Re: [mp3encoder] MP3 CUE cutter <<< VIRUS
On Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 01:14:17PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Just in case someone's antivirus software doesn't pick it up, don't open > that message. where exactly should be a virus here? regards, wernfried -- -> Fppmpppffpppmpfpffmffmppmpm Mfpmmfmm -> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -> mfpfmpfmppfm://fpfppffpmmpppff.ppmfmfmpm.mmmfmp/~mmmppmpppmpmffppfppp -> http://www.namesuppressed.com/kenny/ ___ mp3encoder mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/mp3encoder
Re: [MP3 ENCODER] Does lame need vorbis?
hi, On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 01:06:34AM +, Mark Collier wrote: > Does lame need vorbis? I say not... afaik it is obsolete, use the vorbis-tools instead. > I use a program called CDex for CD ripping > Vorbis. > CDex can work with external encoders as long as they > accept input via STDIN, which Lame does. I used the > Vorbis functionality for encoding to Ogg. > I could easily write myself a Vorbis encoder that > accepts input from STDIN, so ogg 1.0 encoding can > still be done from CDex (or use one of the CDex plugis) doen't oggenc accept stdin too? at least the linux version does. you might try if it works on windows, if not you could try to ask on the ogg-vorbis ML for help / request this feature. regards, wernfried -- -> Fppmpppffpppmpfpffmffmppmpm Mfpmmfmm -> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -> mfpfmpfmppfm://fpfppffpmmpppff.ppmfmfmpm.mmmfmp/~mmmppmpppmpmffppfppp -> http://www.namesuppressed.com/kenny/ ___ mp3encoder mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/mp3encoder
Re: [MP3 ENCODER] cpu time
hi, On Sat, Nov 30, 2002 at 07:44:35PM -0300, Gabriel Bonsoir wrote: > i use lame for encode mp3 in a AMD 300 and lame > use all the processor that he can. That is ok, is not a big processor, but i > try with XP 2000 and lame still using me all the cpu time. Is very fast and > really good encoding, but i want to be able to do something else at the > same time, like listen music, but i can't. the faster your cpu is, the faster lame will finish encoding, but it still uses as much cpu time as it can get. > There is same way (i'm using linux) for make that for example lame use just > 50% of cpu and no more, or that use the cpu time that other running program > let. you should try "nice -n 19 lame -whatever_your_options_are" now lame is running with a lower scheduling priority, which means that lame still uses all cpu time it can get, but only if no other application needs it. your system should behave quite like you were not encoding anything in background then. regards, wernfried PS: next time, please start a new thread not by sending a reply and just changing the topic as this breaks threadsorting. -- -> Fppmpppffpppmpfpffmffmppmpm Mfpmmfmm -> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -> mfpfmpfmppfm://fpfppffpmmpppff.ppmfmfmpm.mmmfmp/~mmmppmpppmpmffppfppp -> http://www.namesuppressed.com/kenny/ ___ mp3encoder mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/mp3encoder
Re: [MP3 ENCODER] Clarification regarding Mp3
hello, On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 01:40:02PM +0530, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I wish to know the following using lame software > > 1.Convert mono wav file to stereo mp3 ? > ( I am aware it is possible to convert stereo wav to mono mp3) as far as i can see in the manpage, this is not possible (anyone corrct me if i am wrong). lame -ms (or better -mf) test.wav still creates a mono mp3, you could use sox (http://sox.sourceforge.net/) to convert the file or also convert it in audacity: duplicate the mono track, select both tracks and export as wav. I am just not really sure why you want to do this anyway ;) > 2.If I use the use variable bit recording is it compatible with all > Hardware (cd mp3 players) ? don't know, sorry... > 3.Right now I am using Audacity software which uses lame in the > background.If I directly use lame.exe with the proper options in dos > prompt will it affect the quality ? if you use the same options and the same version of lame, there should not be a difference. in doubt you could encode the same file with lame/audacity and lame in dos and check if the files differ. regards, wernfried -- -> Fppmpppffpppmpfpffmffmppmpm Mfpmmfmm -> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -> mfpfmpfmppfm://fpfppffpmmpppff.ppmfmfmpm.mmmfmp/~mmmppmpppmpmffppfppp -> http://www.namesuppressed.com/kenny/ ___ mp3encoder mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/mp3encoder
Re: [MP3 ENCODER] Bug in lame 3.93..
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 11:10:37AM -0700, Bowie J. Poag wrote: > Here's a nice bug.. lame 3.93 (and from the looks of it, every version > before it..) identifies files based purely on the friggin suffix of the > filename. World-class coding there, guys. (*chuckle*) Anyway, I've > managed to control my laughter long enough to post a note about it. how generous, this surely helps a lot in increasing the quality of lame. > How to reproduce the bug: > [..] of course lame could check better, but this is like using a microwave ofen to dry your dog... how to avoid the bug: don't try stupid things and/or go buy some professional commercial software. > Whoever is responsible for that piece of crap-code aught to be shot, > hung, drawn, quartered, buried, dug up, their bones crushed into powder, > the phosphorous extracted from them and used in fireworks that spell out > painful insults directed at members of his immediate family. sending a patch is usually more useful. wernfried -- -> Fppmpppffpppmpfpffmffmppmpm Mfpmmfmm -> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -> mfpfmpfmppfm://fpfppffpmmpppff.ppmfmfmpm.mmmfmp/~mmmppmpppmpmffppfppp -> http://www.namesuppressed.com/kenny/ ___ mp3encoder mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/mp3encoder
Re: [MP3 ENCODER] --alt-preset ultimate description
hi, On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 12:35:46PM +, Dominique wrote: > Could someone please refer me to explanations of "--alt-preset" > switches? I have searched for a long while and all I could find was > broken links or flames for asking ;/ lame --alt-preset help is this what you are looking for? > Another thing: is it possible to pass --alt-preset's to libmp3lame? I > mean e.g. for MEncoding? don't know, anyone else? (my guess is no, at least i wouldn't know how to do this with mplayer/mencoder, so i think it is not supported.) regards, wernfried -- -> Fppmpppffpppmpfpffmffmppmpm Mfpmmfmm -> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -> mfpfmpfmppfm://fpfppffpmmpppff.ppmfmfmpm.mmmfmp/~mmmppmpppmpmffppfppp -> http://www.namesuppressed.com/kenny/ ___ mp3encoder mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/mp3encoder
Re: [MP3 ENCODER] multiple files
hi, On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 11:58:40AM -0300, Pablo Morales wrote: > you need a script to do that. yf you are using DS download cd3mp2 from amy > home page > http://netwarrior.esmartweb.com it works for freesd , but you can tune it or > remove the code you need . there's also a script in the misc directory of the lame package called mlame, adopt the options (options_high) at your needs. and probly there are thousands of other frontends :) regards, wernfried > Bytes > > - Original Message - > From: "mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2002 10:31 AM > Subject: [MP3 ENCODER] multiple files > > > > Just wondering... > > > > how can I encode multiple wav-files in one rush? > > Stupid as I am, I tried "lame [options] *.wav, > > (that works with ogg, all wav- files in the directory > > are encoded one after the other), but it doesn't work > > with > > Lame.. > > I tried to find some options in the help- pages but > > didn't find any. > > Any help appreciated, > > > > cheers, > > > > Michael > > > > __ > > Do you Yahoo!? > > U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos > > http://launch.yahoo.com/u2 > > ___ > > mp3encoder mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/mp3encoder > > ___ > mp3encoder mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/mp3encoder -- -> Fppmpppffpppmpfpffmffmppmpm Mfpmmfmm -> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -> mfpfmpfmppfm://fpfppffpmmpppff.ppmfmfmpm.mmmfmp/~mmmppmpppmpmffppfppp -> http://www.namesuppressed.com/kenny/ ___ mp3encoder mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/mp3encoder
Re: [MP3 ENCODER] Quality problem reencoding
hi, there's a recent thread about reencoding mp3, you can find it in the archives at: http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/mp3encoder/2002-August/005028.html to sum it up in short terms: reencoding is generally not a very good idea. maybe you could switch to ogg vorbis, it is designed to be able to peel a stream, which means reducing bitrate without reencoding, but afaik the tools for peeling are quite experimental / not available for the public yet. if you already have mp3s and not the original wav files, ogg would not help you anyway, as reencoding mp3 to ogg is a very bad idea, too. hope no one's annoyed because im advertising ogg here, i personally like both lame/mp3 and ogg vorbis. regards, wernfried On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 09:22:45AM -0500, User BS wrote: > I have a number of files created with lame 3.92 using the --r3mix > preset. They all sound great. The problem is when I reencode them down > for streaming. It doesn't matter if I reencode on the fly or reencode > first. The effect reminds me of a phase shifter commonly used on a > guitar. You can actually hear it here with winamp, xmms or whatever > you like here: http://caroline.pop4.net:8004 The stream is 56k @ > 44.1KHz - which should sound good. ... -- -> Fppmpppffpppmpfpffmffmppmpm Mfpmmfmm -> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -> mfpfmpfmppfm://fpfppffpmmpppff.ppmfmfmpm.mmmfmp/~mmmppmpppmpmffppfppp -> http://www.namesuppressed.com/kenny/ ___ mp3encoder mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/mp3encoder
Re: [MP3 ENCODER] Lame truncates long files...
hello, On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 10:13:07PM -0800, Richard Brockie wrote: > I am using Lame (--r3mix) to mp3 encode large (~2hr) wav files. I edit > the intro and outro of the wav files to something pleasing, but find > that the mp3 file is truncated by an amount which seems to be > proportional to the length of the file. Is this known behaviour and is > there something which can be done to get round this? hmm, i don't exactly understand what you mean by "truncated by an amount which seems to be proportional to the length of the file". i just checked my two longest mp3s (approx 2.0 and 2.5 hours long), both of them encoded with lame 3.92 --alt-preset standard. they play fine, the only thing i could see was, that when i went to the end of the files in xmms they still played for about 10-20 seconds though the time-counter was at end of file. maybe this is the same thing you are experiencing? i also remember that i once encoded something quite long with an older version of lame, i had trouble seeking in that file after about 1.5 hours with xmms, but as i had already switched to lame 3.92 at that time and the problem already had disappeared in 3.92, i did not really care about seeking a bug in an old version ;) which version of lame are you using and with which software are you decoding your mp3s? regards, wernfried -- -> Fppmpppffpppmpfpffmffmppmpm Mfpmmfmm -> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -> mfpfmpfmppfm://fpfppffpmmpppff.ppmfmfmpm.mmmfmp/~mmmppmpppmpmffppfppp -> http://www.namesuppressed.com/kenny/ ___ mp3encoder mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/mp3encoder
Re: [MP3 ENCODER] split album.mp3 + album.cue into tracks
hi, On Sat, Nov 02, 2002 at 10:01:13AM -0500, Chris Holt wrote: > Get MP3 Direct Cut. It's freeware and does not decode the MP3 to cut it up. > Ooops, I'm busted... You probably needed a Linux based program didn't you? thanks for pointing me at this. though it's windows based, it can be run more or less through wine. (i've got some windows 3.11 installation left somewhere, i never boot it, but it's handy to for trying to run things with wine). > I'm pretty sure it will work with the cue sheet, but if it does not there is > a handy silence detection feature that will set the cues automatically. unluckily the cue sheet doesn't seem to work right (it's an vbr encoded mp3), cutting by ear fails (i wasn't able to use sound though i downloaded mpglib.dll) and silence detection crashes. i think it is very likely that the wine/win 3.11 system isn't the best environment for runnning mp3 direct cut and i think the described problems are not a problem of mp3 direct cut. > Download the manual and READ IT. :))) mp3 direct cut reminded me of the fact that there is also a editor for linux (http://minnie.tuhs.org/Programs/Mpcut/), it does not seem to support .cue sheets, but cutting by ear seems to be a nice backup plan if no one else comes up with an idea for an automated solution. regards, wernfried -- -> Fppmpppffpppmpfpffmffmppmpm Mfpmmfmm -> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -> mfpfmpfmppfm://fpfppffpmmpppff.ppmfmfmpm.mmmfmp/~mmmppmpppmpmffppfppp -> http://www.namesuppressed.com/kenny/ ___ mp3encoder mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/mp3encoder
[MP3 ENCODER] split album.mp3 + album.cue into tracks
hello, i apologize if this is too much off topic on this list. i downloaded some music on the net, when i unpacked it, i got 2 files: album.mp3 and album.cue. album.mp3 is the whole album as one big mp3 file, album.cue is a textfile, that looks like this: PERFORMER "foo" TITLE "bar" FILE "album.mp3" MP3 TRACK 01 AUDIO TITLE "track1" PERFORMER "foo" INDEX 01 00:00:00 TRACK 02 AUDIO TITLE "track2" PERFORMER "foo" INDEX 01 01:02:23 etc... i searched the web for information about this, the .cue file holds the information, where each track is starting and there are some plugins for winamp, but i did not really find out if it is possible to use the queue file with popular players for linux. does anyone have hint, how i could either teachs xmms to use the .cue file or even better how to split the big .mp3 into tracks (preferred solution if possible without decoding to wav, splitting and reencoding, which would be possible with bchunk). thanks, wernfried -- -> Fppmpppffpppmpfpffmffmppmpm Mfpmmfmm -> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -> mfpfmpfmppfm://fpfppffpmmpppff.ppmfmfmpm.mmmfmp/~mmmppmpppmpmffppfppp -> http://www.namesuppressed.com/kenny/ ___ mp3encoder mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/mp3encoder
Re: [MP3 ENCODER] How to get 20x performance on MP3 encoding..
hi, On Fri, Nov 01, 2002 at 08:42:38PM -0500, Ishaan Dalal wrote: > Encoding Speedproportional toQualityandCPU Speed > > MusicMatch gets that speed by forsaking qualitysimple as that. I believe > it uses the Xing encoder...though newer versions also have the Fraunhofer > (FhG) VBR encoder. you _can_ also do that with lame: lame -q 9 foo.wav foo.mp3 Using polyphase lowpass filter, transition band: 15115 Hz - 15648 Hz Encoding foo.wav to foo.mp3 Encoding as 44.1 kHz 128 kbps j-stereo MPEG-1 Layer III (11x) qval=9 Frame | CPU time/estim | REAL time/estim | play/CPU |ETA 9173/147000 ( 6%)|0:13/3:36|0:13/3:41| 17.697x|3:27 average: 128.0 kbpsMS: 9176 (100.0%) cpu is a duron 800, so this is approximately as fast as musicmatch. btw i can listen to the mp3 without having blood running out of my ears, i remember having downloaded mp3s that sounded worse. however i usually encode with -q 2 and vbr, which brings my speed down to realtime again. regards, wernfried -- -> Fppmpppffpppmpfpffmffmppmpm Mfpmmfmm -> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -> mfpfmpfmppfm://fpfppffpmmpppff.ppmfmfmpm.mmmfmp/~mmmppmpppmpmffppfppp -> http://www.namesuppressed.com/kenny/ ___ mp3encoder mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/mp3encoder
Re: [MP3 ENCODER] Abig question: mp3 to wave format
hello, On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 09:16:53AM +0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I would like to knew if there is some open soure program (or exe > program like lame) that convert mp3 to wav file? > please let me knew if Yes or No. Yes. regards, wernfried PS: one solution: "lame --decode file.mp3" -- -> Fppmpppffpppmpfpffmffmppmpm Mfpmmfmm -> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -> mfpfmpfmppfm://fpfppffpmmpppff.ppmfmfmpm.mmmfmp/~mmmppmpppmpmffppfppp -> http://www.namesuppressed.com/kenny/ ___ mp3encoder mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/mp3encoder
Re: [MP3 ENCODER] alt-preset "low"?
hello, On Mon, Sep 09, 2002 at 01:37:11PM +0300, Vincent Kargatis wrote: [..] > At the moment I'm using 'alt-preset 144[or 160] -b96' as a compromise to > retain a smaller filesize. With that goal in mind, are there any better > encoding option choices? if i understand the documentation (lame --alt-preset help) right, in this case lame is working in ABR mode. it also says that abr is not nearly as flexible as vbr. (see last point) > [..] Does > the 'standard' methodology allow resolution scaling like that, or does it > use heuristics that don't scale like that? Just curious - I'm ignorant > about the innards. afaik "standard" invokes some high-quality settings (vbr with -q=2 (good algorithm, takes more time), vbr-quality high (-V=2), mininum bitrate 128 and some other settings that are more special and i don't really know about them). however you can override settings, i use --alt-preset standard -V 4 -b 112 for quite some stuff, bitrate is of course lower than just "standard", quality good enough for my issues. question to all experts: is this useful or would it make more sense to invoke lame just with --alt-preset standard -V 4 -b 112 -q=2 ? > One aspect I'm wondering about with my current choice is that it doesn't > seem to take a 'global' look at the file: say the middle section is very > quiet and sparse, the 'alt-preset NNN' doesn't seem to decide it could use > the unneeded space from there on the busier parts elsewhere - it just varies > the resolution on a very whort time scale. (Heck, I don't even know if > 'standard' does that, but I was assuming it did.) i think this is the difference between vbr and abr (which i think you are using in this case, see first point). afaik abr tries to maintain the specified bitrate all over the file, vbr tries maintain the specified quality. vbr possibly spends high bitrates for some parts and low on other (works fine for silence, which is encoded at 32kbps). however filesize of vbr isn't (that well) predictible. i'm no expert on encoding at all, so forgive me if i am wrong about the abr vs. vbr points, expert's comments welcome. regards wernfried -- -> Fppmpppffpppmpfpffmffmppmpm Mfpmmfmm -> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -> mfpfmpfmppfm://fpfppffpmmpppff.ppmfmfmpm.mmmfmp/~mmmppmpppmpmffppfppp -> http://www.namesuppressed.com/kenny/ ___ mp3encoder mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/mp3encoder
Re: [MP3 ENCODER] Lame Help?
On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 09:48:54PM -0600, Preston Lord wrote: > When installing lame-3.91 as described below I get following errors: btw 3.92 is already released (some months) > Using SuSE 8 Pro, KDE 3, GCC 2.95.3 > > ./configure --with-fileio=lame --without-vorbis --disable-gtktest > --enable-expopt=full --prefix=/usr just tried to compile with this option on my system - no way. doesn't seem to be a default setting, which seems to be --disable-expopt, you could also try --enable-expopt=norm, which even compiles with gcc 2.95.2. > > all goes well on configure BUT then I get this on make > (if installed without switches, will not work with BlackIce) if this blackice thing (whatever it is, some intrusion detections system?) really wants you to use a switch, use the ones above. > cc1: Invalid option `-fsched-interblock' i guess this is some compiler optimization that your (and my) too old compiler don't understand... > make[2]: *** [common.lo] Error 1 > make[2]: Leaving directory > `/home/preston/Documents/dev/lame-3.91/mpglib' > make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 > make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/preston/Documents/dev/lame-3.91' > make: *** [all] Error 2 regards, wernfried -- -> Fppmpppffpppmpfpffmffmppmpm Mfpmmfmm -> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -> mfpfmpfmppfm://fpfppffpmmpppff.ppmfmfmpm.mmmfmp/~mmmppmpppmpmffppfppp -> http://www.namesuppressed.com/kenny/ ___ mp3encoder mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/mp3encoder
Re: [MP3 ENCODER] Trouple with 8khz, 16bit PCM file
On Sat, Aug 10, 2002 at 10:02:39AM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > 66.37.140.181/orig.wav > If I try to encode it with LAME I just get noise. > If I use soundforge to resample it to 32khz, then lame can encode it > just fine. looks like some "unusual" (non-)pcm data file to me. whatever - i'm not an expert on this. > > I need to convert files like these in a scripted, command-line > environment... anyone know of a windows 2000 compatible command line > utility to resample wav files and/or is there a magic parameter that > will allow me to encode that file? no problem using linux: "sox orig.wav -w ori2.wav" and "lame ori2.wav orig.mp3" worked fine, but produced an MPEG-2.5 layer III file (MPEG-1 layer III needs at least a samplerate of 32khz according to lame-docs). if you want mpeg-1 layer III use "sox orig.wav -r 32000 -w ori2.wav" to resample (seems to work better than mpeg-2.5 to me, but files get bigger). of course this was linux now. for windows 2000 (are you sure you don't want linux :) check out http://sourceforge.net/projects/sox/ for the sox-win package. i guess there should not be great differences and it should be no problem to do the same with windows-commandline. regards wernfried -- -> Wernfried Haas - [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] -> Homepage: http://xover.mud.at/~amnenion -> Beutelland: http://bl.mud.at ___ mp3encoder mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/mp3encoder
Re: [MP3 ENCODER] 768 sample delay for psychoacoustic model
sorry, really don't know, but your clock seems to be quite wrong: Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 14:46:22 +0530 wrong year ;) regards wernfried On Sun, Jul 22, 2001 at 02:46:22PM +0530, sandeep wrote: > Hi, > I am trying to play with psychoacoustics.I am messed with the delay concept > Can anyone tell me how to give the delay for psychoacoustic model ? > Should it be given for every 576 samples or every 1152 samples or a one > time delay of 768 samples is sufficient for whole process? > > I looked for some material in net and landed with Ramapriya Rangachars > material.I didn't the way samples should be systematically delayed . > Can anyone help me in this regard?? > > Thanx in advance. > Regards > Sandeep > > > > ___ > mp3encoder mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/mp3encoder -- -> Wernfried Haas - [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] -> Homepage: http://xover.mud.at/~amnenion -> Beutelland: http://bl.mud.at ___ mp3encoder mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/mp3encoder
Re: [MP3 ENCODER] Performance of Lame on Pentium III 500
On Thu, Jul 18, 2002 at 09:48:53AM -0700, RSRamesh wrote: > Hi all, > Is there a performance measurement of Lame on PIII > 500? > I am looking if Lame on PIII 500 can achieve 3x to 5x > encoding speeds or not. > Thanks for your inputs in advance > Ramesh hello, using an amd duron 800 with alt-preset standard (vbr, high quality, q=2 (rtfm about this)) is a bit higher 1x on my system. standard cbr (cbr is usually faster than vbr) is a lot faster. especially the choice between cbr and vbr and most of all the setting for qval (-q 0 to -q 9 (means very best and slow algorithms or fast and lousy algorithms) determine encoding speed more than your processor. if you want to achieve 3x to 5x encoding speed and this is the most important thing for you in encoding, choose between cbr and vbr and then check which setting for qval is fast enough for you... i guess there are some other things that determine your encoding speed, too. check the manual/docs and maybe there are some special compiler flags to optimise speed too, don't really know about this... regards, wernfried -- -> Wernfried Haas - [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] -> Homepage: http://xover.mud.at/~amnenion -> Beutelland: http://bl.mud.at ___ mp3encoder mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/mp3encoder
Re: [MP3 ENCODER] Lame vbr and vbr-new difference?
hello, On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 07:24:22PM +0200, Vladimir Mincev wrote: > R> You should read more careful the included documentation. -vbr or > R> --vbr-old is the "old" way of doing Variable Bitrate Encoding. Slower, > R> much tested. As of 2.91 if I recall well the --vbr-new is as good as > R> --vbr-old when it comes to quality. But keep in mind that is a > R> DIFFERENT METHOD. It is a lot faster also. That's about it. yeah, that's in the manual. > > R> As the other list memebers have told you - RTFM. rtfm helps for many problems, but there's not much more in either manpage nor in the docs directory, so i think rtfm is a bit of a short answer. or did i miss something in the docs? > I have read the manual, but there is no tech info about differences > between those two VBR settings. Both work fine when decoded so > question was, should I stick to old (slower an well tested) or go to > new (faster) metod!? Have somebody had a problems using new VBR? would be interesting for me, too. especially which of them will be used in upcoming versions. both? will vbr-new replace vbr-old? will vbr-new become standard for vbr-encoding? will mulder and scully finally kiss? regards, wernfried -- -> Wernfried Haas - [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] -> Homepage: http://xover.mud.at/~amnenion -> Beutelland: http://bl.mud.at ___ mp3encoder mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/mp3encoder
Re: [MP3 ENCODER] Lame: options that most economic to convert voice wav to mp3
On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 02:01:13PM -0400, Kang Sun wrote: > We get about 1.5GB wav files daily that contain purely telephone > conversions between our customer service representatives and customers. > I like to convert these wav files to mp3 to save some storage space > using LAME. The question is what is the best option to convert mono, > telephone quality wav file to mp3? well, depends on the quality you actually need, check the manpage of lame for settings. most interesting for could be --preset help -> --preset phone regards wernfried -- -> Wernfried Haas - [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] -> Homepage: http://xover.mud.at/~amnenion -> Beutelland: http://bl.mud.at ___ mp3encoder mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/mp3encoder
Re: [MP3 ENCODER] 8-bit sample-size is not supported
hello, i guess it would be best to check the sox project site on http://sourceforge.net/projects/sox for help about this... regards wernfried On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 10:12:27AM -0400, Kang Sun wrote: > Thanks for the suggestion. > I am trying to install sox on a SUN box running Solaris 8 with gcc. I > got the following error. Help! > > gcc -g -O2 -Wall -DSUNAUDIO_PLAYER -DWORDS_BIGENDIAN=1 -DHAVE_LIBM=1 > -DHAVE_UNISTD_H=1 -DHAVE_MALLOC_H=1 -DHAVE_GETOPT=1 -DHAVE_STRERROR=1 > -DHAVE_MEMMOVE=1 -DHAVE_RAND=1 -DHAVE_SYS_AUDIOIO_H=1 -I. -c -o au.o > au.c > au.c: In function `auwriteheader': > au.c:401: warning: implicit declaration of function `strlen' > /usr/ccs/bin/as: "/var/tmp/cc6rWfHD.s", line 353: error: unknown opcode > ".subsection" > /usr/ccs/bin/as: "/var/tmp/cc6rWfHD.s", line 353: error: statement > syntax > /usr/ccs/bin/as: "/var/tmp/cc6rWfHD.s", line 383: error: unknown opcode > ".previous" > /usr/ccs/bin/as: "/var/tmp/cc6rWfHD.s", line 383: error: statement > syntax > make: *** [au.o] Error 1 > > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Haas Wernfried > Sent: Friday, June 28, 2002 4:56 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [MP3 ENCODER] 8-bit sample-size is not supported > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2002 at 03:05:21PM +1000, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote: > > > I am trying to convert wav files into mp3 with LAME. I > got > > > this error: 8-bit sample-size is not supported! > > > When someone does the mods to LAME so that LAME can use the new > version of > > libsndfile your problem will be addressed. > > > until then you could convert the file to 16 bit. there's quite a lot of > software that can do that and i guess that sox is quite surely installed > on > your system. > try "sox file.wav -w file2.wav" > regards > wernfried > > -- > -> Wernfried Haas - [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -> Homepage: http://xover.mud.at/~amnenion > -> Beutelland: http://bl.mud.at > > ___ > mp3encoder mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/mp3encoder > > ___ > mp3encoder mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/mp3encoder -- -> Wernfried Haas - [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] -> Homepage: http://xover.mud.at/~amnenion -> Beutelland: http://bl.mud.at ___ mp3encoder mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/mp3encoder
Re: [MP3 ENCODER] 8-bit sample-size is not supported
On Fri, Jun 28, 2002 at 03:05:21PM +1000, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote: > > I am trying to convert wav files into mp3 with LAME. I got > > this error: 8-bit sample-size is not supported! > When someone does the mods to LAME so that LAME can use the new version of > libsndfile your problem will be addressed. > until then you could convert the file to 16 bit. there's quite a lot of software that can do that and i guess that sox is quite surely installed on your system. try "sox file.wav -w file2.wav" regards wernfried -- -> Wernfried Haas - [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] -> Homepage: http://xover.mud.at/~amnenion -> Beutelland: http://bl.mud.at ___ mp3encoder mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/mp3encoder
Re: [MP3 ENCODER] Adding id3 tags to an existing file.
try this: amnenion@xover:~/testr > mp3info test.mp3 test.mp3 does not have an ID3 1.x tag. amnenion@xover:~/testr > mp3info -a testartist test.mp3 amnenion@xover:~/testr > mp3info test.mp3 File: test.mp3 Title: Track: Artist: testartist Album: Year: Comment:Genre: [255] seems to work :) it also has an interactive mode (console+gtk) and can be found at http://metalab.unc.edu/mp3info/ regards wernfried On Sat, Jun 15, 2002 at 03:12:56PM +0100, Michel SUCH wrote: > > Is there a way, with lame or other command line program, to add id3 tags > to an already existing mp3 file? > > Michel SUCH TEAM OS/2 FRANCE > ICQ # 51654489 > > ___ > mp3encoder mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/mp3encoder -- -> Wernfried Haas - [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] -> Homepage: http://xover.mud.at/~amnenion -> Beutelland: http://bl.mud.at ___ mp3encoder mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/mp3encoder
Re: [MP3 ENCODER] Re-encoding an mp3 file
maybe the --mp3input option is of interest for you, but i do not know if lame does something else than just decoding and re-encoding. at least it should save the disk space of the .wav file... regards wernfried haas On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 10:21:52PM +, Yosi wrote: > Hi, > > I have a certain mp3 file that I would like to re-encode with Lame. By > "re-encode" I mean, to let lame encode the mp3 file again (and yes, I know > that it is lossy). The obvious thing will be to let lame decode the mp3 into > wave, and then run lame again and encode the produced wave file. Is there a > better way to do it, in terms of preserving as much quality as possible? > > Thanks, > Yosi > > > > _ > Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. > http://www.hotmail.com > > ___ > mp3encoder mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/mp3encoder -- -> Wernfried Haas - [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] -> Homepage: http://xover.mud.at/~amnenion -> Beutelland: http://bl.mud.at ___ mp3encoder mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/mp3encoder
Re: [MP3 ENCODER] bug in lame 3.91 (estim time)?
On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 08:10:12AM +1000, Mark Taylor wrote: > > the cpu time / estim dissapears: > > Frame | CPU time/estim | REAL time/estim | play/CPU |ETA > > 134280/134282(100%)|1193046 h/0:00| 1:07:06/ 1:07:06| 0.x|0:00 > The frame counter display is just an estimate > based on the input filesize - it has no effect on the encoding. > the fact that it was within 2 out of 134k frames is pretty good :-) > Mark this is definitely good, i could not have done it better :) the thing that still seems to be estimated not so well is the CPU time. 1193046 hours would be about 136 years, that would be a great uptime ,) regards wernfried -- -> Wernfried Haas - [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] -> homepage: http://xover.mud.at/amnenion -> beutelland: http://bl.mud.at ___ mp3encoder mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/mp3encoder
[MP3 ENCODER] bug in lame 3.91 (estim time)?
hello, when encoding really large files (cd-quality, wav, >500 megs) with lame (via the mlame script, with encoder "nice -n 19" and options="--alt-preset standard -ms" the following happens: everything starts fine: LAME version 3.91 (http://www.mp3dev.org/) Using polyphase lowpass filter, transition band: 18671 Hz - 19205 Hz Encoding test.wav to test.mp3 Encoding as 44.1 kHz VBR(q=2) stereo MPEG-1 Layer III (ca. 7.3x) qval=2 Frame | CPU time/estim | REAL time/estim | play/CPU |ETA 9400/134282 ( 7%)|3:52/ 55:26|4:38/ 1:06:23| 1.0546x| 1:01:44 128 [ 84] %% [..] but after some time the cpu time / estim dissapears: Frame | CPU time/estim | REAL time/estim | play/CPU |ETA 134280/134282(100%)|1193046 h/0:00| 1:07:06/ 1:07:06| 0.x|0:00 here the job is already finished, but 2 frames seem to be missing too (which did not appear to be a problem at the end of the file btw). my system: suse 7.1 with kernel 2.2.18-suse (which is 2.2.18 with some patches applied by suse such as reiserfs afaik) gcc 2.95.2 maybe someone can test, if the same problem appears on other systems because it is a bug in lame, or if just my system is broken. thanks wernfried -- -> Wernfried Haas - [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] -> homepage: http://xover.mud.at/amnenion -> beutelland: http://bl.mud.at ___ mp3encoder mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/mp3encoder
[MP3 ENCODER] vbr in lame 3.91 vs 3.87
hello, my first message seems to be lost somewhere, so i am re-(and hopefully not double) posting it: i upgraded from lame 3.87 to lame 3.91 and i am a bit confused about the fact, that lame is producing quite bigger files now: lame -V 5 -b 96 -h -ms -k xxx.wav produced files with a bitrate of about 140, now they are > 160, files with -V 0 are much bigger (about 50% of the frames are at 320) now, too. actually, there is nothing really wrong, i guess -V 7 (or whatever) in 3.91 will produce as big files as -V 5 in 3.87, but i am just wondering about this thing. does anyone have an idea about it, as there have been some changes in vbr within the last versions. thanks wernfried haas -- -> Wernfried Haas - [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] -> homepage: http://xover.mud.at/amnenion -> beutelland: http://bl.mud.at ___ mp3encoder mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/mp3encoder
[MP3 ENCODER] vbr in lame 3.91 vs 3.87
hello, i upgraded from lame 3.87 to lame 3.91 and i am a bit confused about the fact, that lame is producing quite bigger files now: lame -V 5 -b 96 -h -ms -k xxx.wav produced files with a bitrate of about 140, now they are > 160, files with -V 0 are much bigger (about 50% of the frames are at 320) now, too. actually, there is nothing really wrong, i guess -V 7 (or whatever) in 3.91 will produce as big files as -V 5 in 3.87, but i am just wondering about this thing. does anyone have an idea about it, as there have been some changes in vbr within the last versions. thanks wernfried -- -> Wernfried Haas - [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] -> homepage: http://xover.mud.at/amnenion -> beutelland: http://bl.mud.at ___ mp3encoder mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/mp3encoder
