The Magic of LAME 3.93.1 @ CBR 128 kbps

[quote author=”Dj Buik”]I was wondering how did you make this graphics?
What software (or hardware?) did you use?[/quote]1. I have used the lame.exe 3.93.1 build Dec 3 2002.
You can find many downloads for this build with google – though it doesn’t matter if you use this build or the initial build from Dec 1 2002 or Jesse’s build.
You always get the same encoded MP3 (only difference: on my system Jesse’s build is slower than the other builds !?).

2. I have even used only the standard settings (not Jesse’s advanced settings) !
This command line in dMC R14:
"-s 44.1 – [output]"

Using the addtional CLI plugin for dMC (I prefer to use dMC R14 because it supports multi core encoding and VST plugins).

Important: the CLI plugin is the only way to use LAME versions prior to version 3.98 in dMC R14 !

Replacing the 3.98.4 lame.exe with an older version and the usage of the standard LAME encoding GUI leads to completely distorted files (full of noise).

And ACM LAME encoding leads to 1 KB WAV files !

3. I opened the MP3 files with Adobe Audition 1.5 (based on Cool Edit Pro) and then took screenshots with an older freeware version of FastStone Capture.

4. I copied the screenshots to good old Picture Publisher 10 and used the automatic masking tool to adjust waveform colors and to cut out the waveform of the encoded MP3 files and pasted these to the screenshot of the original WAV.

5. Of course it is important that you paste at the exact X/Y pixel positions.
But it is relative easy when you look at the spikes of the waveforms to merge it perfectly.

That’s it.

Of course you cannot judge the quality only based on these waveforms.
But the visual impression of the waveform comparisons matches actually the results of my (and Jesse’s) blind ABX (listening) testings.

I had (and have) not the time now to do more waveform comparisons, but I remember that my tests last year lead to the conclusion that even the usage of low VBR modes (matching 128 kbps) with newer LAME versions result to inferior MP3 files than you can create with LAME 3.93.1 @ CBR 128 standard encoding.

So, no doubt, for 128 kbps MP3 streaming or files for your mobile MP3 player LAME 3.93.1 is the best choice.

It is absolutely astonishing what high grade of (near) transparency you can create with LAME 3.93.1 and (even already with) standard CBR128.

Last year I have tried almost every LAME build (all official versions from 3.90 to 3.98.2) and 3.93.1 is definitive the best version for CBR128.

IMPORTANT:
You have to use LAME 3.93.1 !!!
Do not use LAME 3.93 (because it has severe CBR and other bugs) !!!

[quote author=”JesseG”]Please upload any builds you have of it too, and people can see if it’s faster for their particular CPU.[/quote]
➡
ftp://ftp.tmn.ru/pub/windows/misc/lame-3.93.1.zip
This is build Dec 3 2002 that I use.
It is faster with my Athlon X2 6000+ than the John33 build (Dec 12 2009).