Shawn, which e-mail client do you use? It doesn't wrap the text, and I always have to
cut and paste your e-mails to a text editor to read them... Isn't there any work
around? May be you can try
pressing enter after each line.
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
I didn't know that there are two version of this Codec for CoolEdit. I seem to
have version 1.0 . Could you please tell me where can I find the other one?
Thanks.
> | Codec #2:
> | MP3Enc
> | CoolEdit Plugin
> version 1.0
>
> | Codec #3:
> | MMJB 5
> | Other new programs t
Sorry about that - I just fixed the version number of the
3.70 CVS branch. (I think it was correct in the release though).
And yes, 3.69beta is identical to 3.70
Mark
> Stable Version LAME 3.70, is it already complete ?
>
> Newest "version.h" in the CVS lame3_70 branch (Rev. 1.12.2.1.2.1.4
Yikes! So what about "SDMI-Compliant CDs"? Does that mean they'll only be able to be
ripped analog?
Or does it mean they'll only play in one CD player? j/k It shouldn't be too hard to
make a bitwise copy of a CD though... Should it?
If I was going portable, I'd much rather try the standard porta
On Thu, 13 Apr 2000, Shawn Riley wrote:
> Okay, so I spelt it wrong too... hehehe. Hey, what's this? It can only
> be played on the pc that created them? So what if a user decides to
> upgrade? I don't really like the idea of ripping the same 15-or-so CDs
> every few years because my new compute
Stable Version LAME 3.70, is it already complete ?
Newest "version.h" in the CVS lame3_70 branch (Rev. 1.12.2.1.2.1.4.5)
is still Version 3.69
I Also found that previous revision contains Version 3.70.
Can I think, Version 3.69 is as same as 3.70 ?
regards.
---
I just had an idea about command line args.
Would it be feasible to have a command line such as -
x:\xx\lame.exe --compression 6.0 in.wav out.mp3
- to automatically select a stereo mode, bitrate, filter option, etc. based on how
much the file should be compressed? You could just make Lame choose
>Sony have made a lower bitrate version called ATRAC3 that is available as
>software.
>http://www.world.sony.com/Electronics/ATRAC3/
>
>It's used by the Sony Vaio portable music player.
>According to reviews the encoder uses some encryption so that you can only
>play back the files on the pc in w
>Yamaha MD multitrack recorders uses slightly modified ATRAC. When you use
>MD from SONY, they sound much worse than MD recorded on multitrack from
>Yamaha. But standard stereo mode sounds same as SONY.
Since you normally only record one instrument per track on the MD recorders, I'd
expect it to
> This was my first experience, too. But for some classical instruments, the
> 'ringing artefacts' are noticable and annoying, even nowadays. I have to
> look after some demo sounds for the effect to show up.
Don't they occur if you don't use the -h option? What bitrates did you use and did
you u
It appears to me that there are more versions than the 3 mentioned. The Cool Edit
plugin has at least different options and encoding speeds compared to the Nero plugin.
It wouldn't be a surprise to me if the FhG people never had a clear marketing concept.
Regards
--
Von:Jaroslav Luke
On Wed, 12 Apr 2000, Mark Taylor wrote:
> > Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 17:22:01 +0600
> > From: Zia Mazhar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > I heard that sometimes using the -h option can result in lower quality files
> > than the default mode. Is there any truth in it or just a rumour?
> >
>
> Just a r
> Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 17:22:01 +0600
> From: Zia Mazhar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> I heard that sometimes using the -h option can result in lower quality files
> than the default mode. Is there any truth in it or just a rumour?
>
Just a rumor. In the old days (like 6 months ago :-) experimenta
I heard that sometimes using the -h option can result in lower quality files
than the default mode. Is there any truth in it or just a rumour?
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
Do you mean the new one that comes with MMJB5 and some other programs? As
fasr as I know, MP3Enc is the best encoder that FhG has released and the
quality of the new one isn't as good as MP3Enc.
>
>
> Btw, does anyone knows if the new FhG codec is better or worst than
> mp3enc?
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Codec #1:
>
> L3Enc
> .mp3 Producer
> Audioactive Production Studio
> Fraunhofer Internal Codec [Released 1996]
It seems that L3enc is anterior to the first windows encoders, and its
quality is a little lower.
Btw, does anyone knows if the new FhG codec is better or worst than
mp3enc?
Regar
16 matches
Mail list logo
