Lame 3.91 faster than 3.92?

[jws141]

I tried using both Lame .dll's with dbPowerAmp v. r9a and it seems Lame version 3.91 is considerably faster than 3.92. A 4 min and 5 second song direct rip/encode from a cd with 3.91 was ripped and encoded in 33 seconds. 3.92 took close to 50 seconds. This is using CBR @ 192 No alt preset. Is there a significant difference in quality between these two releases of Lame?

Processor - Amd Athlon 1.0 - 392 mb SdRAM - Win 2K - Pioneer DVD - 116R.

[Spoon]

I have not tested it, but I have heard from a number of people hinting the speed might not be as fast as the last one, I think it is possibly half to do with Lame 3.92 and the other half because I put a Time elapsed counter on.