Can someone add a feature to the decoder?
It should display the current stereo coding (MS vs. LR).
Best would be to use code like that:
fprintf ( stderr, " %s " , frametype ? "M " : " S" );
So you have a blinking "light".
Another proposal: The width of the resampling filter could
Hello,
Hello,
I'd like to determine the number of frames included in an mp3 file
given its size. Using the formula
File_Size/(1152*Bitrate/Sampling_Rate) always leads to a number of
frames that's smaller than the one indicated by an MP3 decoder
(eg. WinAmp) for the same file. Could
I think the only way is to find every frame, and analyse the header. It will
give you the frame length with the formula mentionned earlier
(sample_per_frame/sampling_frequency).
Otherwise, you'll be missing the VBR aspect of files (unless you can get the
'real' bit rate).
Do you know of any
Howdy Patrick,
Would you recommend me to use the dist10 decoder as a basis for a
further implementations ?
Pretty much everyone does, so come on in, the water's fine... (You don't
really have much choice - there are bugs in the spec which can only be fixed
(readily) by looking at the dist10
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?
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?
14 matches
Mail list logo
