Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Computer Audio › What is the best ver. of LAME?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What is the best ver. of LAME?

post #1 of 8
5/30/04 at 11:37pm
Thread Starter 
I'm currently using 3.90.2, and it serves me just fine. I've been hearing that 3.90.3 is what most people use. Is it worth upgrading?

Thanks
Reply

Head-Fi's Best Sellers

post #2 of 8
5/31/04 at 12:04am
YES!

I think that particular version, 3.90.3, is the most heavily tuned and tested version of LAME. However, there is a newer version which is dramatically faster: 3.96. It is much faster than 3.90.3 but it does have a few bugs which still need to be ironed out. They are currently field testing the 3.97 Alpha 1 version.
Reply
post #3 of 8
5/31/04 at 12:10am
Thread Starter 
In what way is 3.90.3 better? Its not worth re-ripping my CDs is it?
Reply
post #4 of 8
5/31/04 at 12:13am
That decision is up to you. Personally, I avoid all forms of computer audio compression formats especially lossy codecs.
Reply
post #5 of 8
5/31/04 at 12:17am
Thread Starter 
I'll assume that the difference is negligible then. I upgraded anyway and will use 3.90.3 from now on.

Thanks for the help.
Reply
post #6 of 8
5/31/04 at 2:22am
Sorry to kick a dead (well, it will be soon) horse, but quick rundown on the version numbers...

3.90.x is the heavily tweaked versions that are [generally] designed to sound best with the --alt-preset modes. 3.9x are the bone stock ones that have the most cutting edge technology, hence, why they're faster, but also have more bugs, and sometimes, not as good SQ.

I myself use 3.90.3, FWIW.

(-:Stephonovich:-)
Reply
post #7 of 8
6/1/04 at 5:49am
3.90.x vs 3.96 (or later).

The jury is still out on this.

On some samples 3.90.X variants win (perceptually), but on others 3.96 does.

There's an ongoing discussion about this in the Hydrogenaudio forums, if you're interested.

I'm using 3.96 myself, because it is insanely fast and because I'd like to help with the development by submitting info on problem samples for the code that is in active development.
Reply
post #8 of 8
6/1/04 at 6:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by halcyon
3.90.x vs 3.96 (or later).

The jury is still out on this.

On some samples 3.90.X variants win (perceptually), but on others 3.96 does.

There's an ongoing discussion about this in the Hydrogenaudio forums, if you're interested.

I'm using 3.96 myself, because it is insanely fast and because I'd like to help with the development by submitting info on problem samples for the code that is in active development.
LAME version 3.96 is insanely fast! It must be at least five times faster on my old, slow, and clunky Toshiba Satellite notebook. However, I think that whenever the LAME developers get some time this summer they should take a good hard look at 3.96 and address some concerns about errors in the code. Perhaps they need to test 3.96 fully and issue 3.96.1 or something like that before they go for the big version 4.0.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Computer Audio

Head-Fi's Best Sellers

Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Computer Audio › What is the best ver. of LAME?