R It might make sense to use zip _instead_ of the Huffman coding.
So it depends on whether keeping frame independence(it is good for live
streaming) or not.
If you eliminate detectable frame boundaries, it becomes impossible to seek/
capture a stream. It would have to be played
At 10:54 AM +0100 on 12/3/99, Gabriel Bouvigne wrote:
anyone know why this site has been down for a while now?
I had to change my domain name servers. I've now found someone to host my
domain name on his servers (Sander van Zoest). But I've got some troubles
updating my domain name record on
Does anybody have been finished to optimize for AltiVec (PowerPC G4) in
source code level?
I complied LAME 3.50 beta with CodeWarrior Pro 5 with max optimization,
but
it just runs only about 1.5 times faster than same clock of G3 processor.
I think that the Proteron guys are working on it
Perhaps it's time for a 3.58 release of source code?
Regards,
Gabriel Bouvigne - France
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
icq: 12138873
MP3' Tech: www.mp3tech.org
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
On Fri, 3 Dec 1999, DeRobertis wrote:
There is no one with a clue at NSI... your best bet is probably to do
voodoo rituals. Ask NANOG about it sometime :(
Oh, there's plenty of clue there; they've all been assigned to NSI's
Premier Partners.
Rule #1 of dealing with NSI: never -ever- try to
Hi all. I'm new to the list. I have been using Xing's VBR up to now but I am hoping
to find Lame produces better VBR quality - but I'm not so sure.
I may be wrong but it appears Lame's VBR is not as variable when it comes to choosing
different bit-rates for each frame. I base this on the
I should have added that I am using the switches -b 32 -B 320
Ross.
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
Are you using the 2.50e version ??
Try new versions of winamp,
In vbr 0 , I found frames from 112 kbps (initial value) to 320 kbps
Ross Levis wrote:
Hi all. I'm new to the list. I have been using Xing's VBR up to now but I am
hoping to find Lame produces better VBR quality - but
Unfortunately I'm running Windows rather than Linux. I will take that plunge once it
is more configuration user-friendly. The -V4 switch in v3.57 (without -v which
doesn't appear to be required). I noticed that prior Lame versions required -V5 to
average close to 128kb/s whereas -V4 is now
On Sun, 5 Dec 1999, Ross Levis wrote:
Unfortunately I'm running Windows rather than Linux. I will take that plunge once
it is more configuration user-friendly. The -V4 switch in v3.57 (without -v which
doesn't appear to be required). I noticed that prior Lame versions required -V5 to
how does xing vbr compare to lame, in quality?
- Original Message -
From: "Greg Maxwell" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, December 04, 1999 11:59 PM
Subject: Re: [MP3 ENCODER] Re: VBR not as variable as Xing
On Sun, 5 Dec 1999, Ross Levis
Ampex wrote:
how does xing vbr compare to lame, in quality?
I don't have the equipment to do high quality listening tests but other tests have
shown Lame to be better than the Xing encoder. I found Xing better than Fhg for
joint-stereo distortion.
Greg Maxwell wrote:
If the cutoff is
Dear programmers :)
I use MP3 for encoding borrowed CD's for a legal low-power FM radio station in New
Zealand. To save money I am not using a frequency limiter/sound compressor and I'm
allowed to use 16khz rather than the usual 15khz cut-off. I'm using Winamp plug-ins
for the compression
13 matches
Mail list logo
