Can someone add a feature to the decoder?
It should display the current stereo coding (MS vs. LR).
Best would be to use code like that:
fprintf ( stderr, " %s " , frametype ? "M " : " S" );
So you have a blinking "light".
Another proposal: The width of the resampling filter could be
Howdy Patrick,
> Would you recommend me to use the dist10 decoder as a basis for a
> further implementations ?
Pretty much everyone does, so come on in, the water's fine... (You don't
really have much choice - there are bugs in the spec which can only be fixed
(readily) by looking at the dist10
>>I think the only way is to find every frame, and analyse the header. It will
g>ive you the frame length with the formula mentionned earlier
(sample_per_frame>/sampling_frequency).
>>Otherwise, you'll be missing the VBR aspect of files (unless you can get the
'>real' bit rate).
>
>Do you know o
Hello,
>Hello,
>
>I'd like to determine the number of frames included in an mp3 file
>given its size. Using the formula
>File_Size/(1152*Bitrate/Sampling_Rate) always leads to a number of
>frames that's smaller than the one indicated by an MP3 decoder
>(eg. WinAmp) for the same file. Could
David> now perhaps all these decoding benchmarks i hear about have had the MMX
David> option enabled giving crap results like i can hear. maybe winamp gives
David> perfect output with pentium option enabled
David>
David> decode using mpg123 thingy and do a comparison between all four me ;)
ll four me ;)
cheers
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
Behalf Of David Balazic
Sent: 18 July 2000 15:56
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [MP3 ENCODER] MP3 decoder comparison
I just decoded the demo.mp3 , which is supplied with wina
;
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> Behalf Of David Balazic
> Sent: 18 July 2000 11:51
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [MP3 ENCODER] MP3 decoder comparison
>
> Somebody mentioned somewhere that
EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [MP3 ENCODER] MP3 decoder comparison
Somebody mentioned somewhere that the MMX code
produces different output that the normal pentium
code in WinAMP.
Was that tested ?
David Balazic
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3en
Somebody mentioned somewhere that the MMX code
produces different output that the normal pentium
code in WinAMP.
Was that tested ?
David Balazic
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
Hi Naoki,
Ross>> Your joking aren't you? It uses about 5
Ross>> times more CPU than in_mp3. On K6-200 ...
NS> The CPU load highly depends on performance of
NS> FPU. Since K6's FPU is much worse than Pentium
NS> II's ...
I'm running in_mpg13.dll on AuthenticAMD AMD-K6tm
w/ multimedia extensions
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
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 C
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
Sub
> 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
>
>
> 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
>> 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
David Bridson schrieb am Mon, 17 Jul 2000:
> > 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 abo
On Mon, 17 Jul 2000, David Bridson wrote:
> > 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 i
> 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
it
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 it?
21 matches
Mail list logo
