Hello ,
Sound Clip: (1900kb)
http://users.belgacom.net/gc247244/extra/velvet.zip
What I did to find apparent differences:
I encoded 1 file 320S and decoded (to get delays etc right)
Then I did an inverted mix paste of the V1 vbr_rh and V1 vbr_mt,
so that the differences would be hig
Hello Mark,
I put it (temp) on my website: (1.900kbyte)
http://users.belgacom.net/gc247244/extra/velvet.zip
Ok, I found some _visual_ confirmation of the noise component I keep
hearing in the R channel. This is there with vbr_mt, but not with
vbr_rh.
I used 385: "lame -V1 -mj -h -q1"
I used 38
> From: "David" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 18:18:06 +0200
>
> What is this -q1 parameter i've seen here on the list ?
> is it for VBR,ABR, or CBR ?
> is there -qx or only q1, tell me about it
>
> are there any other undocumented parameters ?
> if so, what do they do ?
>
> And
Title: RE: [MP3 ENCODER] MP3 decoder comparison
Naoki Shibata wrote:
> The amount of CPU load highly depends on performance of FPU. Since
> K6's FPU performance is much worse than Pentium II's, load on
> K6 is much higher than on Pentium II.
Yes I realise that but I didn't think it was 5
OK. I'll have some more experiments about this.
Mark> The reason you cannot use maxnoise is that the output of a lapped
Mark> transform (like the MDCT) with very short transform lenghts (576 and
Mark> 192 in our case), individual frequency information CANNOT BE TRUSTED!
Mark> You have to do so
Ross> Your joking aren't you? It uses about 5 times more CPU than in_mp3. On the
Ross> old machine I use it on (K6-200), in_mpg123 uses about 50% of CPU where
Ross> in_mp3 is about 10%. The advantage is slightly better sound quality.
The amount of CPU load highly depends on performance of F
Title: RE: [MP3 ENCODER] MP3 decoder comparison
Cavallo de Cavallis wrote:
> what make u choose the in_mpg123 solution ?
Steve Lhomme wrote:
> The bug in Winamp and I also figured out it is a bit faster
> (less CPU use).
Your joking aren't you? It uses about 5 times more CPU than in_mp3.
The bug in Winamp and I also figured out it is a bit faster (less CPU use).
I couldn't really hear the difference anyway...
- Original Message -
From: "Cavallo de Cavallis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2000 7:13 PM
Subject: Re: [MP3 ENCODER] MP3 deco
>
> Hi All-
>
> I've been playing around with the latest version of GoGo-no-Coda. In the
> setup portion of the program the user can disable psycho-acoustics. The
> program says that when encoding at < 128 kbs, quality of encoding is
> improved with psycho-acoustics enabled. The implication
>
> I think it is certain that this problem is caused by noises
> concentrated on pure tones.
> A noise on a single MDCT coefficient increases as it's
> amplitude increases. This is because quantized values are
> actually values powered by 3/4.
>
> According to the theory of psychoacoustic, i
> Are you sure of that ? Because I use Winamp but with the in_mpg123 output instead
> of the included MP3 decoder (which is also faster). in_mpg123 is a Winamp port
> of MPG123 and it works fine with the VBR+CRC MP3 I encode.
>
what make u choose the in_mpg123 solution ?
Cavallo de Cavall
Hi All-
I've been playing around with the latest version of GoGo-no-Coda. In the
setup portion of the program the user can disable psycho-acoustics. The
program says that when encoding at < 128 kbs, quality of encoding is
improved with psycho-acoustics enabled. The implication given is that
en
>
>
> In http://privatewww.essex.ac.uk/~djmrob/mp3decoders/index.html
> there's a comparison of mp3 decoders. Lame is one of the three that passed
> the test (the other two are Winamp 2.22 and Ultra Player). But mpg123 is
> not tested. What about it? Does anyone know any decoding problem w
But 32 kbps should be enough fot a simple 1kHz signal , or ?
Mark Taylor wrote:
>
> >
> > They discovered a possible bug in lame VBR code, but I couldn't
> > find details.
> > On their Least Significant Bit test
> > (http://privatewww.essex.ac.uk/~djmrob/mp3decoders/lsb.html)
> > they say :
> >
>
> They discovered a possible bug in lame VBR code, but I couldn't
> find details.
> On their Least Significant Bit test
> (http://privatewww.essex.ac.uk/~djmrob/mp3decoders/lsb.html)
> they say :
>
> CEP and lame VBR do not ENCODE the LSB signal correctly
>
> ( CEP is CoolEdit mp3 plugin )
>
They discovered a possible bug in lame VBR code, but I couldn't
find details.
On their Least Significant Bit test
(http://privatewww.essex.ac.uk/~djmrob/mp3decoders/lsb.html)
they say :
CEP and lame VBR do not ENCODE the LSB signal correctly
( CEP is CoolEdit mp3 plugin )
They used lame 3.81bet
>> In http://privatewww.essex.ac.uk/~djmrob/mp3decoders/index.html
>>there's a comparison of mp3 decoders. Lame is one of the three that
>passed
>>the test (the other two are Winamp 2.22 and Ultra Player). But mpg123
>is
>>not tested. What about it? Does anyone know any decoding problem with
17 matches
Mail list logo
