2012/7/28 okay_awright <[email protected]>: > hi, Hi,
> can you please keep us posted on the performance gain of the whole MP3 > transcoding Liquidsoap-chain with and without Shine once you have > rebuilt it? On a pure C transcoding, shine performs 10-13x quicker than lame on the raspberry pi. When run with liquidsoap on a simple transcoding one-liner, it consumes about 50% of the CPU and 7% of memory. However, liquidsoap's internals are all in floats, so if you add smart_crossfade for instance, which computes RMS on the data, CPU usage jumps to around 80% with a couple of catchups on track transitions. The stream remains working though, thanks to buffering. > A subjective listening test of this encoder, compared to Lame, would be > really appreciated as well. > The only qualitative test I could find was this one: > http://listening-tests.hydrogenaudio.org/sebastian/mf-128-1/results.htm > But raw results don't reflect whether it might sound good enough for a > webradio. I am personally not good at subjective testing. At least I remember some contributors being much better than I am. However, I personally find the resulting audio to be remarkably good. I've tested a track with brass, drums and rich singing, which is usually where I can hear artifacts and I found the encoded data to sound really good. Romain ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ Savonet-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/savonet-users
