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: About to encode 50 CDs worth of FLAC to MP3 (Read 6934 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

About to encode 50 CDs worth of FLAC to MP3

I was wondering whether I should use LAME 3.98 to encode my files because it is the latest stable release.

The Hydrogenaudio Wiki says that LAME 3.97 is the current recommended version. Is there any reason why this is not 3.98?

Should I still use 3.97 to encode to MP3, or should I just use 3.98?


Any help would be appreciated.

About to encode 50 CDs worth of FLAC to MP3

Reply #1 –
Quote from: Shunsuke_01 on
I was wondering whether I should use LAME 3.98 to encode my files because it is the latest stable release.

The Hydrogenaudio Wiki says that LAME 3.97 is the current recommended version. Is there any reason why this is not 3.98?

Should I still use 3.97 to encode to MP3, or should I just use 3.98?


Any help would be appreciated.

3.98 has not yet been subjected to extensive sample testing. However, a lot of testing was already performed during the development process.

Personally, I would use 3.98, but it's your choice and unless you have particularly 'golden ears', you'll probably be unable to tell any difference one way or the other.

About to encode 50 CDs worth of FLAC to MP3

Reply #2 –
One alternative is to encode a few tracks with each and ABX them.

About to encode 50 CDs worth of FLAC to MP3

Reply #3 –
3.98 is tougher with some critical samples, worse on other but overall not worse than 3.97 so I say its better for my tastes . Its faster too.

If going for the higher quality like V3 or better , I don't think its easy to say 3.97 is better than 3.95 or 3.98 at least on normal samples. More reason to enjoy the latest and greatest. My pick is 3.98

About to encode 50 CDs worth of FLAC to MP3

Reply #4 –
I ABX'd a few songs (some rock, some electronic) encoded with 3.97 and 3.98.  I personally didn't hear anything noticablly different between them (and thus failed the test) ... that said, I am not known for my "golden ears."  Simply an experiment.

3.98 was at least marginally faster at encoding though.

About to encode 50 CDs worth of FLAC to MP3

Reply #6 –
Doesn't 3.98 have an improved psycho-accoustic model?  Wouldn't that make it a better choice?


OT:  does anyone believe, as mentioned recently on another forum, that LAME is close to reaching its evolutionary limit as a lossy codec?

About to encode 50 CDs worth of FLAC to MP3

Reply #7 –
If you have some time... you should use both and report us result :-)

About to encode 50 CDs worth of FLAC to MP3

Reply #8 –
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the upcoming mp3 test at 128kbps? If you're targeting that bitrate, that test will help you decide. The results should matter less the higher bitrate you go.

I myself find 3.97 transparent at -V5 but use 3.98 at -V2 since the first beta. I trust the lame devs with what they're doing.

Whichever version you choose, just remember to keep the flacs.

@Livy, people have been saying that lame has reached it's limit since 3.90.2. We're now at 3.98 and it's still improving.

About to encode 50 CDs worth of FLAC to MP3

Reply #9 –
I would wait until a more comprehensive sample test before going onto 3.98, like Sebastian said. So as of now I'd still stick to stable -V 2 version 3.97.

About to encode 50 CDs worth of FLAC to MP3

Reply #10 –
Quote from: prankstare on
I would wait until a more comprehensive sample test before going onto 3.98, like Sebastian said. So as of now I'd still stick to stable -V 2 version 3.97.


But 3.98 is the stable version. any additional changes would be 3.99 beta versions. EDIT: Of course, one could decide with ABX that the 3.97 stable version does better/worse than the 3.98 stable version on certain samples, but nonetheless, 3.98 is the stable version.
 

About to encode 50 CDs worth of FLAC to MP3

Reply #11 –
Quote from: garym on
But 3.98 is the stable version. any additional changes would be 3.99 beta versions. EDIT: Of course, one could decide with ABX that the 3.97 stable version does better/worse than the 3.98 stable version on certain samples, but nonetheless, 3.98 is the stable version.


Yes of course, you are right. Neither version is in beta stage anymore.

What I meant is that personally I believe in 3.97 better than the new, just recently released 3.98 (although reading the changelog we can see very pleasant developments, like the speed boost for instance but not so much as to how it will sound). It's still questionable to me since I haven't ABX'ed using this version. Although I have noticed tiny differences in sound encoding at -V 2 comparing both 3.97 and 3.98. This is not yet an ABX test though so it could be indeed placebo.