Members
Posts: 160
Joined: 11-July 03
From: UK
Member No.: 7707



Thanks LAME guys, will do some testing tonight, after I watch DR Who of course wink.gif


--------------------
:Foobar 2000:
:MPC --standard:
:iRiver H320 Rockboxed:
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
IgorC
post Jul 5 2008, 18:51
Post #34





Group: Members
Posts: 1581
Joined: 3-January 05
From: ARG/RUS
Member No.: 18803



QUOTE (MatMaul @ Jul 5 2008, 10:49) *
do you use --vbr-new with lame 3.97 or the old vbr mode ?

--vbr-new
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
halb27
post Jul 5 2008, 19:22
Post #35





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



QUOTE (IgorC @ Jul 5 2008, 09:05) *
...3.98 has only 1 sample with score lower than 4.0 while 3.97 has 5 of such samples. 3.98 has more constant quality (less desviation) ...

That's real progress IMO though your score differences aren't dramatic.


--------------------
lame3100m -V1 --insane-factor 0.75
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Canar
post Jul 5 2008, 19:29
Post #36





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 3373
Joined: 26-July 02
From: To:
Member No.: 2796



QUOTE (john33 @ Jul 4 2008, 14:38) *
There's been no activity for about 2 and a half years. I imagine Takehiro's life has gone in a different direction. wink.gif


Whoa. Shows how in-touch I keep these days... blush.gif


--------------------
You cannot ABX the rustling of jimmies.
No mouse? No problem.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
halb27
post Jul 5 2008, 20:54
Post #37





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



I just finished my first listening test.
With this I wanted to use a moderate bitrate where mp3 should be fine except for problem samples.
I will do a very high bitrate test later.

As a high quality moderate bitrate setting -V4, -V3 or -V2 are interesting settings and I decided to use -V3.

My most important test samples for such a setting are those which aren't specifically problematic, but with which I wasn't totally satisfied on occasion even with high bitrate mp3.
The samples I used:
  • Sandrine Kiberlain: La godiche
  • Camille: Là où je suis née
  • Smokie: Oh Carol
To make it short: I couldn't find any problem using -V3.

I continued with samples which I know they are a bit problematic for mp3, but of which I would expect of an mp3 encoder at such a quality setting to yield only a minor issue.
  • Wombat's sample Birds
  • herding_calls
  • trumpet
  • trumpet_myPrince
I abxed Birds 9/10, herding_calls 10/10, trumpet 10/10, trumpet_myPrince 8/10 - more or less as expected.
trumpet_myPrince is a minor issue, absolutely negligible. Not so clear to say so however for the other samples though the issues aren't very obvious.

I finished with samples where major issues have to be expected (and accepted) with a setting of -V3 due to mp3-intrinsic restricted temporal resolution:
  • castanets
  • harp40_1
  • eig
I abxed castanets 7/10, no need to abx harp and eig.
I'm personally totally satisfied with castanets, and to me eig too is encoded fine with this setting keeping in mind the extreme nature of this sample.
harp40_1 is the worst encoding among this group to me, the only sample among all I've tested I'd call really annoying. A non-subtle issue is to be expected though, harpsichord music can't be encoded with mp3, moderate bitrate, and high quality expectations.

For a comparison I also tested --abr 170 with part of the samples (Birds, castanets, eig, harp40_1, herding_calls, trumpet).
The result for Birds is clearly inferior to -V3.
I abxed castanets 10/10 though to me the quality is very good.
The eig result also is more obviously non-transparent than when using -V3 though it's still remarkable quality with respect to this sample.
The harp40_1 problem is very obvious though it's clearly better than -V3 to me.
Very bad is the ABR result of herding_calls: at second ~3.8 there's a gross error in the encoding which makes me wonder whether there is a real encoder bug when using ABR. With this result I didn't want to continue testing ABR.
I just tried trumpet for finishing up as this is a sample of special meaning to me. I abxed it 9/10, it's the same quality level to me as the -V3 result.

So for a moderate bitrate setting like -V3 it's better to use VBR than ABR, but I really wonder whether there's a real bug with ABR.

-V3 however works as expected: very good results for usual tracks, with more or less slight restrictions for tracks which are problematic to Lame (and other mp3 encoders).

This post has been edited by halb27: Jul 5 2008, 21:07


--------------------
lame3100m -V1 --insane-factor 0.75
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
/mnt
post Jul 5 2008, 23:01
Post #38





Group: Members
Posts: 697
Joined: 22-April 06
Member No.: 29877



QUOTE (IgorC @ Jul 5 2008, 08:05) *
I made a fast ABC/HR test 3.97 vs 3.98 V5
I was enough compulsive but lame 3.97 benefits in most of the case. I don't pretend to anything. It is only personal and fast test.


Some observations:

3.98 has only 1 sample with score lower than 4.0 while 3.97 has 5 of such samples. 3.98 has more constant quality (less desviation)

There was some audible issue with 3.98 aplaud sample while 3.97 makes it better. http://ff123.net/samples/applaud00.flac

Is the samples "Replica FF" and "HK FF" are from Fear Factory by any chance?

I know for some reason LAME can have trouble on their songs such as Linchpin, Replica, Back The F**k Up and am just wondering if there was a problem on HK aswell.

This post has been edited by /mnt: Jul 5 2008, 23:06


--------------------
"I never thought I'd see this much candy in one mission!"
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
IgorC
post Jul 6 2008, 00:11
Post #39





Group: Members
Posts: 1581
Joined: 3-January 05
From: ARG/RUS
Member No.: 18803



Yep, FF stands for Fear Factroy.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
/mnt
post Jul 6 2008, 00:25
Post #40





Group: Members
Posts: 697
Joined: 22-April 06
Member No.: 29877



QUOTE (IgorC @ Jul 6 2008, 00:11) *
Yep, FF stands for Fear Factroy.

I see, thanks for the response.

Am been wondering for a while, if I could hear a artifact on HK on my -V2 rip, but have not done a ABX test on it though atm and thought it was a placebo.


--------------------
"I never thought I'd see this much candy in one mission!"
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
k.eight.a
post Jul 6 2008, 01:40
Post #41





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



QUOTE (garym @ Jul 5 2008, 15:20) *
What' the difference between using the "LAME 3.98 using libsndfile 1.0.17" versus the other bundle of LAME 3.98. I don't recall this option before. I simply use LAME encoder as called by EAC or fb2k. Thanks for any insight on this.
I'd love to know it either. cool.gif

Anyway many thanks to the developers for the new version and a step forward. smile.gif


--------------------
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
IgorC
post Jul 6 2008, 02:15
Post #42





Group: Members
Posts: 1581
Joined: 3-January 05
From: ARG/RUS
Member No.: 18803



QUOTE (/mnt @ Jul 5 2008, 19:01) *
I know for some reason LAME can have trouble on their songs such as Linchpin, Replica, Back The F**k Up and am just wondering if there was a problem on HK aswell.

Particular reason to test on Fear Factory's cds that it's loud metal music with well recorded instruments especially drums (clicking double pedal, very clear and loud snare drum,hi-hat and cymbals as in HK ).
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
bilbo
post Jul 6 2008, 03:36
Post #43





Group: Members
Posts: 191
Joined: 16-April 07
Member No.: 42593



QUOTE (johnsonlam @ Jul 4 2008, 14:30) *
Thanks to all the developers!
Also krmathis's OSX port, when will LAMEdrop have OSX version wink.gif ?

LAMEdrop have OSX version is right after the version that supports FLAC images with cue.


--------------------
Glass half full!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
R.A.F.
post Jul 6 2008, 05:16
Post #44





Group: Members
Posts: 281
Joined: 4-August 02
From: Nuremberg/Bavaria
Member No.: 2924



On the whole, the bitrate-increase from V3.97 to 3.98 isn't that dramatic at all - at least with the most popular encoder-setting -V2 --vbr-new. The MP3-files are with V3.98 on average only about 4 % larger.

V3.97: 191 kbps
V3.98: 199 kbps = + 4,18 %.

Source:
Transcoded 6,893 FLAC-files (all kind of music, but mostly Rock + Pop) to LAME-MP3. Measured with MPEG-Audio-Collection V2.93.

This post has been edited by R.A.F.: Jul 6 2008, 05:44


--------------------
My used codecs and settings:
FLAC V1.1.2 -4 / APE V3.99 Update 4 -high / MPC V1.15v --q 5 / LAME V3.97b2 -V2 --vbr-new / OGG aoTuV V4.51 Lancer -q5
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Synthetic Soul
post Jul 6 2008, 09:53
Post #45





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



QUOTE (k.eight.a @ Jul 6 2008, 01:40) *
QUOTE (garym @ Jul 5 2008, 15:20) *
What' the difference between using the "LAME 3.98 using libsndfile 1.0.17" versus the other bundle of LAME 3.98. I don't recall this option before. I simply use LAME encoder as called by EAC or fb2k. Thanks for any insight on this.
I'd love to know it either. cool.gif
This option was present with 3.97 also (and presumably previous versions). Lame with libsndfile allows you to encode from numerous additional formats, including AIFF, SND, VOC, and FLAC. Check the site for the full list.

This post has been edited by Synthetic Soul: Jul 6 2008, 09:58


--------------------
I'm on a horse.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Hanky
post Jul 6 2008, 10:33
Post #46





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 531
Joined: 18-November 01
From: The Netherlands
Member No.: 481



It seems that there is something wrong with the current compiles with libsndfile. A few testruns with .flac files as input produced mp3 files with only noise in them.
Just a plain
CODE
LAME.EXE -V 3 "TRACK01.FLAC"

libsndfile-1.dll was in the workig directory of course

Could somebody confirm this please ?

This post has been edited by Hanky: Jul 6 2008, 10:38
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Serge Smirnoff
post Jul 6 2008, 11:17
Post #47





Group: Members
Posts: 371
Joined: 14-December 01
Member No.: 641



I added Lame 3.98 (-V5) to SE 128 kbit/s group. My first impressions in comparison with 3.97b2 (-V5) that is also in the group:
  • Increased resulting bit rate on nine SE sound samples – 131.3 kbit/s vs. 112.7 kbit/s
  • The only two SE samples with obviously audible artifacts are harpsichord and lo-fi tape recording. All others could be roughly and preliminarily estimated as “around 5”. Version 3.97b2 also produced obviously audible artifacts on the above samples plus glockenspiel and castanets. Though, this quality comparison has not much sense as the bit rate increased significantly. Just notes.
  • The character of artifacts in SE samples (revealed by artifact amplification) is pretty much the same except preserving more high frequencies by 3.98.

So summing all of these factors I can predict slightly better results of Lame 3.98 over 3.97b2 in SE 128 kbit/s group which is not too informative due to increased bit rate. Comparison with other contenders will be more interesting as the competition is fairer now.


--------------------
keeping audio clear together - soundexpert.org
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
john33
post Jul 6 2008, 11:56
Post #48


xcLame and OggDropXPd Developer


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



QUOTE (Hanky @ Jul 6 2008, 10:33) *
It seems that there is something wrong with the current compiles with libsndfile. A few testruns with .flac files as input produced mp3 files with only noise in them.
Just a plain
CODE
LAME.EXE -V 3 "TRACK01.FLAC"

libsndfile-1.dll was in the workig directory of course

Could somebody confirm this please ?

I also have this problem. I am assuming that the precompiled libsndfile-1.dll that is provided with the libsndfile download was not compiled with FLAC support. I don't know this for a fact and, although I've hunted high and low, I can't find any definitive answer to this, but it certainly does not have any FLAC dll dependency. When I have the opportunity, I will try compiling with FLAC support.

This post has been edited by john33: Jul 6 2008, 11:57


--------------------
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
My compiles and utilities are at http://www.rarewares.org/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Gabriel
post Jul 6 2008, 12:02
Post #49


LAME developer


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



QUOTE (IgorC @ Jul 5 2008, 01:59) *
QUOTE (DARcode @ Jul 4 2008, 19:13) *

I've surely missed something in the MP3 forums, but what's the reason behind Gabriel's limited involvement with this release please?

He's doing well on x264 project.

A reduced and different allocation of my spare time. (btw, x264 is not part of my spare time)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Alex B
post Jul 6 2008, 13:46
Post #50





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



QUOTE (Serge Smirnoff @ Jul 6 2008, 13:17) *
I added Lame 3.98 (-V5) to SE 128 kbit/s group. ...

Increased resulting bit rate on nine SE sound samples – 131.3 kbit/s vs. 112.7 kbit/s ...

So summing all of these factors I can predict slightly better results of Lame 3.98 over 3.97b2 in SE 128 kbit/s group which is not too informative due to increased bit rate.

LAME 3.98 allows intermediate quality settings. The old "-V5" has obviously changed. The bitrate increase may be partly caused by the now used higher low pass frequency:

3.98 -V5 "transition band: 16538 Hz - 17071 Hz"
3.98 -V5.7 "transition band: 15826 Hz - 16360 Hz"
3.97 -V5 --vbr new "transition band: 15826 Hz - 16360 Hz"

With my usual test sample set 3.98 -V 5.7 appears to be comparable with LAME 3.97 -V5 --vbr-new (3.98: 133.6 kbps vs. 3.97: 133.8 kbps)

This post has been edited by Alex B: Jul 6 2008, 13:59


--------------------
http://listening-tests.freetzi.com
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

7 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: 22nd December 2014 - 05:21