Skip to main content

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: lame 3.98.4, 3.99 alpha (Read 201049 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

lame 3.98.4, 3.99 alpha

LAME 3.98.4
download (mediafire)

LAME 3.99 alpha 3
download (mediafire)


Win32:
lame.exe - the command line encoder, used from the Windows command shell
lame_enc.dll - LAME encoding library, generally used with CD rippers, etc
lame.acm - windows acm codec.

x64:
lame64.exe
lame_enc64.dll
lame64.acm

Bundle compiled with Intel Compiler 11.1.060.


lame 3.98.4, 3.99 alpha

Reply #1
LAME 3.98.4
download (mediafire)

LAME 3.99 alpha 3
download (mediafire)


Win32:
lame.exe - the command line encoder, used from the Windows command shell
lame_enc.dll - LAME encoding library, generally used with CD rippers, etc
lame.acm - windows acm codec.

x64:
lame64.exe
lame_enc64.dll
lame64.acm

Bundle compiled with Intel Compiler 11.1.060.



scam?

(Edit: full quote to protect against possible edits by OP)

lame 3.98.4, 3.99 alpha

Reply #2












lame 3.98.4, 3.99 alpha

Reply #3
Thank you so much  how can I get lame x64 to work with dbpoweramp? sorry for the noob question

lame 3.98.4, 3.99 alpha

Reply #4
At HA the OP is noobier than you. Let's see if the OP provides support for the release.

EDIT

http://www.virustotal.com didn't find anything scary in the exe files. Only "Symantec 20091.2.0.41, 2010.03.23" thinks that the files are suspicous.

lame 3.98.4, 3.99 alpha

Reply #5
Thank you so much  how can I get lame x64 to work with dbpoweramp? sorry for the noob question

I believe that you can't use a 64 bit dll/exe from within a 32 bit program (dbpoweramp is 32-bit) -- at least not easily (in any case you probably wouldn't see advantages from the switching/thunking).  (The 64-bit release of dbpoweramp is supposed to be rel. 15 or so.)
  p.s. this is a pure guess but you might be able to hardcode and call a 64-bit cmd.exe batch using the cli encoder, but I doubt it would work b/c dbpoweramp interfaces with it and probably calls 32-bit cmd there (I haven't tried).

lame 3.98.4, 3.99 alpha

Reply #6
I sent also the acm and dll files to virustotal. The results are the same as earlier. The files appear to be clean, except that Symantec found them suspicious.

lame 3.98.4, 3.99 alpha

Reply #7
I sent also the acm and dll files to virustotal. The results are the same as earlier. The files appear to be clean, except that Symantec found them suspicious.

I do not know, why are the results from Symantec's.




I'm using Avast Pro 4.8.1368 (vps: 100322-0), Windows XP x64 SP2.








lame 3.98.4, 3.99 alpha

Reply #8
No problem with NOD32.
But I'll wait...

lame 3.98.4, 3.99 alpha

Reply #9
No problem with NOD32.
But I'll wait...


Very wise since on sourcefoge.net you can find this:
Latest LAME release: v3.98.3 (February 2010)
Stpuid questions do not exist.


lame 3.98.4, 3.99 alpha

Reply #11
From changelog:

Quote
Robert Hegemann
Fix for Bugtracker item [ 2973877 ] A problem regarding the new drain code


But what a problem was??
🇺🇦 Glory to Ukraine!

lame 3.98.4, 3.99 alpha

Reply #12
But what a problem was??

Quote
Hi,

I'll release LAME 3.98.4 soon, because of a bug in 3.98.3, which may result
in a malformed bitstream sometimes (mostly high bitrate CBR). (Bugs item #2973877)
Has anyone else something that needs to get fixed before a 3.98-branch release?

Ciao Robert

lame 3.98.4, 3.99 alpha

Reply #13
So now the smoke has cleared ... thanks for the heads-up (and the quick compile) tsnr.
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.

lame 3.98.4, 3.99 alpha

Reply #14
A full set of win 32 builds of 3.98.4 is now at Rarewares as is the 3.99a3 bundle.

lame 3.98.4, 3.99 alpha

Reply #15
Btw. I would welcome some feedback on the unicode filename problematic. Prior to 3.99, filenames with unicode characters, that are not represented in 8-bit code pages, didn't work with LAME. I hope that 3.99 solves it. It would be nice, if windows users with non-latin1 character code pages could test it.

lame 3.98.4, 3.99 alpha

Reply #16
Regarding Rarewares, the server may not work correctly at the moment.

The addresses:
http://rarewares.org/
http://www.rarewares.org/
- do not open the home page. No error message is displayed. The browser window stays empty.

The addresses:
http://rarewares.org/index.php
http://www.rarewares.org/index.php
- work normally.

I tested this with Firefox, Opera and I.E. Can anyone else confirm the problem?

lame 3.98.4, 3.99 alpha

Reply #17
I confirm the rarewares problem too!

lame 3.98.4, 3.99 alpha

Reply #18
Same for me but I use this address

lame 3.98.4, 3.99 alpha

Reply #19
So, what compile should I use? Posted by the topic starter or downloaded from rarewares? o.O
🇺🇦 Glory to Ukraine!

lame 3.98.4, 3.99 alpha

Reply #20
Regarding Rarewares, the server may not work correctly at the moment.

The addresses:
http://rarewares.org/
http://www.rarewares.org/
- do not open the home page. No error message is displayed. The browser window stays empty.

The addresses:
http://rarewares.org/index.php
http://www.rarewares.org/index.php
- work normally.

I tested this with Firefox, Opera and I.E. Can anyone else confirm the problem?

This should now be resolved, I think!



lame 3.98.4, 3.99 alpha

Reply #23
Can someone tell me why I'm getting different audiostreams with compiles by tsnr and john33??

Quote
Differences found: 4389914 sample(s), starting at 2.1563265 second(s), peak: 0.0983066 at 149.9082993 second(s), 2ch


Also encoding is about 1.5x faster with tsnr's compile 

Parameters (foobar2000):

--silent -b 320 -q 0 --noreplaygain - %d
🇺🇦 Glory to Ukraine!

lame 3.98.4, 3.99 alpha

Reply #24
Different compilers produce different code. Different code may perform computations slightly differently, producing slightly different results, and/or be faster.

Edit: After john33's post, I realised that I should have mentioned that any such differences are almost certainly infinitesimal.