On Thu, 27 Apr 2000 21:31:38 -0700, E. Zann wrote:
>Hi everybody,
>
>The following was just posted to the EAC's mailing
>list:
>
>> I must also notice a strange thing : the mp3's I
>> make with EAC pb4 & Lame 3.70 play perfectly
>> with Windows Mediaplayer, Xing Mp3 player &
>> Winamp, but give a
Hi everybody,
The following was just posted to the EAC's mailing
list:
> I must also notice a strange thing : the mp3's I
> make with EAC pb4 & Lame 3.70 play perfectly
> with Windows Mediaplayer, Xing Mp3 player &
> Winamp, but give a strange noise at the very
> beginning of each track when pla
> Yes it is. The question is whether dual_channel is more restricted than
> that.
Dual-channel is just what the name suggests. Each channel is completely
independant. I don't see any advantage of using dual-channel.
Ross.
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
>
> Any guesses as to why MP3Enc 3.1 upsamples to 48kHz by default at 320kbps?
> To increase time resolution?
>
> -- Mat.
>
I think this is related to the 7680 mp3 buffer limitation.
An mp3 frame can be no larger than 7680 bits. However,
look at the framesizes at 320kbs:
320kbs/32khz
Any guesses as to why MP3Enc 3.1 upsamples to 48kHz by default at 320kbps?
To increase time resolution?
-- Mat.
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
> From: "Segher Boessenkool" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> But doesn't layer II have mid/side stereo (as well as intensity stereo)?
Nope, mid/side is only available in Layer III.
-- Mat.
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
Hello Shawn,
On 25-Apr-00, you wrote:
> reproduce them). I'm in serious doubt as to whether frequencies >13kHz really
> contribute any musicality to the tracks on CDs.
Wut? Then you obviously never heard of Heavy or Trash Metal, needs much
Bandwidth or it will sound like a muffeled Sock.
Or hav
At 320kbps I suggest qdesign mp2 encoder (ACM version, so you can easily
encode). Sounds better then any MP3 encoder, and it is incredibly fast. The
only thing where LAME is behind this mp2 encoder is pre-echo. At 256 & 320
kbps qdesign's mp2 encoder doesn't show any pre-echo problems, and LAME
do
> The only thing I know, is that they work with different bitrates (layer 3
> supporting lower bitrates).
Layer 3 is a more complex than Layer 2 and it offers much better quality/compression
ratio at lower bitrates. It is said that 128 kbit/s MP3 is roughly the same quality of
192 kbit/s MP2 file
> > Any other differences I'm forgetting?
>
> MS Stereo and entropy coding in Layer III.
>
> -- Mat.
Yes, huffman. Knew I forgot something.
But doesn't layer II have mid/side stereo (as well as intensity stereo)?
Dagdag,
Segher
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
> From: Segher Boessenkool [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> Layer II does _not_ have:
>
> window switching (short blocks)
> hybrid transform (mdct stuff)
> bit reservoir
>
> It _does_ have:
>
> much better scalefactors (more finegrained)
>
> The layer II scalefactors are a lot cheaper most of t
There are decoders which handle it though, I know xmms goes from one layer
to another without any ill effects
Not that I'd advocate deliberately producing bitstreams that do this...
Scott Manley (aka Szyzyg) /-- _@/ Mail -\
___ _ _ __ __
> This may be a stupid question, but isn't it fun to learn (or teach) new things? :)
> What, roughly, are the technical differences between layer 2 and layer 3? The
> only thing I know, is that they work with different bitrates (layer 3
> supporting lower bitrates).
Layer II does _not_ have:
win
> > 2- Are some people saying Layer2 is actually better than Layer3 at the same
> > bitrates for some types of music? I wonder if quality could be improved by
> > switching layers midstream... Do MPEG standards support that?
> I think that it's forbidden by iso
This may be a stupid question, but
IMHO a very good idea.
(Would solve a lot of legal problems ...)
>[...]
> final user?) It should not be a problem, as most of the time, there are
> beta releases more frequently than a 30 days basis.
Why only the betas ?
We could also display on the stable versions a warning after 30 days if
the
> From: Ross Levis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> I have been under the impression for several years that
> Stereo (mode 0) shares
> bits between the channels. If one channel was more complex
> than the other then
> it would allocated more to the channel that required it. I
> presume this is
Reading the new mp3 licensing website, I thinked about a potential
solution.
"Whereas no royalties are expected for demo versions of mp3 encoders
which are limited to either 20 encodes or 30 days under this license,
sales of full mp3 encoders have a per-unit royalty as mentioned below."
I think
Mathew Hendry wrote:
> > normal stereo allowing a more "free" allocation of bandwidth between the
> channels?
>
> AFAIK it doesn't. I'm not sure where that idea originated.
I have been under the impression for several years that Stereo (mode 0) shares
bits between the channels. If one channel wa
> From: Gabriel Bouvigne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> In dual channel, each channel has to got exactly half of the bits.
Do you have a reference for that in the ISO/IEC docs? Throughout 11172-3
stereo and dual_channel seem to be treated as entirely equivalent.
-- Mat.
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing l
Shawn Riley a écrit :
> 2- Are some people saying Layer2 is actually better than Layer3 at the same
> bitrates for some types of music? I wonder if quality could be improved by
> switching layers midstream... Do MPEG standards support that?
I think that it's forbidden by iso
Regards,
--
Gabrie
Mathew Hendry a écrit :
>
> > From: Shawn Riley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >
> > 6- What's the difference between normal stereo & dual channel
>
> In terms of bitstream format, nothing, apart from the frame header. Dual
> channel is simply a hint to the decoder that the two channels are intend
> From: Shawn Riley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> 6- What's the difference between normal stereo & dual channel
In terms of bitstream format, nothing, apart from the frame header. Dual
channel is simply a hint to the decoder that the two channels are intended
to be played separately, rather tha
I have a few questions & ideas - potentially stupid, but they've been
bugging me. I'd try all the ideas myself except I can't get Lame to compile
& I don't have a clue how to implement them anyway.
1- Is it possible to change the sample rate by encoding frames using other
than 1152 samples? As an
23 matches
Mail list logo
