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 3.90.3 will never be retired (Read 12046 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Lame 3.90.3 will never be retired

Reply #25 –
Quote
What prevents you from using 3.96.1 for your own music collection if these build's results serve you fine ? Just rip some of your favorite music and start to encode using both builds ... you can then easily judge whether your choice is 3.96.1 or 3.90.3. You don't really need a recommended encoder version to judge quality for yourself ...
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


As I stated in my previous posts I'm asking about this not for my own personal needs, wants, desires, tastes etc. I'm approaching this from this point of view. Say I want to give a presentation on a simple way to get a mass amount of users to encode properly. I have HA.org referenced many times. They will read the post on the recommended version and ask me why do I say use 3.96 when it says xyz. As a reference for a broad audience basing purely on facts (not ones personal hearing) that is what the recommended version is to me.

I'm being a bit vague but I think that explains it enough. People will look at the tests and that page say this is the proper thing to use.


Sadly nobody has yet answered my question (which I will repeat again for the 3rd time). Which testing method is best for said "recommended by HA" version at the end of the day? See my posting [a href="http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=30348&view=findpost&p=262938]here[/url] for example..

BTW, Ive been abxing OGG myself I find it very hard to tell ogg 5 from aps lol
Much lower bitrates without bloat. But Im not ready to bail ship with mp3 yet !

EDIT: typos

Lame 3.90.3 will never be retired

Reply #26 –
Quote
Sadly nobody has yet answered my question (which I will repeat again for the 3rd time). Which testing method is best for said "recommended by HA" version at the end of the day? See my posting here for example..

BTW, Ive been abxing OGG myself I find it very hard to tell ogg 5 from aps lol
Much lower bitrates without bloat. But Im not ready to bail ship with mp3 yet !

EDIT: typos
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=263125"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


1) Take some serious samples that are known to cause problems in Lame 3.90.3 (you will find a lot on this forum ... fatboy.wav, castagnets.wav etc.) and encode these using both encoders ...

2) ABX these encodes against the original *.wav files

3) Submit your results to the existing "3.90.3 Vs. 3.96.1" thread and have these results confirmed by other users that are interested in 3.96.1 becoming the new recommended build, too.

Quote
Say I want to give a presentation on a simple way to get a mass amount of users to encode properly. I have HA.org referenced many times.[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=263125"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Then you also have reference to many postings which state that there are no major regressions in 3.96.1 when being compared to 3.90.3

BTW ... you are not talking release group things when stating "mass amount of users", are you ? 
The name was Plex The Ripper, not Jack The Ripper

Lame 3.90.3 will never be retired

Reply #27 –
Quote
Quote
Quote
In the meantime, I think the choice of encoder is really a personal one with pros and cons for both versions.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=262982"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


This is all that really needs to be said about this issue. Too many people here are looking for the easy "recommended" way out without testing their codec choice for themselves.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=263054"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

At the levels of quality we're talking about, telling people to test for themselves is counterproductive and meaningless. You might as well tell them to test different power cables and see which one sounds better.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=263098"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Well fine. Let's invite all the new posters to keep asking stupid questions about the recommended encoder version.

Lame 3.90.3 will never be retired

Reply #28 –
Quote
Quote
Anybody else who wants others to make the decisions for him (and that is perfectly fine) will want the tried-and-tested solution which is still version 3.90.3.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I found this post quite interesting: [a href="http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=30358&view=findpost&p=262843]http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....ndpost&p=262843[/url]

it's about a pretty popular Sony Discman from 2002 that skipps when using --alt preset standard (LAME 3.90.3.) but doesn't when using LAME 3.96.1

things like that should be taken into account when making a decison for other people that don't want to bother to got through all the details...I haven't heart about any compatible issues in LAME 3.96.1 that didn't exist in LAME 3.90.3...
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=263031"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I don't think we should limit our choices because the people at Sony are incapable of building a standard complient player. It also hasn't been established whether 3.96.1 is allways problem free for these players. Once the cause for this weird behaviour has been found perhaps we could place a disclaimer on the recommended version page.

Another idea would be to put a sticky in the audio hardware forum: known problematic mp3 devices. But I don't know if you can do that without the companies sueing for difamation.

Lame 3.90.3 will never be retired

Reply #29 –
Quote
Another idea would be to put a sticky in the audio hardware forum: known problematic mp3 devices. But I don't know if you can do that without the companies sueing for difamation.

Well, if you set up a page with some problematic samples for hardware players with a note like this:
this sample does not play correctly on XXX, plays correctely on YYYY, ZZZZ, AAAA

then this is not diffamation, just a fact.

Lame 3.90.3 will never be retired

Reply #30 –
Quote
Well, if you set up a page with some problematic samples for hardware players with a note like this:
this sample does not play correctly on XXX, plays correctely on YYYY, ZZZZ, AAAA

then this is not diffamation, just a fact.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=263157"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It's just that common sense and legal interpretation are two different things these days.