>>>>> "M" == Mathew Hendry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> From: Stapp, Acy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>>
>> Has this stabilized?
M> Hasn't changed for at least a few days. ;)
Wait a moment !
I don't think so....
>>>>> "S" == Segher Boessenkool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> hmm, I'm not so sure about this. The noise measure used in
>> LAME is based *not* on the error in the energy
>>
>> fabs(i^8/3 - x^2)
>>
>> but instead on the energy of the error:
>>
>> ( i^4/3 -x ) ^2
>>
>> Since LAME picks scalefactors to try to minimize the second
>> quantity, I think we should use a quantization consistant with
>> this error measure?
S> Ahah. I think the scalefactor picking should be consistent with
S> the first formula instead :-)
S> But seriously, what the ear hears is energy, not amplitude; so
S> the second formula is not an accurate description of the
S> audible error.
I think this is right, Segher.
with my poor listening test, I think we should take noise calculation
>> fabs(i^8/3 - x^2)
instead of
>> ( i^4/3 -x ) ^2
---
Takehiro TOMINAGA // may the source be with you!
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
