android
Go Back   abi>>forums > Software & Media > Software

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-14-2012, 03:05 PM
McDougal's Avatar
McDougal McDougal is offline
Ultra Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,375
Default LAME 3.99.5 Is Out. Is It Time To Upgrade?

Maybe a little off-topic, but I was wondering is it worth upgrading to LAME 3.99.5?

I mean just update the software not actually re-encode. The newest version I have on my computer is 3.98.4 lol.
__________________
iPod Touch 4G 32GB; Google Nexus 7 32GB
JVC HAS600B;Pioneer SE-M390;Audio-Technica ATH-P5

Retired Devices:
Sansa Fuze 8+16GB Rockboxed
Reply With Quote

Advertisement [Remove Advertisement]

  #2  
Old 05-14-2012, 03:08 PM
The DarkSide's Avatar
The DarkSide The DarkSide is offline
Ultra Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Qns Vlg, NYC
Posts: 16,054
Default

Update away!!! I'll do my update when I finally turn on my comp. I only turn it on to load new music, download something, rip a cd, or when the wife wants to use it. It stays off otherwise.
Reply With Quote

  #3  
Old 05-14-2012, 03:18 PM
McDougal's Avatar
McDougal McDougal is offline
Ultra Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,375
Default

Ok lol, I'll update it for foobar2000. I also noticed there's a new version of fre:ac, I may give that a try.

I had a problem before with fre:ac. If I embedded album art into FLAC files, then converted those to MP3, the album art showed up in foobar2000 and mp3tag. But, in iTunes, it wasn't recognized. I had to remove it and re-insert the image from mp3tag, which was very annoying.

I'm going to try it again and see if the problem is fixed.
__________________
iPod Touch 4G 32GB; Google Nexus 7 32GB
JVC HAS600B;Pioneer SE-M390;Audio-Technica ATH-P5

Retired Devices:
Sansa Fuze 8+16GB Rockboxed
Reply With Quote

  #4  
Old 05-14-2012, 03:19 PM
The DarkSide's Avatar
The DarkSide The DarkSide is offline
Ultra Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Qns Vlg, NYC
Posts: 16,054
Default

Fre:ac is what I use. I'll do an update as well,...thanks!!!
Reply With Quote

  #5  
Old 05-14-2012, 03:21 PM
McDougal's Avatar
McDougal McDougal is offline
Ultra Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,375
Default

No problem !
__________________
iPod Touch 4G 32GB; Google Nexus 7 32GB
JVC HAS600B;Pioneer SE-M390;Audio-Technica ATH-P5

Retired Devices:
Sansa Fuze 8+16GB Rockboxed
Reply With Quote

  #6  
Old 05-14-2012, 03:23 PM
Marvin the Martian's Avatar
Marvin the Martian Marvin the Martian is offline
Ultra Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: east central NY state
Posts: 10,602
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by McDougal View Post
Maybe a little off-topic, but I was wondering is it worth upgrading to LAME 3.99.5?

I mean just update the software not actually re-encode. The newest version I have on my computer is 3.98.4 lol.
I still have 3.98.2...lol.
But I don't often have new stuff to convert, so I haven't worried about it. And even 3.98.2 works well.
__________________
iPod Touch 5G 32GB, Touch 4G 32GB, Clip Sport 8GB. Rockbox-> Clip Zip 4GB, iPod Nano 2G 4GB, iPod 5.5G 80GB
2012 Nexus 7 32GB, Asus MeMoPad 8 16+64GB, LG Optimus G Pro, Nokia Lumia 900 and Lumia 520
Reply With Quote

  #7  
Old 05-14-2012, 03:27 PM
McDougal's Avatar
McDougal McDougal is offline
Ultra Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,375
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin the Martian View Post
I still have 3.98.2...lol.
But I don't often have new stuff to convert, so I haven't worried about it. And even 3.98.2 works well.
Yeah honestly I never had a problem with 3.98.4 either. And I do a lot of Amazon MP3 and iTunes these days. It's been a while since I've bought a physical CD . If I do ripping and converting it's usually re-doing old crappy WMP rips.
__________________
iPod Touch 4G 32GB; Google Nexus 7 32GB
JVC HAS600B;Pioneer SE-M390;Audio-Technica ATH-P5

Retired Devices:
Sansa Fuze 8+16GB Rockboxed
Reply With Quote

  #8  
Old 05-14-2012, 03:36 PM
Carson Dyle Carson Dyle is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 280
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by McDougal View Post
Maybe a little off-topic, but I was wondering is it worth upgrading to LAME 3.99.5?

I mean just update the software not actually re-encode. The newest version I have on my computer is 3.98.4 lol.
I've updated.

One thing you may notice is that MP3 file sizes (average bitrates) will vary, sometimes by a surprising amount, when encoding the same material using 3.99.5 vs 3.98.4 at a given -V (vbr) quality level. Generally speaking, they're a little larger at -V0 and -V1, about the same at -V2 and -V3, and smaller at lower quality levels.

Here are some random tests I ran comparing the two LAME versions, both 32-bit compilations downloaded from RareWares.

Code:
AVERAGE BITRATE

Leo Kottke - Jesus Maria.wav
             -V0   -V1   -V2   -V3   -V4   -V5   -V6   -V7   -V8
3.98.4       212   191   176   162   148   133   118    99    86
3.99.5       236   204   178   165   144   118    98    94    86

Nirvana - Smells Like Teen Spirit.wav
             -V0   -V1   -V2   -V3   -V4   -V5   -V6   -V7   -V8
3.98.4       266   242   215   167   152   138   124   103    92
3.99.5       259   224   191   169   148   127   113    96    79

Rolling Stones - Street Fighting Man.wav
             -V0   -V1   -V2   -V3   -V4   -V5   -V6   -V7   -V8
3.98.4       248   228   212   200   185   169   153   125   113
3.99.5       259   232   205   192   171   148   119   112    90

U2 - Bullet The Blue Sky.wav
             -V0   -V1   -V2   -V3   -V4   -V5   -V6   -V7   -V8
3.98.4       241   219   201   165   151   138   122   102    88
3.99.5       255   222   190   168   148   127   113    99    79

Yo-Yo Ma - Boccherini - Cello Concerto No. 7 in G major, G480 I. Allegro.wav
             -V0   -V1   -V2   -V3   -V4   -V5   -V6   -V7   -V8
3.98.4       224   204   188   173   157   132   118    95    81
3.99.5       239   209   180   164   141   114    95    88    82

Last edited by Carson Dyle; 05-14-2012 at 03:48 PM.
Reply With Quote

  #9  
Old 05-14-2012, 03:45 PM
El C's Avatar
El C El C is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Canada
Posts: 366
Default

I'm still running 3.98.3, and it seems to be fine.
__________________
Desktop: Objective2 > Audio Technica A900
Portable: Cowon D2+ > Headstage Arrow 3G > Phonak PFE 112 (grey filters + Comply tips)
Reply With Quote

  #10  
Old 05-14-2012, 03:46 PM
McDougal's Avatar
McDougal McDougal is offline
Ultra Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,375
Default

I re-encoded one album (from FLAC, of course) as a test of this new version.

@Carson Dyle, I got the same test results. With 3.98.4, the album was 144MB at -V0. With 3.99.5 the album was 155MB with the same setting.

Space isn't an issue for me, and this new version seems to be working fine, but I may go back to 3.98.4. I don't see a reason to have larger files if they don't sound any different, but that's just me.
__________________
iPod Touch 4G 32GB; Google Nexus 7 32GB
JVC HAS600B;Pioneer SE-M390;Audio-Technica ATH-P5

Retired Devices:
Sansa Fuze 8+16GB Rockboxed
Reply With Quote

  #11  
Old 05-14-2012, 07:22 PM
steinburger1109's Avatar
steinburger1109 steinburger1109 is offline
Ultra Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Naperville, Illinois
Posts: 2,456
Default

Wait, so, what advantage IS there to upgrading then? Theoretically better sound quality, or what? I believe my version is still 3.98.2, as well.
__________________
- Justin
Glossary for Newbies Everybody
Babble. On.
Reply With Quote

  #12  
Old 05-14-2012, 07:41 PM
McDougal's Avatar
McDougal McDougal is offline
Ultra Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,375
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by steinburger1109 View Post
Wait, so, what advantage IS there to upgrading then? Theoretically better sound quality, or what? I believe my version is still 3.98.2, as well.
That's what I thought. I don't see any advantage now. I think they would sound the same....
__________________
iPod Touch 4G 32GB; Google Nexus 7 32GB
JVC HAS600B;Pioneer SE-M390;Audio-Technica ATH-P5

Retired Devices:
Sansa Fuze 8+16GB Rockboxed
Reply With Quote

  #13  
Old 05-14-2012, 07:55 PM
steinburger1109's Avatar
steinburger1109 steinburger1109 is offline
Ultra Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Naperville, Illinois
Posts: 2,456
Default

I just updated, and converted from FLAC to V3 (as is my norm) and compared one of the albums that I had done before. It is roughly 11-12% (105MB w/ my old version, not sure which to be fair, 88.6MB w/ 3.99.5) smaller since the update. In case anyone cares to know.
__________________
- Justin
Glossary for Newbies Everybody
Babble. On.
Reply With Quote

  #14  
Old 05-14-2012, 08:01 PM
McDougal's Avatar
McDougal McDougal is offline
Ultra Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,375
Default

Hmmm it seems like this newer version is creating larger file sizes for higher bitrates. It's nice to see they're making smaller sizes with lower bitrates but it would also be nice with higher bitrates . I'll stick with 3.98.4 for now.
__________________
iPod Touch 4G 32GB; Google Nexus 7 32GB
JVC HAS600B;Pioneer SE-M390;Audio-Technica ATH-P5

Retired Devices:
Sansa Fuze 8+16GB Rockboxed
Reply With Quote

  #15  
Old 05-14-2012, 08:23 PM
skip252 skip252 is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 5,356
Default

You could take a look at the Validated News thread at Hydrogenaudio if you're looking for detailed information on any improvements. There were some ups and downs in encoding speed and file sizes after the release of 3.99 IIRC. Different compiles were giving different results on both of those. There was also an issue that caused media profile reporting software some grief in reporting which version was used to encode.

The LAME tracker has more details on all of those items. I'd definitely look at both of those rather than trust my interpretation if you're thinking about upgrading.

With all the back and forth in the Hydrogenaudio thread I held of until fairly recently. I couldn't ABX a difference so I held off until the guys who actually know about this stuff sounded the all clear. I wanted to use a stable version that gave me known quality. That had been 3.98.4 so I stayed with that.

I saw that 3.99.5 was included in fre:ac so I finally upgraded. The speed is about the same but my file sizes are somewhat smaller. 3.99.5 seems to pick lower bitrates at the quality settings I use. I can't ABX a difference so I'll stick with being able to put more on my player.
Reply With Quote

  #16  
Old 05-14-2012, 09:15 PM
Carson Dyle Carson Dyle is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 280
Default

I think some of the effort in 3.99 was to remove anomalies at the highest quality levels at the expense of higher encoding rates, therefore the higher average bitrates and file sizes. At lower quality levels, improvements in average bitrate and smaller file sizes for the same sound quality level would suggest improvements in the encoding algorithms.

The problems with different compiles (notably, the 32-bit compile posted to RareWares) producing wildly differing average bitrates were fixed with 3.99.5. It's still possible for different compiles on different platforms to produce slightly different files, but my understanding is that because of the use of floating point routines, this is unavoidable.

There are a couple of things in LAME 3.99 that you may find helpful when transcoding a lossless library to MP3. 1) the ability to embed cover images larger than 128 MB, and 2) the ability to add TXXX fields from the LAME command line. The syntax is -tv "TXXX=<Description>=<Value>".
Reply With Quote

  #17  
Old 05-18-2012, 06:58 AM
Stompa Stompa is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 15
Default

FWIW I'm finding that 3.99.5 encodes significantly faster than 3.98.4.
Reply With Quote

  #18  
Old 05-19-2012, 12:24 PM
h1a8 h1a8 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 479
Default

I don't see the improvement over 399.2 at all. I rmaa and adobe audition the hell out of both and I get the exact same numbers and graphs (not even one slight difference). Also 399.5 doesn't encode any faster than 399.2 but slightly slower at best.

There is no need to upgrade if you already are on 399.2.
Reply With Quote

  #19  
Old 05-19-2012, 07:22 PM
skip252 skip252 is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 5,356
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by h1a8 View Post
I don't see the improvement over 399.2 at all. I rmaa and adobe audition the hell out of both and I get the exact same numbers and graphs (not even one slight difference). Also 399.5 doesn't encode any faster than 399.2 but slightly slower at best.

There is no need to upgrade if you already are on 399.2.
If you're going to upgrade it's best to get the latest and greatest. They didn't issue the other releases for the heck of it. Speed wasn't the only reason they continued working to make improvements.

There was a bug that produced an audible artifact under some circumstances that was addressed with the release of 3.99.5.http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...howtopic=93344
Reply With Quote

  #20  
Old 05-19-2012, 10:23 PM
saratoga saratoga is offline
Rockbox Developer / Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,627
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by h1a8 View Post
I don't see the improvement over 399.2 at all. I rmaa and adobe audition the hell out of both and I get the exact same numbers and graphs (not even one slight difference).
Not surprising, 3.99.5 fixes a bug in the lame decoder. The encoder isn't changed.
__________________
Interested in Google's Summer of Code ? PM me.
Reply With Quote

Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:15 AM.