IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Is it really necessary to re-encode everything to the latest LAME vers
SonicBooom!
post Apr 8 2012, 00:22
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 118
Joined: 16-February 11
Member No.: 88210



The title says it all. I have tons of FLACs and every one of them has a copy in MP3 encoded in LAME 3.98.4 and some are in 3.99.3. 3.99.5 is the new latest version now, should this mean I have to re-encode those FLACs to 3.99.5? I would gladly want to hear opinions of others.


--------------------
sin(α) = v sound/v object = Mach No.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
Porcus
post Apr 8 2012, 02:22
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 1842
Joined: 30-November 06
Member No.: 38207



QUOTE (SonicBooom! @ Apr 8 2012, 01:22) *
The title says it all. I have tons of FLACs and every one of them has a copy in MP3 encoded in LAME 3.98.4 and some are in 3.99.3. 3.99.5 is the new latest version now, should this mean I have to re-encode those FLACs to 3.99.5? I would gladly want to hear opinions of others.


Joining in the choir here ...

You haven't even specified what settings you used. There were changes from 3.98.4 to 3.99 intended to improve upon quality. But that is quality for a given bitrate. (Also, some changes were done to the presets, I think, effectively changing the bitrate on a few of those.) So in principle, you could get fewer and less annoying artifacts for given bitrate. Or -- probably a more fruitful point of view -- the same subjective quality at a slightly smaller file.

If there are audible artifacts, then you should change the setting. By all means upgrade the version, but that's probably a smaller difference. (And if you do, check that the presets do mean the same, I think that the 'tuning on VBR scale and resulting bitrates' change to 3.99 means they don't.)

From 3.99.3? Only if you experience the issues addressed in the upgrade: http://lame.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/lam...ml/history.html

This post has been edited by Porcus: Apr 8 2012, 02:24


--------------------
One day in the Year of the Fox came a time remembered well
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
odious malefacto...
post Apr 8 2012, 06:09
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 253
Joined: 17-June 03
Member No.: 7228



QUOTE (Porcus @ Apr 7 2012, 17:22) *
From 3.99.3? Only if you experience the issues addressed in the upgrade: http://lame.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/lam...ml/history.html


That link shows LAME 3.100 not yet released and . . . LAME 3.10 May 30 1999 blink.gif ?



This post has been edited by odious malefactor: Apr 8 2012, 06:23
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
db1989
post Apr 8 2012, 19:44
Post #4





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



QUOTE (odious malefactor @ Apr 8 2012, 06:09) *
QUOTE (Porcus @ Apr 7 2012, 17:22) *
From 3.99.3? Only if you experience the issues addressed in the upgrade: http://lame.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/lam...ml/history.html

That link shows LAME 3.100 not yet released and . . . LAME 3.10 May 30 1999 blink.gif ?

…and…?
Both are true.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
skamp
post Apr 8 2012, 19:57
Post #5





Group: Developer
Posts: 1412
Joined: 4-May 04
From: France
Member No.: 13875



QUOTE (db1989 @ Apr 8 2012, 20:44) *
…and…?


And, you could explain that version numbers aren't decimal numbers. 3.9 < 3.10 < 3.100 because it's really 3 & 9, 3 & 10 and 3 & 100. The mark has no other meaning than to separate two numbers.


--------------------
See my profile for measurements, tools and recommendations.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
db1989
post Apr 8 2012, 20:02
Post #6





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



Oh, great point! My bad.

Yeah, they’re just running out of space in their original numbering scheme. wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic
- SonicBooom!   Is it really necessary to re-encode everything to the latest LAME vers   Apr 8 2012, 00:22
- - saratoga   No.   Apr 8 2012, 00:43
|- - indybrett   QUOTE (saratoga @ Apr 7 2012, 18:43) No. ...   Apr 8 2012, 07:29
- - SonicBooom!   May I ask WHY?   Apr 8 2012, 01:02
|- - IgorC   QUOTE (SonicBooom! @ Apr 7 2012, 21:0...   Apr 8 2012, 01:50
- - Remedial Sound   The goal of lossy compression like mp3 is to achie...   Apr 8 2012, 02:08
- - Porcus   QUOTE (SonicBooom! @ Apr 8 2012, 01:2...   Apr 8 2012, 02:22
|- - odious malefactor   QUOTE (Porcus @ Apr 7 2012, 17:22) From 3...   Apr 8 2012, 06:09
||- - db1989   QUOTE (odious malefactor @ Apr 8 2012, 06...   Apr 8 2012, 19:44
||- - skamp   QUOTE (db1989 @ Apr 8 2012, 20:44) …and…?...   Apr 8 2012, 19:57
||- - db1989   Oh, great point! My bad. Yeah, they’re just r...   Apr 8 2012, 20:02
|- - greynol   QUOTE (Porcus @ Apr 7 2012, 18:22) (Also,...   Apr 8 2012, 16:41
- - kornchild2002   Furthermore, the use of a higher bitrate setting m...   Apr 8 2012, 13:12
|- - Nessuno   If your goal is to reach the same sound quality wi...   Apr 8 2012, 16:46
- - JJZolx   There could be few reasons why it would, literally...   Apr 8 2012, 23:48
- - greynol   Personally I find such usage of electricity wastef...   Apr 8 2012, 23:57
|- - splice   QUOTE (greynol @ Apr 8 2012, 15:57) Perso...   Apr 9 2012, 01:03
|- - JJZolx   QUOTE (greynol @ Apr 8 2012, 15:57) Regar...   Apr 9 2012, 01:11
- - damoresh   I have several old mp3 with lame3.90 -lame 3.97 cb...   May 18 2012, 07:21
- - Apesbrain   @damoresh, see "Lossy-to-lossy transcoding...   May 18 2012, 12:44


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: 31st July 2014 - 21:47