Beware! LAME 3.93 = Buggy!! Read!! - Digital-Inn

22-11-2002

Read here:

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/index.p...ST&f=16&t=4455

The best version still is (3.90.2):

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/index.p...=ST&f=15&t=478

Spread the word!!

22-11-2002

I do not believe anything that easy , in my system the latest Lame works fine ..

22-11-2002

Hi,

Perhaps you don't have the ears and/or equipment to hear the bugs introduced in lame 3.93.

However, in my humble opinion, I think you should be more careful about the new buggy version of LAME.

Remember that it's possible that you will upgrade your system in the future and then you'll discover sadly that the flaws you thought that didn't exist are real and audible after all, and that your previous equipment wasn't that great...

Better to be safe than sorry. I'll stick with 3.92 until the bugs are resolved.

Cheers.

Pio2001 · 22-11-2002

Quote:

Originally posted by olyboy
I do not believe anything that easy , in my system the latest Lame works fine ..

Fortunately, Hans Heijden has posted some examples, in the first link above, so that everyone can listen.
I didn't listen to them because I don't encode, but it rather looks like an inferior quality rather than a plain bug.
So 2.93 must sound fine overall, but if you want better quality, use 3.90.2.

JeanLuc · 23-11-2002

As I stated on UberNet before ... DiBrom himself doesn't recommend using 3.93 or 3.94 Alpha by now.

As long as there is no final statement from DiBrom about the quality of the new Lame versions, it is still the best choice to use either 3.92 or 3.90.2 ... 3.93 and 3.94 are good for testing (!) the new --alt-preset medium, though ... but do not expect the outcome of this tests to be final ...

Pio2001 · 23-11-2002

Quote:

Originally posted by JeanLuc
As long as there is no final statement from DiBrom about the quality of the new Lame versions,

Come on, guys, remember what old Kant used to say :

"Saper aude : dare knowing, accept no more the solution of laziness consisting in paying experts for thinking in your place."

Samples and settings are online, listen to them, don't wait for someone to tell you if they are good or bad, otherwise you'll never know if the diference is "barely audible on killer samples" or "catastrophic on anything"

23-11-2002

It looks like the bug is found .. check

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/index.p...ST&f=15&t=4469

And help Gabriel testing the fixed build which can be found at

http://gabriel.mp3-tech.org/lame/lame_test.zip

Ciao Ede

24-11-2002

Hmm ok i had turn back to the safe way .
Thanks for the info people .

JeanLuc · 24-11-2002

Quote:

Originally posted by Pio2001
Come on, guys, remember what old Kant used to say :

"Saper aude : dare knowing, accept no more the solution of laziness consisting in paying experts for thinking in your place."

Samples and settings are online, listen to them, don't wait for someone to tell you if they are good or bad, otherwise you'll never know if the diference is "barely audible on killer samples" or "catastrophic on anything"

Of course you (and Kant ...) are right ... but the guys at hydrogenaudio have a lot of experience to pass along into LAME development ... and I simply don't have the time to check personally ... from my point of view, it is all right to trust Gabriel and DiBrom on that issue ...

22-11-2002	#1
A messenger Gast Posts: n/a	Beware! LAME 3.93 = Buggy!! Read!! Read here: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/index.p...ST&f=16&t=4455 The best version still is (3.90.2): http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/index.p...=ST&f=15&t=478 Spread the word!!

22-11-2002	#3
Registered Gast Posts: n/a	Maybe you can't hear the difference Hi, Perhaps you don't have the ears and/or equipment to hear the bugs introduced in lame 3.93. However, in my humble opinion, I think you should be more careful about the new buggy version of LAME. Remember that it's possible that you will upgrade your system in the future and then you'll discover sadly that the flaws you thought that didn't exist are real and audible after all, and that your previous equipment wasn't that great... Better to be safe than sorry. I'll stick with 3.92 until the bugs are resolved. Cheers.

23-11-2002	#5
JeanLuc Registered User Senior Member (Board-Inventar) Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Cologne - Germany Posts: 1.597 Abgegebene Danke: 0 Erhielt 0 Danke für 0 Beiträge	As I stated on UberNet before ... DiBrom himself doesn't recommend using 3.93 or 3.94 Alpha by now. As long as there is no final statement from DiBrom about the quality of the new Lame versions, it is still the best choice to use either 3.92 or 3.90.2 ... 3.93 and 3.94 are good for testing (!) the new --alt-preset medium, though ... but do not expect the outcome of this tests to be final ... __________________ The Name was "Plex The Ripper", not "Jack The Ripper"

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

22-11-2002	#2
olyboy Gast Posts: n/a	I do not believe anything that easy , in my system the latest Lame works fine ..

23-11-2002	#7
Ede Gast Posts: n/a	It looks like the bug is found .. check http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/index.p...ST&f=15&t=4469 And help Gabriel testing the fixed build which can be found at http://gabriel.mp3-tech.org/lame/lame_test.zip Ciao Ede

24-11-2002	#8
olyboy Gast Posts: n/a	Hmm ok i had turn back to the safe way . Thanks for the info people .

Sponsored Links

Sponsored Links