> I'm planning some 3D Now!, SSE code, but I have no K6-2/3, Athlon, PIII.
> does someone donate me a machine or shell account :-) ?
3D now and SSE are fine, but why not some MMX code? A lot more people
got mmx processors. Are 3D Now and SSE really faster than MMX?
> and these have not written
I can only say keep up the good work Takehiro :). It wouldn't be the same
without you!
Ross.
Takehiro Tominaga wrote:
> Hi all.
>
> I'm planning these features to merge the current LAME from my snapshot...
>
> 0 new bitstream handling code
> (this is almost done by Mark)
>
> 1 new shor
> > I'm planning some 3D Now!, SSE code, but I have no K6-2/3, Athlon, PIII.
> > does someone donate me a machine or shell account :-) ?
>
> 3D now and SSE are fine, but why not some MMX code? A lot more people
> got mmx processors. Are 3D Now and SSE really faster than MMX?
MMX is integer, 3dno
> > > I'm planning some 3D Now!, SSE code, but I have no K6-2/3, Athlon, PIII.
> > > does someone donate me a machine or shell account :-) ?
> >
> > 3D now and SSE are fine, but why not some MMX code? A lot more people
> > got mmx processors. Are 3D Now and SSE really faster than MMX?
>
> MMX is
> > 6 call best huffman code each iteration
> > maybe very very slow, but quality will be up.
> This could be called only in the highest quality setting, like in
> mp3enc, when quality setting will be implemented
But depending on how slow this will actually be, it maybe not always be
desi
> From: Takehiro Tominaga <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 20:50:25 +0900
>
> Hi all.
>
> I'm planning these features to merge the current LAME from my snapshot...
>
> 0 new bitstream handling code
> (this is almost done by Mark)
>
This is almost done. The new code works
Mark Taylor wrote:
> Other problem: what is the algorithm to determine when to use
> a short block instead of a mixed block?
I think (but my memory is not very sure about it) that AT&T Pac uses
mixed blocks. So we may find info about them in Johnson papers or in
AT&T patents (as those ones are
> >
> > 5 mixed_block support
>
> Funny you should mention that. When I was getting bitstream.c
> to work in LAME, i saw that old #ifdef ALLOW_MIXED and thought
> this code is never going to be used and deleted it :-)
> Anyway, it is still in CVS. I dont recall evern seeing *any* encoder
> mak
> But depending on how slow this will actually be, it maybe not always be
> desired, so I'm not sure if this should make the difference between a
> --quality 8 or --quality 9 (9 being the maximum) option, if you know what
> I mean.
I think a different switch should be fixed for this, like -eh [ex
Zia Mazhar wrote:
>
> > But depending on how slow this will actually be, it maybe not always be
> > desired, so I'm not sure if this should make the difference between a
> > --quality 8 or --quality 9 (9 being the maximum) option, if you know what
> > I mean.
>
> I think a different switch shoul
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Apr 6 22:15:19 2000
..
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
..
From: Takehiro Tominaga <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
..
I'm planning these features to merge the current LAME from my snapshot...
..
4 many ix86 assembler routine
..
Takehiro,
Many of us
> > > But depending on how slow this will actually be, it maybe not always be
> > > desired, so I'm not sure if this should make the difference between a
> > > --quality 8 or --quality 9 (9 being the maximum) option, if you know what
> > > I mean.
> > I think a different switch should be fixed for
> "S" == Segher Boessenkool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Other problem: what is the algorithm to determine when to use a
>> short block instead of a mixed block?
S> You could try: use mixed blocks, unless there is a surge in
S> energy in the lowest frequency bands.
We shou
> "Segher" == Segher Boessenkool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > I'm planning some 3D Now!, SSE code, but I have no K6-2/3,
>> Athlon, PIII. > does someone donate me a machine or shell
>> account :-) ?
>>
>> 3D now and SSE are fine, but why not some MMX code? A lot more
I would like to see quality as the number 1 priority, especially at higher
bitrates. Ease of code improvement and maintenance as the 2nd priority.
Speed as a very distant 3rd. Additional features not related to quality as
4th.
Has anyone found examples of music that are not transparent at 256k or
> IF there are such musical selections and given that CDRs, CDR media and
> large harddrives are becoming more affordable by the day - has any
> consideration been given to extending the bitrate up to 384k and 440k? Do
> the ISO specs allow for this? Could these bitrates be handled by widely
> av
> From: "Hudson Kingery" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Has anyone found examples of music that are not transparent at 256k or
> 320k?
castanets.wav and fatboy.wav on the LAME web page.
-- Mat.
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
On Sat, 8 Apr 2000, Hudson Kingery wrote:
[snip]
> Has anyone found examples of music that are not transparent at 256k or
> 320k? I'm referring to transparent on a mid-range home stereo not a
> high-end studio quality rig. (Mid-range to me is a Denon receiver and
> Sennheiser 580 headphones. I do
huge snip
>
> If you are going to make an incompatible format, why not go all the way
> and fix all of MP3's stupidness.
>
> Take a look at vorbis.
>
> --
> MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
wich stupidness are you reffering to?
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://gee
huge snip
>
> If you are going to make an incompatible format, why not go all the way
> and fix all of MP3's stupidness.
>
> Take a look at vorbis.
>
> --
> MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
wich stupidness are you reffering to?
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://gee
> wich stupidness are you reffering to?
Hahahah :)
There's lots of stupid things that mp3 does. It's just an old model
designed under considerations that aren't always valid anymore.
Mark has said a few times that there are several rather obvious things you
could change that may increase sou
> Mark has said a few times that there are several rather
> obvious things you
> could change that may increase sound quality.
Could these "things" be implemented in an MP3 encoder, or would they need a
completely different format?
Ross.
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encod
At 09:13 AM 4/10/00 -0400, Greg wrote:
>If you are going to make an incompatible format, why not go all the way
>and fix all of MP3's stupidness.
The guitarist in my band uses a Yamaha MD8S to record all our stuff. It compresses 1
CD's worth of audio down to about 150MB (about 5x compression) by
Oops...
At 09:13 AM 4/10/00 -0400, Greg wrote:
>On some samples with mp3, 320k is not transparent to such listeners on any
>sound equipment
What about a mono MP3 sample at 320kBit/sec (vs a mono PCM sample at 705.6kBit/sec)? I
guess that defeats the purpose of MP3, but it would be interesting t
CEO - Netherworld Media
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone: +61 (889) 279 898
FAX: +61 (889) 273 889
AudioPhilez (http://www.audiophilez.com)
- Original Message -
From: "Shawn Riley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2000 4:44 PM
Subj
On Tue, 11 Apr 2000, Adam Whitehead wrote:
> ATRAC is the codec used by Minidisc recorders. According to 'experts' it is
> not perceptually lossless either. As far as I can remember the bitrate is
> 292kbit/s
> which is above what people are comfortable with transferring over the
> Internet.
>
> > wich stupidness are you reffering to?
>
>
> Hahahah :)
>
>
> There's lots of stupid things that mp3 does. It's just an old model
> designed under considerations that aren't always valid anymore.
I don't understand this? Did the physics change, or the human ear/brain?
>
> Mark has said
> I don't understand this? Did the physics change, or the human ear/brain?
No. They did not. But the research that the psychoacoustics most
encoders used is most likely wrong. Monty has spent a lot of time
researching psychoacoustics for vorbis, and has found lots of new research
that showed t
> > I don't understand this? Did the physics change, or the human ear/brain?
> No. They did not. But the research that the psychoacoustics most
> encoders used is most likely wrong. Monty has spent a lot of time
> researching psychoacoustics for vorbis, and has found lots of new research
> that
| OdesÃlatel: Adam Whitehead <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| > The guitarist in my band uses a Yamaha MD8S to record all our stuff. It
| compresses 1 CD's worth of audio down to about 150MB (about 5x
compression)
| by removing details from the signals that we can't hear (so I assume it
| works in much the s
>Sony have made a lower bitrate version called ATRAC3 that is available as
>software.
>http://www.world.sony.com/Electronics/ATRAC3/
>
>It's used by the Sony Vaio portable music player.
>According to reviews the encoder uses some encryption so that you can only
>play back the files on the pc in w
>Yamaha MD multitrack recorders uses slightly modified ATRAC. When you use
>MD from SONY, they sound much worse than MD recorded on multitrack from
>Yamaha. But standard stereo mode sounds same as SONY.
Since you normally only record one instrument per track on the MD recorders, I'd
expect it to
On Thu, 13 Apr 2000, Shawn Riley wrote:
> Okay, so I spelt it wrong too... hehehe. Hey, what's this? It can only
> be played on the pc that created them? So what if a user decides to
> upgrade? I don't really like the idea of ripping the same 15-or-so CDs
> every few years because my new compute
Yikes! So what about "SDMI-Compliant CDs"? Does that mean they'll only be able to be
ripped analog?
Or does it mean they'll only play in one CD player? j/k It shouldn't be too hard to
make a bitwise copy of a CD though... Should it?
If I was going portable, I'd much rather try the standard porta
> It's no joke. It's a feature of the SDMI (secure digital music
> initiative). It's scary to think that in the future all portable mp3
> players may have this feature.
Of course it must be even more frightening for the SDMI designers that by the
time these systems get fully depolyed your aver
On Thu, 13 Apr 2000 11:32:55, Shawn Riley wrote:
>Do the Minidisc players skip like CDs, or do they have a significant read-ahead or
>otherwise >to get around this?
I have a Sony Minidisc player that I take out on the boat with me
while I am wakeboarding. It takes quite a bit of abuse but I ha
rsday, April 13, 2000 11:40 PM
Subject: Re: [MP3 ENCODER] the road to next(v4.00?)
> On Thu, 13 Apr 2000 11:32:55, Shawn Riley wrote:
>
> >Do the Minidisc players skip like CDs, or do they have a significant
read-ahead or otherwise >to get around this?
>
> I have a Sony Minidisc
Howdy,
I tried to search through all the messages related to this topic, but I
couldn't find any that addressed the speed issue. Trying VBR using the
lastest 3.8 CVS source, VBR is still slower than CBR. Is this still a
future improvement, or do I need to set an option?
mark stephens
- O
>
> Howdy,
>
> I tried to search through all the messages related to this topic, but I
> couldn't find any that addressed the speed issue. Trying VBR using the
> lastest 3.8 CVS source, VBR is still slower than CBR. Is this still a
> future improvement, or do I need to set an option?
>
> mark
39 matches
Mail list logo
