A noticed a number of different binaries for Windows for
version 3.85 of Lame. The ones from Russia are different
then the ones from the MP3 org web site.
The trouble is when I use both at the same settings and
then compare the output, it is different.
Would someone please recommend 'the' place for the latest
Lame binaries for Windows?
Thanks,
Stan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bill Eldridge
> Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2000 2:26 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [MP3 ENCODER] RE: Layer 2 vs Layer 3 (was RE: 2MP3 from
> cass
>
>
>
> A 4th factor (kind of related to the others) is that the
> chained CPU implementation generally means a greater delay
> for Layer 3, meaning in practice more than a 1/2 second delay -
> too much for doing a back-and-forth conversation, though
> often fine for one-way transfers.
>
> That's on equipment I had 5 years ago - what the typical
> Layer 3 delay in equipment now, I'd have to measure.
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > On 28-Jul-2000 Bill Eldridge wrote:
> > > I thought the biggest issue with Layer 2 vs. Layer 3 is that
> > > Layer 2 holds together better over multiple generations.
> >
> > I agree with Bill here. Layer 2 survives re-encoding much
> better than Layer 3.
> > Two other factors probably account for its widespread use
> in "professional"
> > areas
> > - lower cpu requirements (generally) - so it was effectively
> > implemented in hardware/software before layer3.
> > - frame independence means it's easier to edit :)
> >
> > later
> > mike
> > --
> > MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
>
> --
> Bill Eldridge
> Radio Free Asia
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> --
> MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
