At 6:52 PM +0100 10/28/01, Brennan wrote: >Buzz Kettles wrote: > >> Do you mean IMA compression? MP3 made it obsolete. > >Obsolete? Hmm. Not quite. > >The advantage of IMA today is that it was designed in the days of >the 486 and the 68040, so it has a negligible CPU overhead on a >modern system. mp3 is not super-heavy, but it's certainly not >negligible. > >Note that a vanilla Quicktime movie compressed with Cinepak and IMA >is *very* portable. I think it plays on just about any PC under a >wide variety of architectures, including Linux, BeOS (sigh) and >Windows 3.1 boxes. > >As well as older/slower target platform configurations, if you're >using one of the new fangled processor-taxing video codecs, a >lightweight audio codec like IMA is also a very good choice. > >Sorry to take this off-topic thread on an even more off-topic excursion, Tab. > >-Brennan
You are right. My mistake. I was referring to contemporary CPUs. Personally, I never liked the fidelity of IMA 4 to 1 compression. It made Miles Davis sound like he had crinkle paper in his trumpet. So when I got SWA/MP3, I never made another IMA file. -Buzz [To remove yourself from this list, or to change to digest mode, go to http://www.penworks.com/LUJ/lingo-l.cgi To post messages to the list, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Problems, email [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Lingo-L is for learning and helping with programming Lingo. Thanks!]
