Re: [MP3 ENCODER] OggVorbis

2000-05-11 Thread Pierre Hugonnet

"steve m." wrote:
 
 Nils Faerber wrote:
 
  Other opinions?
  CU
nils
 
 if it isn't mp3, it kind of limits what one can do... =(  sure there may be a 
player, or plug_ins for some players but you lose the freedom that exists in mp3 
being a "standard". for me it would mean that i couldn't use them in my empeg, heh. 
besides, i got like 70gb+ of mp3s right now. don't want to reencode things until i 
have to (converting everything to vbr is taking me long enough).
 
 steve
 


Seems to me a bad reason. You don't need to reencode your files, keep under mp3 what 
is already mp3, and just use new formats for future encodings, if you think that new 
formats are better. 

The point here is that mp3 is a proprietary format, while ogg is an open one. Moreover 
ogg have several interesting features: for example it is natively VBR, while mp3 is 
basically CBR: VBR is not nicely implemented in mp3.



Related question: wouldn't the experience accumulated in the Lame project be useful 
for the ogg project (GPSYCHO,...) ? Couldn't Lame and ogg cooperate ?


Pierre
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )



Re: [MP3 ENCODER] OggVorbis

2000-05-11 Thread Jack Moffitt

 Related question: wouldn't the experience accumulated in the Lame
 project be useful for the ogg project (GPSYCHO,...) ? Couldn't Lame
 and ogg cooperate ?

they already do.  we all work for the same company, and for the same
goals.  icecast, ogg, lame, and some other stuff are all part of the same
force to get a consistent and open media framework that everyone can
openly and freely use and develop with.

jack.

--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )



[MP3 ENCODER] where to find newest linux Lame binaries?

2000-05-11 Thread vdbj

Hello All,

I'm looking for a page as great as Dmitry Kutsanov's is for win32
binaries, but with recent compiled Linux binaries. Anyone? thanks?

Also they (.r3mix.net visitors) asked me if the Lame is
linux-multithreaded? I'm guessing not since there is only 1
important consecutive encoding process?

thanks

r3mix.net


--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )



Re: [MP3 ENCODER] default high pass filtering

2000-05-11 Thread Istvan Varga

Segher Boessenkool wrote:

  Perhaps someone could find a wav wich produces this disturbing high frequency
  echos while encoding with lame due to low frequency signals. This could be
 
 bassNN_N.wav from SQAM (at low bitrates).
 
 about anything from "Grotus" as well (_very_ fat bass)

On some signals, however, highpass filters can do bad things as well.
For example, after processing this file
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Bit/5683/test1c.zip
with a 5 Hz highpass filter, the peak amplitude increased
to about 52000, resulting in lots of clipped samples.
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )



Re: faster mdct(Re: [MP3 ENCODER] Hardware reccomendation)

2000-05-11 Thread Takehiro Tominaga

 "T" == Takehiro Tominaga [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Segher Oh, by the way, anyone interested in better DCT's?
Naoki I made faster mdct_long and sent it to Takehiro.

T and it was merged to my tree.  maybe tomorrow, CVS tree will
T get it.

T it's very swift :)

It's merged. and it's very fast.
Kudos to Naoki !
--- 
Takehiro TOMINAGA // may the source be with you!
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )



Re: [MP3 ENCODER] free format bitstreams and iso documentation

2000-05-11 Thread Gabriel Bouvigne


  According to my ISO doc (section 2.4.2.3), for layer III, decoders are
not
 required to support higher free format higher than 320kbps. So free format
 is not restricted to =320kbps.
  And decoders must support free format at least up to 320k.

 My ISO 13818-3 documentation : Section 2.4.2.3
 "The decoder is not required to support bitrates higher than 256 kbit/s,
160
 kbit/s, 160 kbit/s in respect to Layer I, II and III when in free format
 mode."

 And in 2.1.74 : "2.1.74 free format [audio]: Any bitrate other than the
 defined bitrates that is less than the maximum valid bitrate for each
 layer."

You're reading the mpeg-2 doc. That's why you get lower limits. But your doc
only indicates the maximum bitrate that decoders are required to support,
and does not mention a limit for encoders.

Regards,


Gabriel Bouvigne - France
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
icq: 12138873

MP3' Tech: www.mp3-tech.org


--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )



Re: [MP3 ENCODER] free format bitstreams and iso documentation

2000-05-11 Thread Sigbjørn Skjæret

[...]
As Gaby pointed out, it says the "decoder is not requires to support..."
which doesnt say they are invalid MP3 files :-)

Hey, btw, I just tested free-format with mpega.library and AmigaAMP's internal
decoder (FhG licensed), and both failed miserably. :/


- CISC

--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )



Re: [MP3 ENCODER] MPEG2

2000-05-11 Thread Mark Taylor


 
 Hi,
 
 Excuse me, I must be missing something really obvious.. I see that
 lame supports MPEG 2 and 2.5, but how do I create an MPEG 2 or 2.5
 file with lame? I don't see a switch for it.. Is it enabled
 automatically for some kinds of audio?
 
 Regular MP3s are Just MPEG 1, right?
 
 

MPEG1, 2 and 2.5 is determined by the output samplerate;

MPEG1 layer III samplerates(kHz): 32 44.1 48 
bitrates(kbs): 32 40 48 56 64 80 96 112 128 160 192 224 256 320 

MPEG2 layer III samplerates(kHz): 16 22.05 24 
bitrates(kbs): 8 16 24 32 40 48 56 64 80 96 112 128 144 160 

MPEG2.5 layer III samplerates(kHz): 8 11.025 12 
bitrates(kbs): 8 16 24 32 40 48 56 64 80 96 112 128 144 160 


so to make an MPEG2 file, use, for example,  "lame --resample 24"
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )



Re: [MP3 ENCODER] Naming

2000-05-11 Thread Caster



What about LAME Allows MP3 
Encoding?
Caster

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  steve 
  m. 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 2:36 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [MP3 ENCODER] 
Naming
  Zia Mazhar wrote: 
  Well, I think the name LAME doesn't need to be 
changed whatever happenes... Now we know LAME as "LAME Ain't an MP3 
Encoder". Dropping the whole ISO code, LAME may become "LAME is An MP3 
Encoder". It's LAME either way! What do you say? :-) 
  PS- Would the name have to be changed to something like 
"LIFAME"?   (Lame Is Finally An Mp3 Encoder)  What about 
 FAME (Finally An Mp3 Encoder)  or in the old tradition of 
geeks  FAME (FAME is a Mp3 Encoder)  but perhaps we simply 
stay with  LAME (LAME is After all a Mp3 
  Encoder)could always be: "LAME: An MP3 Encoder"... or I was 
  partial to LIME, hehe. "LAME IS an MP3 Encoder"... 
  just thoughts from the peanut gallery steve --

"For the man who has everything... Penicillin."
-- F. Borquin