[MP3 ENCODER] Various

2000-04-27 Thread Shawn Riley
I have a few questions ideas - potentially stupid, but they've been bugging me. I'd try all the ideas myself except I can't get Lame to compile I don't have a clue how to implement them anyway. 1- Is it possible to change the sample rate by encoding frames using other than 1152 samples? As an

RE: [MP3 ENCODER] Various

2000-04-27 Thread Mathew Hendry
From: Shawn Riley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 6- What's the difference between normal stereo dual channel In terms of bitstream format, nothing, apart from the frame header. Dual channel is simply a hint to the decoder that the two channels are intended to be played separately, rather than

Re: [MP3 ENCODER] Various

2000-04-27 Thread Gabriel Bouvigne
Mathew Hendry a écrit : From: Shawn Riley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 6- What's the difference between normal stereo dual channel In terms of bitstream format, nothing, apart from the frame header. Dual channel is simply a hint to the decoder that the two channels are intended to be

Re: [MP3 ENCODER] Various

2000-04-27 Thread Gabriel Bouvigne
Shawn Riley a écrit : 2- Are some people saying Layer2 is actually better than Layer3 at the same bitrates for some types of music? I wonder if quality could be improved by switching layers midstream... Do MPEG standards support that? I think that it's forbidden by iso Regards, -- Gabriel

RE: [MP3 ENCODER] Various

2000-04-27 Thread Mathew Hendry
From: Gabriel Bouvigne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] In dual channel, each channel has to got exactly half of the bits. Do you have a reference for that in the ISO/IEC docs? Throughout 11172-3 stereo and dual_channel seem to be treated as entirely equivalent. -- Mat. -- MP3 ENCODER mailing

Re: [MP3 ENCODER] Various

2000-04-27 Thread Ross Levis
Mathew Hendry wrote: normal stereo allowing a more "free" allocation of bandwidth between the channels? AFAIK it doesn't. I'm not sure where that idea originated. I have been under the impression for several years that Stereo (mode 0) shares bits between the channels. If one channel was

[MP3 ENCODER] A proposal for a licensing solution

2000-04-27 Thread Gabriel Bouvigne
Reading the new mp3 licensing website, I thinked about a potential solution. "Whereas no royalties are expected for demo versions of mp3 encoders which are limited to either 20 encodes or 30 days under this license, sales of full mp3 encoders have a per-unit royalty as mentioned below." I think

RE: [MP3 ENCODER] Various

2000-04-27 Thread Mathew Hendry
From: Ross Levis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] I have been under the impression for several years that Stereo (mode 0) shares bits between the channels. If one channel was more complex than the other then it would allocated more to the channel that required it. I presume this is what

Re: [MP3 ENCODER] A proposal for a licensing solution

2000-04-27 Thread Christian Schepke
IMHO a very good idea. (Would solve a lot of legal problems ...) [...] final user?) It should not be a problem, as most of the time, there are beta releases more frequently than a 30 days basis. Why only the betas ? We could also display on the stable versions a warning after 30 days if the

[MP3 ENCODER] MPEG layers

2000-04-27 Thread Ivo van Heel
2- Are some people saying Layer2 is actually better than Layer3 at the same bitrates for some types of music? I wonder if quality could be improved by switching layers midstream... Do MPEG standards support that? I think that it's forbidden by iso This may be a stupid question, but isn't

Re: [MP3 ENCODER] MPEG layers

2000-04-27 Thread Segher Boessenkool
This may be a stupid question, but isn't it fun to learn (or teach) new things? :) What, roughly, are the technical differences between layer 2 and layer 3? The only thing I know, is that they work with different bitrates (layer 3 supporting lower bitrates). Layer II does _not_ have: window

RE: [MP3 ENCODER] MPEG layers

2000-04-27 Thread Mathew Hendry
From: Segher Boessenkool [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Layer II does _not_ have: window switching (short blocks) hybrid transform (mdct stuff) bit reservoir It _does_ have: much better scalefactors (more finegrained) The layer II scalefactors are a lot cheaper most of the time,

Re: [MP3 ENCODER] MPEG layers

2000-04-27 Thread Segher Boessenkool
Any other differences I'm forgetting? MS Stereo and entropy coding in Layer III. -- Mat. Yes, huffman. Knew I forgot something. But doesn't layer II have mid/side stereo (as well as intensity stereo)? Dagdag, Segher -- MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )

Re: [MP3 ENCODER] MPEG layers

2000-04-27 Thread Zia Mazhar
The only thing I know, is that they work with different bitrates (layer 3 supporting lower bitrates). Layer 3 is a more complex than Layer 2 and it offers much better quality/compression ratio at lower bitrates. It is said that 128 kbit/s MP3 is roughly the same quality of 192 kbit/s MP2

Re: [MP3 ENCODER] MPEG layers

2000-04-27 Thread Aleksandar Dovnikovic
At 320kbps I suggest qdesign mp2 encoder (ACM version, so you can easily encode). Sounds better then any MP3 encoder, and it is incredibly fast. The only thing where LAME is behind this mp2 encoder is pre-echo. At 256 320 kbps qdesign's mp2 encoder doesn't show any pre-echo problems, and LAME

[MP3 ENCODER] Re: best LAME options for high quality audio?

2000-04-27 Thread T.B.
Hello Shawn, On 25-Apr-00, you wrote: reproduce them). I'm in serious doubt as to whether frequencies 13kHz really contribute any musicality to the tracks on CDs. Wut? Then you obviously never heard of Heavy or Trash Metal, needs much Bandwidth or it will sound like a muffeled Sock. Or have

Re: [MP3 ENCODER] MPEG layers

2000-04-27 Thread Mathew Hendry
From: "Segher Boessenkool" [EMAIL PROTECTED] But doesn't layer II have mid/side stereo (as well as intensity stereo)? Nope, mid/side is only available in Layer III. -- Mat. -- MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )

[MP3 ENCODER] MP3Enc upsampling

2000-04-27 Thread Mathew Hendry
Any guesses as to why MP3Enc 3.1 upsamples to 48kHz by default at 320kbps? To increase time resolution? -- Mat. -- MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )

Re: [MP3 ENCODER] MP3Enc upsampling

2000-04-27 Thread Mark Taylor
Any guesses as to why MP3Enc 3.1 upsamples to 48kHz by default at 320kbps? To increase time resolution? -- Mat. I think this is related to the 7680 mp3 buffer limitation. An mp3 frame can be no larger than 7680 bits. However, look at the framesizes at 320kbs: 320kbs/32khz

Re: [MP3 ENCODER] Various

2000-04-27 Thread Ross Levis
Yes it is. The question is whether dual_channel is more restricted than that. Dual-channel is just what the name suggests. Each channel is completely independant. I don't see any advantage of using dual-channel. Ross. -- MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )

[MP3 ENCODER] Lame - MusicMatch

2000-04-27 Thread E. Zann
Hi everybody, The following was just posted to the EAC's mailing list: I must also notice a strange thing : the mp3's I make with EAC pb4 Lame 3.70 play perfectly with Windows Mediaplayer, Xing Mp3 player Winamp, but give a strange noise at the very beginning of each track when played

Re: [MP3 ENCODER] Lame - MusicMatch

2000-04-27 Thread Paul Hartman
On Thu, 27 Apr 2000 21:31:38 -0700, E. Zann wrote: Hi everybody, The following was just posted to the EAC's mailing list: I must also notice a strange thing : the mp3's I make with EAC pb4 Lame 3.70 play perfectly with Windows Mediaplayer, Xing Mp3 player Winamp, but give a strange noise