Re: [MP3 ENCODER] LAME on .NET
Jon Skeet wrote: > > Has anyone tried to convert LAME to .NET at all? What does it mean to convert to .NET? Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein ___ mp3encoder mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/mp3encoder
RE: [MP3 ENCODER] LAME on .NET
> Jon Skeet wrote: > > Has anyone tried to convert LAME to .NET at all? I was > > wondering whether it might not be an interesting project, > >partly for performance comparison purposes > I'm sorry but you will not gain any performance enhancements by > converting Lame to CLR byte code. No, I wasn't expecting to. However, I wouldn't expect to *lose* very much either, contrary (I suspect) to the expectations of a lot of people. So long as the .NET version was within 10% of native performance, I think I'd deem that reasonably acceptable. Jon ___ mp3encoder mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/mp3encoder
Re: [MP3 ENCODER] LAME on .NET
Jon Skeet wrote: Has anyone tried to convert LAME to .NET at all? I was wondering whether it might not be an interesting project, partly for performance comparison purposes I'm sorry but you will not gain any performance enhancements by converting Lame to CLR byte code. If you just mean compiling it under visual studio .net (aka visual c++ 7), you will just speed things up by about 5% compared to visual c++6. Regards, Gabriel Bouvigne www.mp3-tech.org personal page: http://gabriel.mp3-tech.org ___ mp3encoder mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/mp3encoder
[MP3 ENCODER] LAME on .NET
Has anyone tried to convert LAME to .NET at all? I was wondering whether it might not be an interesting project, partly for performance comparison purposes and partly to provide a nice easy way for .NET developers to encode sound. I'd be interested in putting a lot of the effort in if others were willing to help and guide me - not being familiar with the LAME code *at all*. Of course, if it's already been done, I'll abandon the idea quickly :) Jon ___ mp3encoder mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/mp3encoder
Re: [MP3 ENCODER] LAME on PocketPC
Michael Niemeck wrote: Recently got my Compaq IPAQ PocketPC, which - supposedly - sport a 400 MHz Processor. Since LAME is said to "faster than real time on a PII 266 at highest quality mode" I decided to give it a try. To my horror, encoding a 2 second chunk of raw PCM data takes up 40 seconds, and even at lowest quality needs at least 4 seconds. Well, the most important problem is that you probably do not have any floating point unit on your processor. Emulating floating point instructions is very time consuming. To speed up lame, you might want to use "-f" and "-m m" in order to use fast mode and mono. I think that some people on this list tryed to port lame code to fixed point. Perhaps they might give you some indications. Regards, Gabriel Bouvigne www.mp3-tech.org personal page: http://gabriel.mp3-tech.org ___ mp3encoder mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/mp3encoder
