1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Lame version 3.95.1 vs 3.93.1 vs 3.90.3 - which one to use?

Discussion in 'Audio' started by randomID, Feb 26, 2004.

  1. randomID

    randomID Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2004
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    11
    I noticed that there is a new Lame version out.

    I currently use 3.93.1 and I'm about to encode a big batch of MP3s in 320 kbps, CBR highest quality settings .
    (if WAV files would have ID3 Tags, I wouldn't bother with all this)

    Which version is preferable? Stable and tested?

    I'm sort of surprised that the ExactAudioCopy Bundle v1.0 should include 3.90.3
    http://www.digital-inn.de/showthread.php?t=24120&highlight=lame

    What do you think I should use? Please let me know!!!
     
  2. tigre

    tigre Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Messages:
    790
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    26
    3.90.3 is mature. Extensive testing has been performed on this version (especially for --alt-preset standard and higher quality settings).
    3.93.1 shouldn't change much about quality theoretically, but isn't tested.
    3.95.1 is final and there are many quality-related changes. From the few serious tests that have been performed (at Hydrogenaudio) it seems like it performs slightly worse on pre-echo problem samples at --preset standard and higher, on other isolated problems like "fatboy" sample it's better. IMO it's impossible to draw an overall conclusion right now - besides that you're on the safe side with 3.90.3. :)
     
  3. randomID

    randomID Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2004
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    11
    Thanks for your reply!

    I've noticed that even the "--alt-preset" options will only use a Q setting of 2 or 3 with lame, instead of Q setting of 0.
    I've tested this with 93, and 95.

    And what are "pre-echo problem"?
    I've searched the forums but found not matches...

    So, I guess the recommended step for me to take is using the 3.90.3 instead of the .93.1 I've been using since now?

    Thanks!
     
  4. tigre

    tigre Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Messages:
    790
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    26
    IIRC, during development/quality tuning (= 1000s of hours spent on listening tests) of the --alt-presets, usage of q2/3 gave best results. -q 0 is experimental and broken (see JohnV's post in this thread - 'takehiro' is a LAME developer BTW):
    http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?showtopic=8452&hl=

    With -q 1 there are similar issues AFAIK, but can't find any info about it quickly right now. If you want to know, do a search on hydrogenaudio yourself.

    Pre-echo is smearing of transients, e.g. percussion with strong hits being less sharp.
    If you want to hear it yourself, check out the "castanets" sample from here:
    http://www.ff123.net/training/training.html
     
  5. randomID

    randomID Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2004
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    11
    Wow. Thanks for the link. That really clears it up...

    I guess I'll be using presets in Lame if I will continue using MP3s at all*, and the 3.90.3 version. Thanks!
    * (I might switch over to FLAC)

    Hmm. I I'd be working on my damn paper if the server wouldn't have crashed again...

    Have you had any experiences with Flac? I kow that I'll have a slight headache making my portable creative mp3 players (HDD based) play them.

    RedChair Software seems to have thrown in "AudioMorph: Freedom of Format!" in their HDD packages. Eg. for the Nomad:
    http://www.redchairsoftware.com/notmad/featjb.php
    Maybe they can read FLAC, and if not, I can ask them to add suppoort...

    Thanks so much again! Now I definately know which version to use!

    BK
     

Share This Page