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/mp3encoder
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?
Yes,
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
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 Cavallis
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
Subject: Re: [MP3 ENCODER] M
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
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?
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 it? Does
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 about it?
