PDA

View Full Version : Implement Lame 3.96.1 afterwards ?



Knart
08-24-2004, 06:09 AM
Hello everyone.
First i want to say that DMC Poweramp is a great program. I love its ease of use and it really rocks. I saw it uses the Lame-Codec. Is it possible to integrate Lame 3.69.1 into it ? Is it possible at all ? In the Compression Folder there is a lame_enc.dll. Can i just replace that file with a new one or is there more that needs to be done ? Another question, if it uses Lame, why isn't any Lame.exe around ?

I hope you can help me. Thank you very much.

Spoon
08-24-2004, 08:28 AM
3.96.1 is implemented in the latest R11 beta.

Unregistered
08-26-2004, 11:46 PM
Ah ok. Then i hope it won't take too unitl the official version is released. Thank you. ;-)

roger
12-11-2004, 10:39 PM
Hi. I just d/led r11 and have read in other posts that it's supposed to contain lame 3.96. However, when I look at the dMC config screen it reports lame 3.92??

I have a copy of the lame 3.96 lame_enc.dll and notice that it is 171kb in size versus 200kb for the one installed in dMC. Does this mean there is a bug in r11 or, for some other reason, it isn't using lame 3.96???

Btw, I'm thoroughly impressed with dBpowerAMP - it's really user-friendly and does what it's supposed to do really well. Rather than registering it, is there a way you can make a donation to support the project? (I won't have much use for it after I'm done ripping my entire CD/vinyl collection, since I don't buy any new music. My taste is independent/alternative and, even with that stuff, what gets produced these days sounds like a rehash of stuff I was listening to in the 80s or early 90s. This ripping effort is purely for posterity's sake :) ).

ChristinaS
12-11-2004, 11:10 PM
Hi. I just d/led r11 and have read in other posts that it's supposed to contain lame 3.96. However, when I look at the dMC config screen it reports lame 3.92??

I have a copy of the lame 3.96 lame_enc.dll and notice that it is 171kb in size versus 200kb for the one installed in dMC. Does this mean there is a bug in r11 or, for some other reason, it isn't using lame 3.96???

Btw, I'm thoroughly impressed with dBpowerAMP - it's really user-friendly and does what it's supposed to do really well. Rather than registering it, is there a way you can make a donation to support the project? (I won't have much use for it after I'm done ripping my entire CD/vinyl collection, since I don't buy any new music. My taste is independent/alternative and, even with that stuff, what gets produced these days sounds like a rehash of stuff I was listening to in the 80s or early 90s. This ripping effort is purely for posterity's sake :) ).
That's strange. It is Lame mp3 3.96.1 that's showing in my dMC Configuration panel.

I don't know if by mistake the unregistered version of Powerpack reports Lame 3.92 instead of 3.96, but I definitely have 3.96.1 .

I can't help but comment on your statement that you will not buy any new music, therefore you will have no further need for dBpowerAMP's programs after you've finished converting your current collection.

Do you not foresee wanting to convert the same music to diffferent media types for different purposes?

It is customary for people to rip cd's, vinyls and tapes to some type of lossless format, possibly compressed, for purposes of long-term storage and playing off the computer. It is also common to make copies in diffrent formats for different devices, or at the very least burn new cd's from your collection.

Who knows, in the future there may appear different media storage devices, players, all requiring perhaps further data conversions.

LtData
12-11-2004, 11:11 PM
My dMC Config window shows 3.96.1. Did you uninstall your old version before you installed the newest one?

roger
12-12-2004, 12:15 AM
ChristinaS-

If this doesn't have lame 3.96 I should just be able to overwrite the existing lame_enc.dll with the 3.96 one, and then edit the relevant .txt file so the config panel reports correctly, right? (I read that in another post). It's just that the difference in file size has me a little concerned...

Re future music conversions - It's unlikely mp3 will ever disappear though, is it? Call me a philistine, but to my ear there is not any real difference between lossy and lossless compression in terms of sound quality :) Certainly none that would justify the larger file size. Unless mp3s degrade over time like video tape?? In which case, to avoid that, you can just back your music up on to different CDs every few years, no? (I won't have the opportunity to re-rip, in any case, since when I'm done all my CDs/records are headed for the second-hand music store :) Plus another object of this exercise is to have all my music on as few CDs as possible).

LtData-

Yes, I uninstalled version 10 before installing version 11. Is there a way or some editing program I can use to check that the currently installed lame_enc.dll is 3.96?

LtData
12-12-2004, 12:34 AM
Well, there's those of us who can tell the difference betwee, say, mp3 and ogg. Also, the side of my lame_enc.dll is 163KB.

ChristinaS
12-12-2004, 12:42 AM
ChristinaS-

If this doesn't have lame 3.96 I should just be able to overwrite the existing lame_enc.dll with the 3.96 one, and then edit the relevant .txt file so the config panel reports correctly, right? (I read that in another post). It's just that the difference in file size has me a little concerned...

Re future music conversions - It's unlikely mp3 will ever disappear though, is it? Call me a philistine, but to my ear there is not any real difference between lossy and lossless compression in terms of sound quality :) Certainly none that would justify the larger file size. Unless mp3s degrade over time like video tape?? In which case, to avoid that, you can just back your music up on to different CDs every few years, no? (I won't have the opportunity to re-rip, in any case, since when I'm done all my CDs/records are headed for the second-hand music store :) Plus another object of this exercise is to have all my music on as few CDs as possible).

LtData-

Yes, I uninstalled version 10 before installing version 11. Is there a way or some editing program I can use to check that the currently installed lame_enc.dll is 3.96?
There are 2 .dll files involved: Mp3 (Lame).dll 121Kb in the folder Illustrate\dBpowerAMP\Compresion and lame_enc.dll 163Kb in the folder Illustrate\dBpowerAMP\Compresion\Lame . The latter .dll is also present in many other applications like Audacity and a Winamp plugin and they are not the same size files, thus they are not the same file. In which way they are different I don't know. I even have yet another Winamp plugin called enc_lame.dll. An older yet lame_enc.dll 232Kb is also in my system32 folder - go figure!

I'd not attempt to move these files around and copy them from elsewhere or rename them. Not sure what the differences are and what may end up not working. I'm leaving all of them right where they are, things work fine as it is. :p

roger
12-12-2004, 12:43 AM
LtData - So what could explain the difference in file size? Is it that the lame_enc.dll has been coded differently from the one I downloaded from http://mitiok.cjb.net ?

roger
12-12-2004, 12:50 AM
ChristinaS - According to http://forum.dbpoweramp.com/showthread.php?t=4028&highlight=lame+latest+version however, it's a simple operation to manually update your lame version. Does this still apply to the new dbpoweramp version 11?

ChristinaS
12-12-2004, 12:53 AM
ChristinaS - According to http://forum.dbpoweramp.com/showthread.php?t=4028&highlight=lame+latest+version however, it's a simple operation to manually update your lame version. Does this still apply to the new dbpoweramp version 11?
Well, you got me stumped here. I never got mine from that site. That post is pretty old, I rather think the latest dMC and powerpack contain the latest lame encoder so you won't have to do that step.

roger
12-12-2004, 01:06 AM
Well, you got me stumped here. I never got mine from that site. That post is pretty old, I rather think the latest dMC and powerpack contain the latest lame encoder so you won't have to do that step.

Yes, but, as per my original post, my problem is that there is some doubt about this :)

LtData
12-12-2004, 01:22 AM
Mabye uninstall dMC and all associated codecs, delete the directory, then reinstall?

ChristinaS
12-12-2004, 01:40 AM
Yes, but, as per my original post, my problem is that there is some doubt about this :)
Check the dates you have as well. Perhaps you never uninstalled the older versions when you instaleld the latest, is that possible? or did you install the latest and then went and downloaded what you thought was latest from that other site and installed that over the one from dB?

Anyway, I don't think you can go wrong with the latest versions from dB.

roger
12-12-2004, 02:11 AM
Check the dates you have as well. Perhaps you never uninstalled the older versions when you instaleld the latest, is that possible? or did you install the latest and then went and downloaded what you thought was latest from that other site and installed that over the one from dB?

Anyway, I don't think you can go wrong with the latest versions from dB.

No, I definitely uninstalled version 10 first, even deleting the orphaned registry keys (I do that with all software uninstallations). I think I'll try that manual update of Lame and if there are problems I'll just uninstall and reinstall.

Thanks for your responses :)

LtData
12-12-2004, 02:45 AM
What's the date on the dll? mine's 11/27/2004

roger
12-12-2004, 03:12 AM
All dates are 12/12/2004 ie. created, modified and accessed in 'Properties'. I don't think any of these dates will ever be earlier than the day you installed the program, will they?

ChristinaS
12-12-2004, 03:46 AM
All dates are 12/12/2004 ie. created, modified and accessed in 'Properties'. I don't think any of these dates will ever be earlier than the day you installed the program, will they?
Exactly, the dates for the versions you installed have to be for the day you installed them. So if you just installed dB and yet you have a date older than the day you installed the latest version, that is not the right file to be looking at. It means yuo never did install that file together with the latest.

Spoon
12-12-2004, 11:38 AM
You can replace lame_enc.dll with any version you want, although dMC R11 should have installed the 3.96.1, if the size is 163KB then it is 3.96.1 - the version information comes from:

\dbpoweramp\versions\compression\mp3 (lame).txt

try deleting that file and let the install reinstall.

adaywayne
12-12-2004, 04:46 PM
Well, there's those of us who can tell the difference betwee, say, mp3 and ogg. Also, the side of my lame_enc.dll is 163KB.


There are many factors and variables that affect one's perception of audio "quality" or "fidelity". One of the more important ones is, obviously, frequency range, and especially the upper frequency cut-off point. As points of reference, the lowest note on a grand piano has a basic frequency of about 30 to 40 Hz (Hz = cycles per second), the highest note is about 4200 Hz. The highest note on a piccolo is not much higher at 4500 Hz.

So why do audio engineers strive to achieve a flat frequency response in the range of 30 to 20,000 Hz? The answer has to do with what are known as harmonics or overtones. Every basic note played on a musical instrument creates "harmonics". Relative to the "fundamental frequency", the harmonics have frequencies which are 2x, 3x, 4x etc, the frequency of the fundamental. It is the prevalence and magnitude of these harmonics which give each musical instrument its own unique sound.

Now, they claim that a healthy, young adult has a hearing range of from 20 to 20,000 Hz (that's assuming, I think, that they have not been exposed to any of today's "music.) I, myself, nearing 70 years of age, have an upper frequency limit at about 12,000 Hz. You can do a simple test of your own hearing at:

http://www.engr.uky.edu/~donohue/audio/fsear.html

I have recently constructed spectrograms (frequency versus signal level pictures) of a music wave file encoded with different encoders at different bitrates. Since I can't post graphics here, I will simply give you the upper frequency cut-off in each case. As I said, frequency range is not the only variable in audio quality, but I think I can safely say that anything cut-off below 8000 to 12,000 Hz (perhaps higher for those with bats' ears) will sound inferior in some way to the original wave file. So here are the numbers: (note, all files are stereo and 44,100 Hz)

1. Original wave: 19,000+
2. Lame V. 3.96.1 at 128 VBR: 17,000+
3. Fraunhoefer mp3 at 128 VBR: 9,000
4. Lame V. 3.96.1 at 68 VBR: 11,000
5. WMA V. 9.1, 2-pass at 64 VBR: 13,000
6. OGG at 64 VBR: 15,000+
7. MP3PRO at 64 VBR played back using mp3PRO decoder: 16,000
8. mp3PRO at 64 VBR played back with Lame 3.96.1 decoder: 8,000

I couldn't fit the numbers in the above table so below are the actual file sizes.

1. 31,339 KB..............Original
2. 2,848 KB..............Lame at 128
3. 2,982 KB..............mp3 at 128
4. 1,499 KB..............Lame at 68
5. 1,447 KB..............WMA at 64
6. 1,380 KB..............OGG at 64
7. 1,423 KB............. mp3PRO at 64 with mp3PRO playback
8. 1,423 KB..............mp3PRO at 64 with mp3 playback

I think the results are self explanatory but here are a few comments (based solely on upper frequency cut-off)

1. Lame 3.96 is far superior to a "standard mp3 encoder I had. No wonder Fraunhofer/Thomson are rushing to commercialise mp3PRO!

2. At 64 Kbps bitrate, OGG and mp3PRO are pretty close to Lame at 128 bitrate and far superior to "standard mp3 at 128.

3. WMA at 64 bitrate is inferior to OGG and mp3PRO at the same bitrate.

4. mp3 PRO played back with a "standard" mp3 decoder (instead of an mp3PRO decoder) is a total disaster. The cut-off at 8,000 Hz is predictable because mp3 encoding splits the file at 8000Hz and encode the lower portion using mp3 and the upper portion with a different encoder. Played back with a standard mp3 decoder, all you hear is the portion up to 8000 Hz.

Hope you find the above interesting. Questions welcomed.

Arnie

PS: I should add that the Fraunhoefer "standard" mp3 codec that I used was a version from at least 2 years ago. More recent versions may provide much better results.