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 3.90.2-ICL vs LAME 3.92 (Read 4099 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

LAME 3.90.2-ICL vs LAME 3.92

Hi! Just started encoding my cd collection over to my computer using LAME 3.90.2-ICL and settings "--alt-preset extreme".
Recently discovered that LAME 3.92 was released and now I'm wondering if I should start using that one instead. Any suggestions?

LAME 3.90.2-ICL vs LAME 3.92

Reply #1 –
No, if you mean should you encode your collection again with 3.92.
Juha Laaksonheimo

LAME 3.90.2-ICL vs LAME 3.92

Reply #2 –
Richi M - Wake Me Up CDS

Track 1    42.112.604 bytes  3:58
Track 2  104.268.908 bytes  9:51

---

LAME 3.90.2-ICL "--alt-preset extreme"

Track 1    7.777.516 bytes  260kbps avg. (Winamp)
Track 2  18.385.545 bytes  248kbps avg. (Winamp)

---

LAME 3.92 "--alt-preset extreme"

Track 1      7.555.337 bytes  253kbps avg. (Winamp)
Track 2    17.867.716 bytes  241kbps avg. (Winamp)

LAME 3.90.2-ICL vs LAME 3.92

Reply #3 –
Quote
Originally posted by ap1978
Richi M - Wake Me Up CDS

Track 1    42.112.604 bytes   3:58
Track 2  104.268.908 bytes   9:51

---

LAME 3.90.2-ICL "--alt-preset extreme"

Track 1     7.777.516 bytes   260kbps avg. (Winamp)
Track 2   18.385.545 bytes   248kbps avg. (Winamp)

---

LAME 3.92 "--alt-preset extreme"

Track 1      7.555.337 bytes  253kbps avg. (Winamp)
Track 2    17.867.716 bytes  241kbps avg. (Winamp)


The reason for the difference in bitrates is due to either:

1.  Different compilers being used between the two versions.  Obviously, 3.90.2-ICL uses the Intel Compiler.

2.  Different compiler switches are being used.  Awhile ago Robert disabled some of the switches in the makefile which caused ICL compiles to produce slightly different bitrates than compiles made with other compilers.

In any case, there should be no real difference in quality.

LAME 3.90.2-ICL vs LAME 3.92

Reply #4 –
any ideas on what the addition for Takehiro Tominaga's fix does with regards to quality? apparently you can enable it with --interch x. Can this be done with the --alt fast preset etc , Will it improve quality much?

LAME 3.90.2-ICL vs LAME 3.92

Reply #5 –
Interchannel masking. If it works properly, you are able to get same quality at low bitrates. From what I've seen so far, it's probably not a good idea to use this unless you are encoding at low bitrates.