|WikiProject Free Software / Software / Computing||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
- 1 Error
- 2 POV
- 3 Legal issues
- 4 CBR Vs. CBR+
- 5 CDex (a LAME front-end)
- 6 MP3 128kbps test
- 7 Lame Ain't MP3 Encoder?
- 8 Frontends
- 9 LAME The Best MP3 Encoder???
- 10 What's v0?
- 11 Source for a claim about Sony rootkit & LAME
- 12 Weasel Words!
- 13 Zune?
- 14 Outdated?
- 15 Is it true that Trent Reznor invented the Lame
- 16 LAME-compatible software
- 17 History for May 2007 Wrong ?
- 18 LameBrain is obsolete should we remove it?
- 19 Youtube uses LAME
- 20 Recent revert
- 21 lifted from the LAME website
- 22 Duplicate mention of Sony rootkit incident
- 23 Deleted from article
Factual error: RazorLame was not previously known as RazorBlade - RazorBlade was the name of a similar frontend designed for the Blade mp3 encoder, RazorLame did, however, take the idea behind its name from RazorBlade (18.104.22.168 11:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC))
This line is POV:
Many people think that LAME is the best mp3 encoder available today.
The only MP3 encoder i've used is LAME, but I think it's POV to say it's the best.
22.214.171.124 04:27, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I disagree with you, especially after taking part in this test: http://www.rjamorim.com/test/multiformat128/results.html which once and for all cleared the air on LAME being THE high-end encoder for MP3... 126.96.36.199 01:09, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I disagree too. LAME is widely regarded as the best mp3 encoder, and has been for a while. If you want citation, check out UberStandard. Supersonic^ 14:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I've been wondering, why exactly is it called "LAME Ain't an MP3 Encoder," when you take into consideration that it is an MP3 encoder, standalone or not?
- Because it's supposed to be distributed as source code and not an actual executable. Therefore it "ain't an MP3 encoder" – it's just a bunch of code which can be compiled to create an MP3 encoder. Not to mention, originally it wasn't a full encoder of its own but rather just some patches against Fraunhofer's ISO code. —NRen2k5 21:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
When did LAME encounter the legal difficulties? What was the outcome? Is LAME illegal in countries that recognize software patents?
- LAME must be licensed in countries with software patents. It would be helpful to supply a list of companies that provide licensed versions. --188.8.131.52 18:08, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
CBR Vs. CBR+
Can someone please explain the difference between CBR and CBR+. I use Audiograbber as the front-end and I don't even see the option to have CBR+ or just CBR.
There is no such thing as CBR+ in LAME
- I don't even know what the heck CBR+ is and I've been tinkering with digital audio for 7 years. Could you tell me where you found the term? You've certainly piqued my interest.—NRen2k5 21:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
CDex (a LAME front-end)
Why isn't CDex included in the LAME-compatible systems? It's a popular mp3 encoding software.
Link to a CDex download page (from download.com): http://www.download.com/CDex/3000-2140_4-10226370.html?tag=lst-0-1
- Because it's not so much a frontend as it is a ripper.—NRen2k5 21:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
MP3 128kbps test
- About 20 people participated in that listening test.
- This is factually untrue. If you look closely at the results, you can infer that at around 15 anonymous people and over 17 other people participated. Results that were by people who didn't have good enough hearing (i.e., people who couldn't correctly tell between the original and the compressed version) were probably dropped.
- Besides, does this belong here?
Lame Ain't MP3 Encoder?
"LAME stands for LAME Ain't an MP3 Encoder"
"LAME is an open source MP3 encoder"
Am I the only one that finds this LAME? (pun intended)
- LAME didn't begin as an MP3 encoder, hence the name. Over time, it evolved into a full-blown encoder. Perhaps there should be some elaboration on this evolution? Sam 03:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I love the fact that the name LAME is not only a recursive acronym, but is quite literally a really lame name! Not only was it kind of lame to start with, in that it basically says 'this software is really lousy', and recycles a slightly tired old geek in-joke, but it's also now totally inaccurate, having started out as only being misleading! How fantastically lame is that?! It's, like, meta-recursively lame!
--Oolong 18:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- *Groan* —NRen2k5 21:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
It should be renamed LIME, Lime Is an MP3 Encoder. ;) Jerry Kindall 19:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm adding a link to the download page for ALL2LAME as I see it isn't listed here. It's not very fancy, but it's very useful.—NRen2k5 21:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
LAME The Best MP3 Encoder???
I ever use the Nero mp3 encoder over LAME because it brings much better fidelity to the audio samples at 128Kbps CBR High Quality against LAME at the same setup.
I here v0 being tossed around a lot as a codec. Though I've never heard of it. Searching for it here at wikipedia sends me to Conviasa. But looking at the history of that redirect tells me it used to point to this LAME article. It was changed for the lack of mention in this article. Could we get a good explanation added to this article? --Mightygiant 03:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- It's not a codec in and of itself; it's a LAME parameter which refers to the highest quality setting for variable bit rate. 184.108.40.206 01:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Source for a claim about Sony rootkit & LAME
Current revision says: "In November, 2005 there were reports that the Extended Copy Protection software included on some SONY Compact Discs includes portions of the LAME library without complying with the terms of the LGPL." Well, afaik hacker known as 'myzzy' was the first to discover that the Sony rootkit had some strings from lame.exe, see  (do a search for "LAME") and also see this: . I'd add them myself but the page is semiprotected and I've forgotten my password :p --220.127.116.11 19:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Uberstandard: "Many people think.." is a weasel phrase, overtly against Wikipedia general policy, and in my opinion a hedge around blatant bias which has no place in this article. This should simply say that thus and such listening test had the most positive results for LAME mp3. However, note that the study linked to twice places in bold text the reservations and apologies of the person who conducted the study, he himself putting forward that the study had serious flaws. So if the study is cited, it should also be noted that the conductor of the study has reservations, as is cited in the current iTunes article. -alexh --18.104.22.168 23:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Does Zune support LAME mp3s;?Swimg43 20:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- As long as Zune has MP3 support, it should. I don't think LAME-encoded files deviate much from the standard. It all depends on the Zune's decoder, though. Some decoders aren't capable of handling certain things like variable bit rates, but chances are it can. Samuel Grant 15:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree with the following quote: "Unfortunately, LAME codec hasn't been updated for a while, although the LAME v.4 development moved to alpha testing, after some time updates stopped and the codec itself is severely outdated."
a.) I wouldn't consider 13 months from the latest release as 'outdated'.
b.) There is continuing development if you check CVS, the box up the top right lists the latest preview as less than one month old
c.) I don't think leading that sentence with "Unfortunately" is appropriate for an encyclopaedia.
d.) If the 'severely outdated' reference was to stand I think there would need to be some kind of citation to back up that claim.
22.214.171.124 04:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Is it true that Trent Reznor invented the Lame
- Even if I'm not sure that most wav to mp3 converters are able to use Lame, I agree that this long and growing list doesn't really adds any value to the article. --Gabriel Bouvigne (talk) 13:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
History for May 2007 Wrong ?
Main Page says, May 2007: default variable bitrate encoding speed is vastly improved. But the Lame Home page at Sourceforge says, Latest LAME release: v3.97 (September 2006). Did I/WE miss something ? DADSGETNDOWN (talk) 01:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- You missed the beta versions: http://lame.cvs.sourceforge.net/*checkout*/lame/lame/doc/html/history.html --Gabriel Bouvigne (talk) 08:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- Should be updated?:
I wasn't sure if we should be including BETA versions or not, The version the site stuffs in your face to get is V3.97, Maybe we should update it to show the changes since May 2007 ? I feel they should only show finals. :) BTW is this reply formatted properly ?, my "lines" indented right ? only the first line looks right ? Also I have a unintended space after the word "updated?" Help ? DADSGETNDOWN (talk) 21:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
LameBrain is obsolete should we remove it?
The Mac OSX encoder LameBrain isn't supported anymore and uses an out-of-date LAME library (3.95). Should it stay in this list or should it be removed?. See the author's statement. Irina666 (talk) 14:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Youtube uses LAME
- If true, I think it would be interesting to include in this article, but there would need to be a reliable source for citation before including it. I did a few quick web searches but I could not find any evidence for it. That doesn't disprove the assertion, of course. As they always say in grant-funded academia, "more research is needed." :) CosineKitty (talk) 16:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
This edit needlessly reignited the GNU/Linux naming controversy by adding in disputed terms where they aren't needed (a Java binary runs on many platforms, for instance). It also removed a needed cleanup tag. It should be reverted. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
lifted from the LAME website
The entire first paragraph is lifted from the LAME website's front page, and needs to definitely be rewritten. I'm hesitant to outright remove it because it's so important to the article and the section. Gamersedge (talk) 15:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Duplicate mention of Sony rootkit incident
I noticed this pair of edits today. I like the fact that a link to the article about the rootkit scandal was added, but I'm not sure creating another section labeled "Controversy" is really the best way to go. This is already mentioned elsewhere in the article (search for the word "rootkit"), and it's not really a controversy about LAME per se. I think it should be merged into the existing mention, but with the article link included; the result will definitely be better than what was already there. CosineKitty (talk) 21:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- I have included a link to the 2005 Sony BMG CD copy protection scandal article in the first mention of it, and I removed the "controversy" section because it was redundant. CosineKitty (talk) 16:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted from article
- (I put a "hat" around the deleted section so people can still refer to it but we can discuss it without replies being hard to see after it.) I agree with that deletion, because it was a lengthy list of trivia and there were no citations. Either reason alone would be a good reason. Giving two or three of the most prominent users of LAME, along with citations to back up the evidence, would be a proper encyclopedic treatment. And those that remain should not be in a bullet list. Having a list of every software package in the world that uses LAME is overkill. My objection is the same as the typical "in fiction" section in an article about a science topic, which acts as a seed crystal that accumulates a more and more "complete" list of trivia until its size dominates an otherwise useful article. CosineKitty (talk) 15:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
|Deleted section "LAME-compatible software"|
|The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.|
Mac OS X
GNU/Linux and other Unix-like operating systems