Why Lame 3.91, 3.92, 3.93?

2003-06-17 22:01:17

I've seen this subject touched on, but not really seen it answered direct.
If LAME ver. 3.90.3 is the best, why did they make 3.91, 3.92, and 3.93?
Are these just experimental, (beta), versions?

And while we're on the subject, if someone could clarify for me the signifigance
of the different compiles, that would be great too.

Thanks all, Dex

BTW - I did read the List of Lame compiles thread, but I didn't really
get the which compile was the bottom-line best sound quality.

Why Lame 3.91, 3.92, 3.93?

Reply #1 – 2003-06-17 22:17:14

Nobody really knows which one's the best. Theoretically 3.92 and 3.93.1 should have better code but they were never tweaked and tested as thoroughly as 3.90.3.

Why Lame 3.91, 3.92, 3.93?

Reply #2 – 2003-06-18 22:42:09

You can get a more thorough answer by using the search feature, but here's a brief one:

3.91 and 3.92 are considered "safe newer versions" than 3.90.x. However, they include mostly only portability updates that 99% of us will never need. 3.93 was broken (can't remember why), but 3.93.1 is fixed; although again, there's only really portability updates comapred to 3.90.x. I think another update to 3.93.x is that it also accepted "--preset" intstead of "--alt-preset", just for the sake of speed. A fairly good argument for using 3.92 or 3.93.1 is that the ABR presets (--alt-preset XXX) will work with lower bitrates... although unless you specifically need to encode to mp3 at very low bitrates (not recommended - there are superior formats for lower bitrates, like OGG) then that argument is irrelevant.

The preferred binary is 3.90.3 because the presets were originally developed with and for 3.90. They have also been extensively tested with that version, and as you can see by the ".3" part, it's been updated since. While the encoding code in versions later than 3.90.x SHOULD produce the same audible results, with all the portability tweaks and recompiling, it's not considered as "safe" to use as 3.90.3. What I've said in that last sentence does not apply to the new 3.94 alphas because there are more quality updates and presets planned for that; however, you shouldn't use that for anything other than testing anyway, as it's an alpha.

Why Lame 3.91, 3.92, 3.93?

Reply #3 – 2003-06-18 23:26:15

The 3.90.3 modified versions support Gabriel's medium presets and also support the full range of ABR presets that were added later.

Why Lame 3.91, 3.92, 3.93?

Reply #4 – 2003-06-18 23:57:22

Ah nice, didn't realise that. Cheers for the clarification.

Why Lame 3.91, 3.92, 3.93?

Reply #5 – 2003-06-19 21:07:14

Thanks all for the info.  I realized right after I posted this, that there
was a sticky that covered this.  But, like a good recording, you
can't get too much information.   

Dex