LAME pushes MP3s further with the upcoming 3.89



I just posted the article LAME pushes MP3s further with the upcoming 3.89.


Read the full article here:  [](

Feel free to add your comments below. 

Please note that the reactions from the complete site will be synched below.


Excellent article! Thanks for all the specific information. :slight_smile:


The article is behind on reality; LAME 3.89a(25/05) VBR is now way better than that of any previous release. The ‘quality issues’ the writer of this article speaks about are now only positive bitrate (over)calculations, i.e. they can never deliver lower quality MP3 than older VBR routines. Despite of the author’s personal testing (of which we’ve never seen any results) ‘high-end extremists’ would rather go with the new VBR than still use the old one. Also, the official binary site for distributions of Win32 LAME files is not the one by smpman mentioned in the links, it is the site by Dmitry Kutsanov: Other good links would be: the mp3-board: and the mailinglist: greetings, JT + HZ


JT + HZ, Unfortunately the new VBR routines are KNOWN TO FAIL with certain test samples in listening comparisons, when compared to the VBR old. So the older routines still produce better quality. (Naturally, there may be exceptions to this) LAME developers now have the speed, but the real task is tweaking the new VBR to the level of the old routines. See our board and the section “Technical tests & experiments”


Release groups should use Lame :: Yes Reason :: superiour to Fraunhofer Release groups should use VBR :: NO Reason :: No more indication of quality possible, a vbr (with values between 56kbps and 192kbps) is a vbr, whilst a 192 is a 192kbps and a 56 is a 56kbps


VBR typically moves around 128-320kbps. Indicators for quality: -Your ears -Winamp bitrate display -EncSpot (great, check it out!


The reason the scene doesn’t like joint stereo is flanging. Yeah, js makes files smaller and keeps the quality ok, but the bottom line is quality.


And another thing. Speed for most of us, I daresay is not a factor. It’s a few of us encoding for many of them. They don’t care about speed of encoding. I don’t either. I would rather have it take twice as long, if I can get a 10% increase in quality. It’s the quality of your work that you will be remembered by, or does nobody remember that from the old days?


Good quality is a must if u have good speakers. But with those bad quality speakers uget no difference between 128 and 256 kbps


I’m kind of tired of the newbies trying to tell us which encoder is best based on some lame (heh) tests with sinus wave graphs… Let me tell you one thing: for an experienced ripper, FHG is still the way to go (and updated versions are available, just radium is too lazy to rip them out). LAME is still unable to encode difficult examples that are prone to flanging, unless it is used at very high bitrates. The example I use did not encode any better with new versions… I still try the latest out of CVS every now and then but this doesn’t change much. In regards to overall quality of encoding with a large number of rips, FHG is still the best and safest, whether it sounds less “crispy” here and there or not! The real advantage is of course the open source code that makes it possible to learn from it, and a 20-30% speed increase by compiling with optimizations is not bad either. But other than that, LAME still has to catch up. It’s not good if people believe the hype more than their own ears. On the other hand, geek ears are notoriously deaf for these things, and hardly anyone spends a 4 digit $$ price for his speakers as it would be needed. So support the hype as much as you want, your articles and the meaningless frequency response graphs will NOT make the ringing and hissing go away.


Some guy wrote: “Unfortunately the new VBR routines are KNOWN TO FAIL with certain test samples in listening comparisons, when compared to the VBR old. So the older routines still produce better quality.” Well, this is nonsense. Not only do we personally have yet to hear proof of that, also it is fact that LAME changes per day of new release. For example, your post was done on a day where the new VBR was way better than the old one already. Also, the test examples are not conclusive, FhG fails a lot on some test-samples, where LAME would not, and vice versa, but the overall range of better encoding certainly comes from LAME encoded MP3’s, not from any other encoder out there. We use MP3 encoding daily as well as professionally, and we sure know what we’re writing about. You can test as much as you like, I will bet you that LAME will win on the average dance-track.


I’ve been searching around the web for awhile now trying to find decent movie archiving software for my pretty hefty collection. I tested out a few, but ended up coming back to All My Movies because it was the only one that met all the criteria I was looking for: -A simple, intuitive interface -Downloads information from IMDb (specifically Director, Plot Description, IMDb User Rating, and Year) -Allows you to specify format besides DVD (specifically movies on CD) -DVD covers. It seems AMM has the highest resolution auto-downloaded covers, and also shows screenshots (which I didn’t think was a big deal) but really appreciate now for getting a more accurate “feel” of a movie while perusing. Also nice is when you click on any detail in the movie information field, there’s the option to then sort all movies that share that criteria - like specific genre, director, rating, etc. I tested Collectorz Movie Collector, DVDProfiler, Movie Organizer, and a few others but they were more intensive, muddled, and didn’t always have the options or graphics I wanted.


Why this listing is not updated? Current version is 5.4 AFAIK