Roel> I just tried on the version without extensions. I don't understand
Roel> the extra benefit of the nspsytune. Please explain to me what flaw needed
Roel> fixing in the older lame's and how you did it? I still find the sound
Roel> not good, and the file only gets needlessly bigger.
Per
Hello Naoki,
Saturday, October 07, 2000, 1:00:29 PM, you wrote:
NS> --nspsytune doesn't work correctly if RH extensions are enabled.
I just tried on the version without extensions. I don't understand
the extra benefit of the nspsytune. Please explain to me what flaw needed
fixing in the old
Mark Taylor wrote:
> > > Am I wrong or has the file quantize-pvt.c changed to quantize_pvt.c
> > > (and the header file as well)? Why was this done?
<...>
> That name was changed because one make system (MSDOS?) interpreted
> the '-' in quantize-pvt.c as a compiler option.
It was the tlib pro
Roel> The graphs you provided show a lower noise, this because --nspsytune
Roel> probably. It simply sounds poor, really poor. It sounds nothing like
Roel> the original on my headphones.
Roel>
Roel> I use the one with the "RH extensions" from Dmitry. (thanks for all
Roel> the compiles and har
