IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

16 Pages V  « < 8 9 10 11 12 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
LAME 3.99 is out, 2012-02-28: version 3.99.5 has been released
fromsilenceandan...
post Nov 18 2011, 19:24
Post #226





Group: Members
Posts: 28
Joined: 30-November 09
Member No.: 75461



Can we expect any sort of backward-compatibility with the new gapless headers in the future?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lock67ca
post Nov 18 2011, 21:13
Post #227





Group: Members
Posts: 25
Joined: 24-June 05
Member No.: 22928



QUOTE (fromsilenceandanything @ Nov 18 2011, 13:24) *
Can we expect any sort of backward-compatibility with the new gapless headers in the future?



Still having problems?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
fromsilenceandan...
post Nov 19 2011, 03:42
Post #228





Group: Members
Posts: 28
Joined: 30-November 09
Member No.: 75461



QUOTE (lock67ca @ Nov 18 2011, 21:13) *
QUOTE (fromsilenceandanything @ Nov 18 2011, 13:24) *
Can we expect any sort of backward-compatibility with the new gapless headers in the future?



Still having problems?
Hm, was this fixed in the new revision? I didn't even bother to try it out.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
apodtele
post Nov 19 2011, 04:18
Post #229





Group: Members
Posts: 39
Joined: 16-November 11
Member No.: 95199



QUOTE (fromsilenceandanything @ Nov 18 2011, 21:42) *
Hm, was this fixed in the new revision? I didn't even bother to try it out.


Well, I tried it and I know, but I am not going to bother to tell you.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
fromsilenceandan...
post Nov 19 2011, 04:38
Post #230





Group: Members
Posts: 28
Joined: 30-November 09
Member No.: 75461



QUOTE (apodtele @ Nov 19 2011, 04:18) *
QUOTE (fromsilenceandanything @ Nov 18 2011, 21:42) *
Hm, was this fixed in the new revision? I didn't even bother to try it out.


Well, I tried it and I know, but I am not going to bother to tell you.
I don't think I'm too wrong here if I state it's too much work switching between different encoders, converting FLAC into mp3 and transferring those transcodes into an iPod (which is not simply drag&drop) + doing it again with old lame if it *doesn't* work..

But, yeah, what Rarewares only mentions is that it changes how the tool is written. How would I know?

This post has been edited by fromsilenceandanything: Nov 19 2011, 04:38
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
john33
post Nov 19 2011, 09:56
Post #231


xcLame and OggDropXPd Developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 3760
Joined: 30-September 01
From: Bracknell, UK
Member No.: 111



What I actually wrote at Rarewares was:
QUOTE
Reverts how the version information is written to the LAME tag to the previous scheme.
So, yes, it's fixed at the moment. wink.gif

I believe that Robert is re-considering what may happen in the future.


--------------------
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
My compiles and utilities are at http://www.rarewares.org/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Rio
post Nov 19 2011, 16:33
Post #232





Group: Members
Posts: 207
Joined: 18-December 06
From: Olongapo
Member No.: 38799



even at -V8 it didn't use lowpass filtering, but surely resampling it to 24kHz automatically filters the encode to 12kHz. still sounds good on my portable, comparable with -V8 using 3.97. wouldn't complain against the lack of that filter =)

edit: grammar

This post has been edited by Rio: Nov 19 2011, 16:34


--------------------
"Listen to me...
Never take unsolicited advice..."
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
raceviper13
post Nov 21 2011, 17:45
Post #233





Group: Members
Posts: 3
Joined: 14-August 08
Member No.: 57067



I use LAME primarily for encoding voice. The switch from 3.98 and 3.99 is incorrigible for my needs. I have used -V9.9999 on 3.98.4 as it produced the smallest file size and it sounded great in the car with voice recordings. Now with 3.99.2, I can't get an equivalent sound quality. When LAME downsamples, the quality/filesize dramatically changes. From -V7.9 to -V8 it switches from 32kHz to 22kHz and the file size dramatically drops. Why was this path chosen? Is this useful to anyone?

I checked a music file and did an impromtu test. I got both files at the same file size and 3.99.2 did not sound as good as 3.98.4. I wont be able to use the new version. Why did this change happen? Did anyone not notice these problems? Was this update to LAME only for music? Who's using LAME for music anymore? AAC is way better.

This post has been edited by db1989: Nov 21 2011, 17:55
Reason for edit: removing pointless color and font tags
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
db1989
post Nov 21 2011, 17:58
Post #234





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 5275
Joined: 23-June 06
Member No.: 32180



I’ll leave others to sort through that more thoroughly if they wish, but a couple of things.

QUOTE (raceviper13 @ Nov 21 2011, 16:45) *
From -V7.9 to -V8 it switches from 32kHz to 22kHz and the file size dramatically drops. Why was this path chosen? Is this useful to anyone?
It is logical to reduce the range of frequencies that are conserved, in order to increase the fidelity with which the remainder are encoded. I imagine that many people find this feature useful. It is rather rudimentary as far as lossy encoding goes.

QUOTE
I checked a music file and did an impromtu test. I got both files at the same file size and 3.99.2 did not sound as good as 3.98.4.
I assume that your yardstick for “sound[ing] good” here is frequency range. In any case, expecting transparency at such low quality settings is unrealistic. Frequency range and fidelity must be weighed against each other, as noted above, and neither is likely to escape unscathed at a bitrate this low.

QUOTE
I wont be able to use the new version.
Not even by reading the guide to the command-line options and disabling the resampling as detailed therein?

QUOTE
Who's using LAME for music anymore? AAC is way better.
This is almost rude in its presumptiveness, particularly as you appear to be projecting your preference onto everyone else. Many users continue to use MP3 for various reasons, e.g. compatibility, without being concerned that AAC has performed better in some listening tests at lower bitrates.

This post has been edited by db1989: Nov 21 2011, 18:02
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
apodtele
post Nov 21 2011, 18:10
Post #235





Group: Members
Posts: 39
Joined: 16-November 11
Member No.: 95199



QUOTE (raceviper13 @ Nov 21 2011, 11:45) *
I use LAME primarily for encoding voice. The switch from 3.98 and 3.99 is incorrigible for my needs. I have used -V9.9999 on 3.98.4 as it produced the smallest file size and it sounded great in the car with voice recordings. Now with 3.99.2, I can't get an equivalent sound quality. When LAME downsamples, the quality/filesize dramatically changes. From -V7.9 to -V8 it switches from 32kHz to 22kHz and the file size dramatically drops. Why was this path chosen? Is this useful to anyone?

I checked a music file and did an impromtu test. I got both files at the same file size and 3.99.2 did not sound as good as 3.98.4. I wont be able to use the new version. Why did this change happen? Did anyone not notice these problems? Was this update to LAME only for music? Who's using LAME for music anymore? AAC is way better.


The target bitrates for the V scale did change a lot. As a result you may be getting much lower bitrates with you old magic -V9.9999.
This is not a bug however, because the target bitrates were never mandatory. Your report is too sketchy on details.
Please provide more information of the actual resulting bitrates and file sizes.

For example, your voice files:
1) 3.98.4 -V9.9999, size and bitrate
2) 3.99.2 -V9.9999, size and bitrate
3) 3.99.2 -V"whatever-you-now-consider acceptable", size and bitrate




Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
raceviper13
post Nov 21 2011, 18:35
Post #236





Group: Members
Posts: 3
Joined: 14-August 08
Member No.: 57067



QUOTE
Not even by reading the guide to the command-line options and disabling the resampling as detailed therein?


I looked in the lame.exe --longhelp and at http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=LAME. I looked but did not find such an option. If one does exist, it would completely change my opinion of 3.99.2.

This post has been edited by raceviper13: Nov 21 2011, 18:36
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
db1989
post Nov 21 2011, 18:39
Post #237





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 5275
Joined: 23-June 06
Member No.: 32180



http://lame.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/lam...d.html#resample

This post has been edited by db1989: Nov 21 2011, 18:40
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
raceviper13
post Nov 21 2011, 19:00
Post #238





Group: Members
Posts: 3
Joined: 14-August 08
Member No.: 57067



QUOTE (db1989 @ Nov 21 2011, 12:39) *


I think 3.99.2 is not for me. It must be for everyone else but me. I can get it to do what I want now, but not without a bunch of work. 3.98.4 will do what I want every time, and I don't have to wonder if it'll be what I am looking for.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
viktor
post Nov 21 2011, 19:29
Post #239





Group: Members
Posts: 297
Joined: 17-November 06
Member No.: 37682



QUOTE (Alex B @ Nov 16 2011, 23:22) *
4.0 must be skipped because of known reasons.

such as?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
apodtele
post Nov 21 2011, 19:33
Post #240





Group: Members
Posts: 39
Joined: 16-November 11
Member No.: 95199



QUOTE (raceviper13 @ Nov 21 2011, 13:00) *
QUOTE (db1989 @ Nov 21 2011, 12:39) *


I think 3.99.2 is not for me. It must be for everyone else but me. I can get it to do what I want now, but not without a bunch of work. 3.98.4 will do what I want every time, and I don't have to wonder if it'll be what I am looking for.


In a nutshell, your problem is that changing your habitual -V9.9999 is too much for you to take. In other words, your are completely change-avert. Stick to 3.98.4 by all means. I am surprised that you even tried 3.99.2. That was a really bad idea in your world where no change is permitted.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
john33
post Nov 21 2011, 19:47
Post #241


xcLame and OggDropXPd Developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 3760
Joined: 30-September 01
From: Bracknell, UK
Member No.: 111



QUOTE (viktor @ Nov 21 2011, 19:29) *
QUOTE (Alex B @ Nov 16 2011, 23:22) *
4.0 must be skipped because of known reasons.

such as?

LAME 4.0 was a totally experimental branch being worked on exclusively by Takehiro Tominaga and involved a major re-write of much of LAME. Takehiro has not worked on this now for some years as he is, I believe, 'getting on with life'!! wink.gif


--------------------
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
My compiles and utilities are at http://www.rarewares.org/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
viktor
post Nov 21 2011, 19:51
Post #242





Group: Members
Posts: 297
Joined: 17-November 06
Member No.: 37682



QUOTE (john33 @ Nov 21 2011, 19:47) *
QUOTE (viktor @ Nov 21 2011, 19:29) *
QUOTE (Alex B @ Nov 16 2011, 23:22) *
4.0 must be skipped because of known reasons.

such as?

LAME 4.0 was a totally experimental branch being worked on exclusively by Takehiro Tominaga and involved a major re-write of much of LAME. Takehiro has not worked on this now for some years as he is, I believe, 'getting on with life'!! wink.gif

that doesn't give us a reason to call the next release lame 5. everyone would keep asking, "where's lame 4?", and their question would be perfectly legit. put Takehiro's code aside, and keep working on lame 4. you can call it internally whatever you want, it doesn't matter from a user point of view. it's VC'ed, so no information is lost. simple.

This post has been edited by viktor: Nov 21 2011, 19:57
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lvqcl
post Nov 21 2011, 20:03
Post #243





Group: Developer
Posts: 3341
Joined: 2-December 07
Member No.: 49183



QUOTE (viktor @ Nov 21 2011, 22:51) *
everyone would keep asking, "where's lame 4?", and their question would be perfectly legit.


Where is Winamp 4? lalala.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
viktor
post Nov 21 2011, 20:03
Post #244





Group: Members
Posts: 297
Joined: 17-November 06
Member No.: 37682



QUOTE (lvqcl @ Nov 21 2011, 20:03) *
QUOTE (viktor @ Nov 21 2011, 22:51) *
everyone would keep asking, "where's lame 4?", and their question would be perfectly legit.


Where is Winamp 4? lalala.gif

yeah, others are stupid, so we should be, too wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lvqcl
post Nov 21 2011, 20:19
Post #245





Group: Developer
Posts: 3341
Joined: 2-December 07
Member No.: 49183



QUOTE (raceviper13 @ Nov 21 2011, 22:00) *
I think 3.99.2 is not for me. It must be for everyone else but me. I can get it to do what I want now, but not without a bunch of work. 3.98.4 will do what I want every time, and I don't have to wonder if it'll be what I am looking for.


Some people even prefer 3.97 over 3.98, so... Just use a version (encoder/format/...) that suits your needs better.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
decapattack
post Nov 22 2011, 02:08
Post #246





Group: Members
Posts: 3
Joined: 22-November 11
Member No.: 95321



Hi guys!

I'm new here but i've been looking for information here for a long time but this is my fisrt post.

So, i tried the new lame 3.99.2. I was converting some soundtracks ( basically Megadrive - Genesis soundtrack) and some of them sounded terrible with 3.99.2, even with V 0. Seem like the codec always tries to low the bitrate of the music. It sounded muffled and kinda "metallic".

When i used the old 3.98.4, it sounded OK.

There are the options that I used to convert the files, the same for both codecs:

lame.exe --vbr-new -V 0 -b -B -m j -q 0 --noreplaygain --id3v1-only --lowpass 14000 --resample $(SampleRate) "$(SourceFile)" "$(DestFileAudio)"

Does anyone experienced this?

Thanks a lot!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kwanbis
post Nov 22 2011, 03:08
Post #247





Group: Developer (Donating)
Posts: 2362
Joined: 28-June 02
From: Argentina
Member No.: 2425



QUOTE (decapattack @ Nov 22 2011, 02:08) *
lame.exe --vbr-new -V 0 -b -B -m j -q 0 --noreplaygain --id3v1-only --lowpass 14000 --resample $(SampleRate) "$(SourceFile)" "$(DestFileAudio)"

Are you serious?

lame -V 0

Is the only thing you need.


--------------------
MAREO: http://www.webearce.com.ar
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Aleron Ives
post Nov 22 2011, 07:23
Post #248





Group: Members
Posts: 174
Joined: 22-March 10
From: California
Member No.: 79208



The "muffled" sound could likely be attributed to the lowpass you used, seeing as it is much lower than what V 0 would use by default (3.99's V 0 doesn't even have a lowpass). You should also take note of TOS #8, which requires you to perform double-blind listening tests to substantiate quality claims.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
DARcode
post Nov 22 2011, 10:14
Post #249





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 681
Joined: 10-January 05
From: Italy
Member No.: 18968



QUOTE (lvqcl @ Nov 21 2011, 20:19) *
Some people even prefer 3.97 over 3.98, so... Just use a version (encoder/format/...) that suits your needs better.
Since HA has chosen to recommend the latest stable version of the LAME compile for optimal quality unless noted otherwise, can the reasons for switching to 3.99.2 from 3.98.4 be clearly stated by anyone as opposed to simply pointing to the changelog and beta threads or suggesting to ABX and decide for yourself please?


--------------------
WavPack 4.70.0 -b384hx6cmv/qaac 2.41 -V 100
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
decapattack
post Nov 22 2011, 10:22
Post #250





Group: Members
Posts: 3
Joined: 22-November 11
Member No.: 95321



Interesting. I changed the lowpass to 20k and the metallic sound went away.

About the lowpass, my ears are already damaged so i can't hear frequencies above 16k. So, after tons os tests, i decided that setting the lowpass to 14000, for me and for music in general, was ok. The loss of quality was minimal and the filesize was small enough with V 5.

Anyway. Thanks a lot for the tip!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

16 Pages V  « < 8 9 10 11 12 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 2nd August 2014 - 00:42