>In VBR mode, --nspsytune usually improves sound quality with high tonality
like piano and tambourin but sometimes degrades sound with low tonality like
snare drums.
Would it be possible to use some other switch, like --cwlimit, to achieve
good quality with --nspsytune on all tonalities? If so, w
On 28 Sep, Robert Hegemann wrote:
> RH_VALIDATE_MS avoids to switch from LR to MS when
> the perceptual entropy indicates a need for more bits
> in MS coding mode than in LR mode.
So this means this is an space optimization with the additional benefit
of more consistency ("les
hi -- This is my first post to the list. I've been
helping myself to the cvs source code for a few months now and this is a
subject I have done some experimentation with.
the only drawback I've found when using --nspsytune in vbr mode is that
the average bitrate may increase somewhat dramati
Ross Levis schrieb am Fre, 29 Sep 2000:
> I think Roberts code should be included and implemented with a switch so
> us "non-compilers" can test it.
look at Dmitry's site, there it is for Windows users.
http://www.chat.ru/~dkutsanov/~index.htm
The latest alpha ver
I think Roberts code should be included and implemented with a switch so
us "non-compilers" can test it.
Ross.
Roel VdB wrote:
> Hello Robert,
>
> Thursday, September 28, 2000, 8:12:59 PM, you wrote:
>
> RH> Dmitry schrieb am Don, 28 Sep 2000:
> >> but what version i have to upload???
> >> >fro
Roel> btw: what's the status on --nspsytune? I heard some fixes were made?
--nspsytune is a lot improved from 3.86.
I've asked some people to evaluate --nspsytune, and most of their
response were positive ones.
In VBR mode, --nspsytune usually improves sound quality with high
tonality li
000 7:14 PM
Subject: Re[6]: [MP3 ENCODER] 3.87b MMX and no MMX give different results +
some 3.87 comments
> Hello Robert,
>
> Thursday, September 28, 2000, 8:12:59 PM, you wrote:
>
> RH> Dmitry schrieb am Don, 28 Sep 2000:
> >> but what version i have to upload???
>
Hello Robert,
Thursday, September 28, 2000, 8:12:59 PM, you wrote:
RH> Dmitry schrieb am Don, 28 Sep 2000:
>> but what version i have to upload???
>> >from project file or from makefile???
>> with 'Robert's alternate code' enable or disable???
RH> Well, officially the one with 'Robert's
Dmitry schrieb am Don, 28 Sep 2000:
> but what version i have to upload???
> >from project file or from makefile???
> with 'Robert's alternate code' enable or disable???
Well, officially the one with 'Robert's alternate code'
commented out. Sorry for the confusion.
Ciao
Hello Roel,
RV> since the nommx ic version seems to output abberant data, could you
RV> please try and compile an ic version with makefile.msvc (ic4.5)?
done. i compiled 4 versions with makefile.msvc:
ic, vc, nasm+ic, nasm+vc
ic is bit identical to nasm+ic
vc is bit identical to nasm+vc
ic is ve
Mark Powell schrieb am Don, 28 Sep 2000:
> He also thinks -q1 could be unsafe. Is that unsafe just in v3.87 or has it
> always been so, Robert?
Well, if we considered it always safe, we had made it default.
Combined with some -V0 or -V1 it seems to be OK.
If you compare "-
Mark Powell schrieb am Don, 28 Sep 2000:
> I'm guessing that it's this that makes you happy with the velvet sound?
>
> RH_AMP stuff is what was previously known as RH_NOISE_CALC
> RH_VALIDATE_MS avoids to switch from LR to MS when
> the perceptual entropy indicates a need
On Thu, 28 Sep 2000, Roel VdB wrote:
> Hello Dmitry,
>
> Thursday, September 28, 2000, 1:34:50 PM, you wrote:
>
> D> nommx version was compiled with ic 4.5 (with project files)
> D> mmx version was compiled with makefile.msvc (ic4.5)
> D> may be here is the problem
>
> since the nommx ic versi
Hello Dmitry,
Thursday, September 28, 2000, 1:34:50 PM, you wrote:
D> nommx version was compiled with ic 4.5 (with project files)
D> mmx version was compiled with makefile.msvc (ic4.5)
D> may be here is the problem
since the nommx ic version seems to output abberant data, could you
please try a
Dmitry schrieb am Don, 28 Sep 2000:
> Hello Gabriel,
>
> Thursday, September 28, 2000, 12:08:23 PM, you wrote:
>
> >> On my Linux Box with a Pentium 166 MMX the MMX and non-MMX
> >> version produce bit identical results.
>
> GB> I compiled both releases (with and without mmx) with VC6, and the
Hello Gabriel,
Thursday, September 28, 2000, 12:08:23 PM, you wrote:
>> On my Linux Box with a Pentium 166 MMX the MMX and non-MMX
>> version produce bit identical results.
GB> I compiled both releases (with and without mmx) with VC6, and the mp3 output
GB> is bit identical on my Cel460/win98.
Hello Mark,
Thursday, September 28, 2000, 12:27:02 PM, you wrote:
MP> On Thu, 28 Sep 2000, Gabriel Bouvigne wrote:
>> # of S frames/ total # of M/S frames]. Room enough on the lines :)
>> > > 4) Why does the MMX mode and non-MMX mode give different output on my
>> > >Cel450/Win95OSR2? Isn
MoiN
On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 11:21:21AM +0100, Mark Powell wrote:
> Wow the speed up is real sweet. What are the other .nas files in the
> i386 directory for? Specifically the fftsse.nas. Seems interesting if SSE
> can speed up some aspect of the encode. From the timestamps on these files
> it
Mark Powell schrieb am Don, 28 Sep 2000:
> Wow the speed up is real sweet. What are the other .nas files in the
> i386 directory for? Specifically the fftsse.nas. Seems interesting if SSE
> can speed up some aspect of the encode. From the timestamps on these files
> it seems they are an abandone
# of S frames/ total # of M/S frames]. Room enough on the lines :)
> > 4) Why does the MMX mode and non-MMX mode give different output on my
> >Cel450/Win95OSR2? Isn't MMX supposed to give same results?
>
> On my Linux Box with a Pentium 166 MMX the MMX and non-MMX
> version produce bit iden
Gabriel Bouvigne schrieb am Don, 28 Sep 2000:
> > At least your 3.87 MMX version seems to be compiled with the
> > Makefile.MSVC I checked in, with RH_AMP and RH_VALIDATE_MS
> > enabled. Dmitry, is that right?
>
> Should they be considered as default switches? In this case, why aren't they
> defi
Mark Powell schrieb am Don, 28 Sep 2000:
> On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, Robert Hegemann wrote:
> > At least your 3.87 MMX version seems to be compiled with the
> > Makefile.MSVC I checked in, with RH_AMP and RH_VALIDATE_MS
> > enabled. Dmitry, is that right?
>
> BTW Robert, are you recommendi
Mark Powell schrieb am Don, 28 Sep 2000:
> On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, Robert Hegemann wrote:
>
> > On my Linux Box with a Pentium 166 MMX the MMX and non-MMX
> > version produce bit identical results.
>
> How did you get the Linux version to assemble the MMX code? I've had no
> luck with GNU a
Hello Robert,
Thursday, September 28, 2000, 1:14:17 AM, you wrote:
RH> At least your 3.87 MMX version seems to be compiled with the
RH> Makefile.MSVC I checked in, with RH_AMP and RH_VALIDATE_MS
RH> enabled. Dmitry, is that right?
yes. i used your defult Makefile.MSVC, b
> At least your 3.87 MMX version seems to be compiled with the
> Makefile.MSVC I checked in, with RH_AMP and RH_VALIDATE_MS
> enabled. Dmitry, is that right?
Should they be considered as default switches? In this case, why aren't they
defined in the VC project?
Regards,
--
Gabriel Bouvigne -
Roel VdB schrieb am Mit, 27 Sep 2000:
> 3.86 (nommx)
> > average: 235 kbs
>
> 3.87 nommx:
> > average: 225.8 kbps
>
> 3.87 MMX
> > average: 224.6 kbps
>
> remarks:
> 1) 3.87 MMX is smaller, yet it sounds better (???) (velvet JS noise)
does it sound better than 3.87 non-MMX or 3.86?
>
w.win32lame.com
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Roel VdB
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2000 1:57 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [MP3 ENCODER] 3.87b MMX and no MMX give different results +
some 3.87 comments
Hello,
first some data: (-V1 -
Hello,
first some data: (-V1 -mj -h -b128 -q1)
3.86 (nommx)
> Encoding c.wav to c-386-nommx.mp3
> Encoding as 44.1 kHz VBR(q=1) j-stereo MPEG1 LayerIII ( 6.0x estimated) qval=1
> Frame | CPU/estimated | time/estimated | play/CPU | ETA
> 12498/ 12498(100%)| 0:04:07/ 0:04:07| 0:
28 matches
Mail list logo
