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 3.92 slower than 3.91? (Read 3089 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

lame 3.92 slower than 3.91?

I use lame with the razorlame frontend.  I thought I noticed a substantial drop in encoding speed when I upgraded to 3.92.

anyone else see this?  Should I try some other binaries? (I took one from http://home.pi.be/~mk442837/ which I believe to be an official site.

Or, is there a new switch that is by default on and I need to change to get the old speed?  I have tried to change razorlame to optimize for speed.

a mono 1 or 2 minute piece was taking 7 seconds to encode with 3.91, and with 3.91 it took 14. (double).

thanks!
Sean

lame 3.92 slower than 3.91?

Reply #1 –
for what it's worth, it looks like the q value (quality setting) for 3.92 defaults to 2 in the binary I took.

With the old 3.91, it was set to 5.  If I make the change I get the speed back.  Without doing much listening, have people noticed a big difference between 2 and 5?


thanks!
Sean

lame 3.92 slower than 3.91?

Reply #2 –
Quote
Originally posted by seanc
With the old 3.91, it was set to 5.  If I make the change I get the speed back.  Without doing much listening, have people noticed a big difference between 2 and 5?


Yes, there is a difference in quality between -q5 and -q2 (-h).  I suggest you use -h if quality is important.