> > Some things might be similar, like m/s choice, block type decision, but
the
> > bit allocation is diffinitively different, as the number of bits
available
>
> This stuff is not psycho acoustics itself. psycho is:
>
> window, fft, cb's, energy & tonality computation, spreading function,
> threshold computation. After that you use it: fold to sfb's, m/s choice,
...
>
> > is different and frequency distribution is different due to filters.
>
> You first filter and _then_ do the psycho acoustics? That's broken, IMHO.
The filtering is done before.
In psychoacoustic, (and also in psychovision) what is more annoying is not
artifacts themselves, but changes in artefacts. High frequency limit change
IS an annoying artefact. If the filtering was done after psycho acoustic, it
would mean that the high freq limit could change from a granule to another,
leading to a kind of high freq fluttering.
So I'm quite sure you wouldn't gain 50% in re-using computations.
This is my opinion, perhaps others could tell us what they think about it.
Regards,
--
Gabriel Bouvigne - France
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
icq: 12138873
MP3' Tech: www.mp3-tech.org
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
