I forgot to add that Fraunhofer also sounded better at 48k than Lame did at 56k...
Maybe this filtering is why.
Shawn
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
Hi everyone. I've made an observation with the versions of the Fraunhofer ACM codec
that I installed in about January some time & Lame 3.62. Yes, they're old versions, &
maybe a lot has changed since then, but... this is what I did-
1- Encoded a sample with moderately low stereo separation w
Hello Holger,
Tuesday, June 13, 2000, 5:16:14 PM, you wrote:
HD> Also, how many people know of UPX, how many know that you can unpack
HD> it, and how many know that those files were packed? There should be at
HD> least a comment about the fact that they're packed with UPX.
open lame.exe in somet
Greg Maxwell wrote:
> It's amazing the differences people hear, considering that when the bug is
> not occuring the outputs as very nearly identical.
>
Very right! Same goes for evaluating encoders, too!
- Zia
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
Hello Jaroslav,
> If you download upx packer, you can simply to unpack packed files.
yes, of course, but this is true vice versa as well: you can pack the
files with UPX if you wish to.
Also, how many people know of UPX, how many know that you can unpack
it, and how many know that those files we
| Odesílatel: Holger Dors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| Hello Dmitry,
|
| > i'm using UPX executable packer http://upx.tsx.org
|
| exe packers are very tempting to reduce size, and I myself have done
| that before, however, this method has it downsides as well, although
| not many people are aware of it
It's amazing the differences people hear, considering that when the bug is
not occuring the outputs as very nearly identical.
On Tue, 13 Jun 2000, Jason Antony wrote:
>
> just did a massive search at the Winamp forum website and came up
> with these:
>
> http://forums.winamp.com/ubb/Forum1/H
Hello Dmitry,
> i'm using UPX executable packer http://upx.tsx.org
exe packers are very tempting to reduce size, and I myself have done
that before, however, this method has it downsides as well, although
not many people are aware of it or telling you. For some arguments
for _not_ using an exe p
> I took all of this into consideration, but the binary hosted on
mp3-tech.org
> is nearly twice the size of the one on chat.ru
I use VC6, p pro target processor, customized optimisations, and inline any
suitable function.
--
Gabriel Bouvigne - France
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
icq: 12138873
MP3' Tech
Probably because of different compilers, and different
optimizations
Regards,
--
Gabriel Bouvigne - France[EMAIL PROTECTED]icq:
12138873
MP3' Tech: www.mp3-tech.org
- Original Message -
From:
Ampex
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2000 11:42
PM
Zia Mazhar wrote:
> > >
> > > WinAmp 2.63 has been released... I didn't notice the bug with the sweep test.
> > > So, it seems that they have finally fixed it! Please check for yourselves and
> > > confirm. Thanks.
> > >
> > > - Zia
> > >
> > >
> >
> > I just downloaded WinAmp 2.64, and decoded bo
Mark Taylor wrote:
>
>
> To explain how this works, take a 128kbs CBR for example.
> In that case, LAME allocated a base amount of
> bits for each frame. This base amount is about 10% less than
> a 128kbs stream, so that the bit reservoir is slowly built up.
> LAME then allocates extra bits ba
12 matches
Mail list logo
