> Just another remark/suggestion, which could maybe be true for all other
> things relevant to (too)lame also;
> is anyone doing/considering documenting the code (outside the C-src);
> I also mean at several levels:
> 1) theoretical optimization stuff e.g. subband anal/resynth
> window is symmetrical, cos/sin table can be reduced by folding at..., ...
> 2) how can/could this be put down in source code efficiently
> 3) what alternatives were examined/compiled and compared for 2) and why
> was something finally selected (for best speed, least memory consumption,
> whatever).
> I think this could save some efforts (re-inventing the wheel,
> like my optims (will report later) seem to be compared to Takehiro's);
> the list-mail-archive is not really handy for this I think,
> (My own contrib in this area? I am considering doing this for
> subband-filtering). It could also expand lame into a "better MPEG-audio
> understanding" platform ??? Too ambitious ???
I think Patrick is right here. We could put a section on the LAME site with
comments about changes, tuning and optimization done on LAME, including
stuff tryed but wich didn't worked, or wich were replaced after. We could
write some txt or html file describing work done. It would be nice to put
the date on those, and optionnally the name of the writer.
As an example, Mike's pages about mdct are the kind of things that I'd like
to see.
Regards,
Gabriel Bouvigne - France
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
icq: 12138873
MP3' Tech: www.mp3tech.org
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
