Win32 GUI version of LAME mp3 encoder

I just posted the article win32 GUI version of LAME mp3 encoder.

RaDiX used our newssubmit to tell us:

The Anonymous Raider - JP" released a windows package called “win32LAME”. It is great. Contains latest LAME and RazorLame all pre-installed for making the…

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.

URL1: (644k) URL2: (644k)

Why is installing LAME a hassle? You even get it already with many programs like CDex. I just can’t believe how meaningless news are these days :r

Roaster, obviously it is a problem to get LAME installed correctly. You have three kinds of users: - those that manage without any problems (small group) - most newbies that don’t manage and either give up because too difficult or “not nice looking” or end up with some unstable 3.89alpha while the 3.88 is the last quality-assured tested version. - and those that think they can install “LAME” correctly You would be likely to be in the third category (no offence). CDEX is fine, but it uses the DLL. This means you can’t use the new ATHTypes and many other new things that make LAME3.88 a very great encoder. The DLL interface is old and needs updating. In the mean time you’re encoding files thinking you’re doing it correctly while there’s no possibility to do so. ATHtype three is not accessible via the default DLL interface while this is the recommended (and most tested) setting on and other sites. But there are a LOT of other settings which are not accessible via DLL (lowpass, lowpassbandwidth, …?) At least this installer defaults to the recommended setting so in order to get it wrong you’d have to manually change those settings. I just installed win32LAME and for all I care it didn’t come a day early. (btw: foxy ladies in the installer (drooool :stuck_out_tongue: )

This is nothing new !!! Both LAME and RazorLame (the userinterface) are existing packages and not so difficult to install / configure. :stuck_out_tongue: Eric

EricsMp3Cds, we know it’s easy to install, but there are plenty of newbies who can’t, so this news item is a prog that is for thatm, that instals lame+ razorlame at one time ----------- Roaster, same for you, it’s not cos me and you can install lame easily that everyone can… don’t bitch -------------- Lame rox :slight_smile: and this prog helps to spread lame even more to the unexpierenced users

and still the eac & lame combination remains the best… hard to configure but everything is possible (perfect rips with the right filenames in the directory u want and a nice m3u file in only one move!)

CDex is just an example of a program which brings LAME encoding to the masses since a long time ago. And I can see latest version uses the LAME 3.89 engine. Is that unstable? Who cares, everyone using CDex is happy and it works. Alternatively there are a few dozens alternatives to choose from and all of them are easy to setup and use. Who gives a horse shot about r3mix recommended settings? Everybody these days comes out and preaches about what is best, yet if we were to study for the absolutely best, we would probably be using something else, maybe Ogg or AC3 or MP+ or even VQF. Repackaging existing programs is not any innovation. It may be nice to have this option too, but presenting it as an earth suttering event sounds like a low bitrate MP3 on expensive speakers.

Quote: “Only downside is that it contains no ripper” Why don’t they just include the ‘tweaked version’ of CDFS.VXD? (the one that shows wav-files next to CDA-files) That would be ‘the finishing touch’… :+

Redneck, you got the point. – Roaster, obviously you know shit about this issue, so I won’t waste too much time on you. I don’t know who else you are referring to, as Everybody in “Everybody these days comes out and preaches about what is best” but you’re talking crap. Funny to read someone recommending VQF. :slight_smile: Why r3mix? well, maybe because they work closely together with the LAME developers and the biggest new thing about 3.88 are the new ATH’s, which by accident happen to be developed with the help of The setting is not called “–Roaster”, it’s called “–r3mix”. (duh) but since you don’t have a clue what I’m talking about and still use that DLL and a ripper which has no decent errorcorrection whatsoever, yet claim to know all, I’m done wasting my time on you. have a fun life trying to impress others with your vast knowledge on this issue and go out and release some 112kbit Stereo trance albums.

mp3dude, Obviously you understand nothing about what we are talking here. You just make asumptions about what I use, what bitrate I encode at and even what music I listen too (very lame argument trying to guess even my musical tastes). I have seen that kind of behaviour from “mp3 specialists” many times, and they are the same who once said how superior Xing was or how Audiograbber was the ripper of choice. They are the same who would start endless discussions about Winamp vs. Sonique and would gather in DM board flaming each other about who is the mp3 king by using similar sonorous remarks. And your lame remark about “decent errorcorrection whatsoever” just shows that you are one of them.

this wasn’t about me, it’s about you clearly not knowing CDEX-DLL does not yet support settings like a lowpass filter, the newest ATH’s from LAME 3.88 and NO CDEX does not have a decent secure mode. There is this “allow multiple read” button, but besides being nearly undocumented it does what appears to be a burst copy rather than any secure mode that EAC would do. I’m not claiming I’m an mp3 specialist. I’m just saying you’re not one and you haven’t got a clue when it comes to ripping securely and don’t know shit about recent LAME developments. So that makes you the last person here to make any smart remarks on how meaningless this all is. You know shit about this and so it isn’t very appropriate for you to should shut up and give comments on other people and how everything is possible with CDEX, because it is not, but you don’t know that.

Lot of shit about nothing… if you want to try it, then try it as I did and very please with it, if you don’t well don’t bother others with useless shit… I come here for news and that’s what I get, if you don’t like it go play somewhere else… Ahhh kids these days :4

blackcatz, you’re right. sorry for all the crap. I’ll shut up.

That realy lame comment about “NO CDEX does not have a decent secure mode” gives me the opportunity to comment on technical matters so that even someone like mp3dude learns something (after all, even monkeys are able to learn something new). The ripping procedure followed by CDex and almost any ripping prog out there, when combined with a decent modern drive and the right read speed, will give perfect results on 99% of all cases. The right read speed is not necessarily low, as it can be 12x or higher (and this is the case with many modern drives, where the extra checks implimented in hardware are much improved compared to what was the case 2-3 years ago). For example, most Pioneer and rebadged dvd drives are locked at a speed of 12x, which is manufacturer verified to give perfect results. The rest 1% has to do with scratched cd’s, which is the only case where algorithms like the one implimented in EAC can be really useful. In other words, “secure mode” has a meaning only when you rip a scratched or damaged cd. This can be tested by anyone, including those using cdfs.vxd. Rip from a reasonably clean cd a dozen times and compare the results. As for mp3 encoding, the --r3mix you brag about is about JS. Being one of those able to distinguish JS from S, I can say this doesn’t sound like a quality setting. With a lossy format like MP3, it all comes down to personal preferences and kind of music. The article about LAME 3.89 which got mentioned on CD Freaks a few days ago just shows how contradictory opinions on the “right” settings can be. As you can see, I can give facts and not cheap shots about “ripping securely”. So, next time you want to talk about who knows shit check your diapers first.

I should have known I can’t compete with extra-gifted persons like Roaster here. He has the ability to hear non-existing JS separation fields and can see with the bare eye if a cd will give glitches while being ripped. That’s why he doesn’t need to do a secure rip. CDEX has no (decent) secure mode, LAME DLL interface is old, incomplete and the 3.88 VBR DLL mode is a fast low quality. but that’s all false and I know shit and you know all.

CDex is a nice program, and I do use it when I get frustrated with EAC to rip a tough cd. CDex --> second best. But Lame w/razorlame rulez… just wish i understood more about all of the settings. :slight_smile:

CDex is a nice program, but also an open source one. Those r3mix jerks, should they feel they know so much about decent and indecent error correction, they have their chance to show their knowledge by contributing to the code, unless they know nothing except what they read on DM lame ass board :8

mp3dude is right. There is nothing like EAC. CDex is nice, but if you really want to be sure with your copies, get EAC. And no, Roaster, modern CD error correction mechanisms won’t help you with audio CDs. All CRC and error correction sectors are fully used by the audio data. This is why audio CDs hold up to 750 MB, and not 650 MB. Well, the note about VQF was not very clever, either… it is a crap quality encoder, even Xing MP3 is better. But it’s all good, though. Visit for further discussion and insight. I am more than happy that i can help out with my mirror for Win32LAME. --r3mix is a very decent setting, and it is definitely much better than CBR 192.

When VQF was introduced, it was superior to any MP3 codec at the same bitrate. It was lack of support and interest from users which put it in the closet. I didn’t recommend it, so don’t twist my words. As for the 2352bytes per sector, I could write endless posts on sync mechanisms, chipset features etc etc, but instead I will propose something anyone can try: Rip the same audio track from a reasonably clean cd a dozen times using cdfs.vxd. Compare the results using EAC or any other program able to perform binary comparisons. You will notice no difference unless your drive is crap.