> > > The thing is - unless the different bitrates have the same frequency and
> number of channels then surely they are too dissimilar after the resampling
> to gain very much?
> >
> >
> > Well, the psycho acoustics should be the same :-)
>
>
> Some things might be similar, like m/s choice, block type decision, but the
> bit allocation is diffinitively different, as the number of bits available
This stuff is not psycho acoustics itself. psycho is:
window, fft, cb's, energy & tonality computation, spreading function,
threshold computation. After that you use it: fold to sfb's, m/s choice, ...
> is different and frequency distribution is different due to filters.
You first filter and _then_ do the psycho acoustics? That's broken, IMHO.
>
> So yes, you'll probably gain something like 5-10%, but I personnaly think
Psycho is about 50% of the comutation cost, I think?
> that it's not enough to justify an heavy code modification.
I agree with that :-)
On the other hand, it would be nice if the encoder was more modular.
Ciao,
Segher
>
> Regards,
>
> --
>
> Gabriel Bouvigne - France
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> icq: 12138873
>
> MP3' Tech: www.mp3-tech.org
>
>
> --
> MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
>
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
