Posted by Mike Walsh on 11/04/06 16:27

I find it interesting that it took almost 5 years to get from LAME 3.90 to 3.97. There doesn't seem to be much difference in performance between versions unless you are working at the extremes of quality or file size. When I was converting my CDs to MP3 I tried versions from 3.7 to 3.91 and could not hear any difference in sound quality and only a slight difference in file size.

Joel wrote:
>
> "Greg" <gjyrhythm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I have been encoding my CDs for a while using LAME 3.97b2. Recently I got
> >curious and decided to check out what the latest "released" version is of
> >the LAME codec, and saw that 3.97 is now released and seems to be the
> >recommended version to use. I haven't seen much, however, about what
> >differences there might be between the recently released 3.97 and the beta2
> >version that I've been using. Any reason I should change to 3.97? Or would
> >it be just as well to keep using 3.97b2?
>
> You should go ahead and start using the final, I would say, but
> nevertheless, don't re-rip any CDs just 'cause a new version is out.
> There's nothing wrong with the files you've already made with a
> previous version.

--
Mike Walsh
West Palm Beach, Florida, U.S.A.

[Back to original message]