Hi Rolf,
Rolf Hanich wrote on Sun, Nov 28 1999:
>A very new version is available as a plugin for 'Nero Burning Rom' cd
>burning program. Price DEM 29 (released October 99).
That's nice, how about Linux?
Regards Frederick
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
Hi Ampex,
Ampex wrote on Sun, Nov 28 1999:
>secondly, does anyone know where i can obtain a full version of the
>fhg encoder?
cd /YourPath/mp3enc31
gdb
set write on
file mp3encdemo31
print {unsigned long}0x80972c4 = 1
quit
Kind regardsFrederick
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.r
Hi everybody,
upgraded my computer, previously had a Pentium 90, 32 MB Ram, 3 HDs
(all SCSI, each 2.1 GB). Now have an AMD-K6-III-400, 192 MB Ram, 2 HDs
(U2W-SCSI, 18 GB and 9 GB). My previous NCR-53810 has been replaced by
a Tekram DC390-U2W. My Linux-Box got copied exactly the way it was on
the
Hi Mark,
you wrote on Wed, Oct 27 1999:
>> lame -b 128 -X5 -v -V 4 -h -k -d --resample 48 in.wav out48.mp3
>The bug is that the error message "Error: resample code not yet
>written!" was not being printed :-)
LOL! Thanks for the clarification.
>I think the upsample to 48kHz at 320kbs because
Hi all,
just gave it a try:
lame -b 128 -X5 -v -V 4 -h -k -d --resample 48 in.wav out48.mp3
The .wav file was grabbed from an audio-CD (44.1 kHz). mp3 sounds
horrible, way too fast. Is this a feature or should the resampled file
sound like the original? The FhG resamples to 48 kHz without any
n
Hi Leonardo,
you wrote on Sat, Oct 23 1999:
>In vbr 4 (much better than web mp3 quality) using initial
>br = 32, file is between 92 and 132 KBPS
>
>Why using lame 3.34 with vbr 0 I have 153 KBPS file while using the old
>3.30 in CDex I have a 124 KBPS file (same track from CD) ? I did
>something
Hi Greg,
you wrote on Sun, Oct 17 1999:
>>zillions of front-ends for encoders, I don't understand, what makes
>>this particular program so unique, that it can't be GPL'd.
>I'm glad to have some backup here.. Sometimes I feel like a crazed nut,
>crying out on a soapbox about issues no ones cares
Hi Greg,
you wrote on Sat, Oct 16 1999:
>You said yourself "They have a bad encoder that is coupled via DLL
>into their program".. Sounds like they dont want to spend the $$ on
>a good encoder, so they want to use lame to enhance their product.
I have the same feeling about this. What I don't
Hi Mathew,
you wrote on Wed, Oct 13 1999:
>> Highest mode is painfully slow
>e.g. 10 hours to encode 2 hours of CD audio to 96kbps, on my Celery
>400. Ouch. I think even FhG AAC is faster than this! :)
You lucky guy :-) FhG takes about 4 hours for one song on my Pentium
90 :-(
Kind regards
