hi,
I'm asking myself why the source of Lame 3.70 is still a patch against
the ISO-Code. In the history there is a remark that the last ISO-Code is
removed from LAME - So it would be much more simple to distribute a plain
sourcecode instead a patch, or am I wrong ?!
A+
Christian
Here's an interesting message I thought should be posted
to the mp3encoder list:
--- Start of forwarded message ---
From: "Aleksandar Dovnikovic" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: MP3 and hi-frequences
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 21:00:41 +0200
Hello.
First of all,
From: "Aleksandar Dovnikovic" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with high-frequencies (16kHz). Interesting thing is that this problem is
practically in the left channel - you can hear frequencies over
16kHz being
"echoed", "swirled" in left channel. Now LAME indeed does the
networks are measured with k = 1000.
storage is measured with k = 1024.
this is how it has traditionally been.
jack.
On Mon, 17 Apr 2000, Shawn Riley wrote:
Is 1 kilobit per second supposed to be 1024 bits per second, or 1000 bits per second?
Shawn
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list (
In mp3 audio it's 1000 bits per second, in Microsoft's media formats it's 1024
bits per second
mark told me it was so they could say they could say they took the same
amount of space (128kbps) even though they squeezed more data in there.
the cheaters.
jack.
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list
From: Jack Moffitt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
networks are measured with k = 1000.
storage is measured with k = 1024.
this is how it has traditionally been.
It seems to be quite common to use the prefix "K" to refer to multiples of
1024, and "k" for mutliples of 1000, but I don't know if
Mathew Hendry wrote:
From: Jack Moffitt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
networks are measured with k = 1000.
storage is measured with k = 1024.
this is how it has traditionally been.
It seems to be quite common to use the prefix "K" to refer to multiples of
1024, and "k" for
Hello,
I am trying the ripper/encoder CDEX 1.20, with the Lame (3.38 engine) encoding option.
I surprisingly observe large file size differences depending if I select MPEG1 or
MPEG2 (30% smaller). So:
-I don't know exactly the differences between MPEG1/MPEG2 layer 3, but I though they
were
Yes, that post was interesting enough. I started working on it right after I got
it!
I took a stereo wave file [a difficult one, which has frequencies just *jumping*
around 20Khz!]. opened it with CoolEdit, deleted one channel and pasted the
other channel over it. So, the two channels were 100%
Hi peeps,
I know this is MP3-encoder but I couldn't find any place more suitable to
post the results of some decoder testing I've been doing over the last
couple of days.
I took a fairly complex track (Pat Metheny's Imaginary Day title track in
fact) ripped from CD at 44.1khz 16bit stereo, and
Hi Matthew. Interesting analysis. Just one question.
What do you mean by
WinAmp's EQ sucks bigtime. They all have the same frequency response.
Ross.
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
I was pretty excited to get lame 3.70 since the older releases crashed
my box. :)
I encoded an album with lame -v -h -p -b 128 (using the notlame binary)
and everything went well until I tried to play it back with mpg123...
Here's what I got:
Playing MPEG stream from 01-Sometimes.mp3 ...
MPEG
On Tue, 18 Apr 2000 22:51:52 -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
I encoded an album with lame -v -h -p -b 128 (using the notlame binary)
and everything went well until I tried to play it back with mpg123...
try using the -y commandline switch of mpg123.. if I remember, this is what
I had to do..
Paul
13 matches
Mail list logo
