Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 06:34:06 -0500 (CDT) From: <mestery@visi.com> To: freebsd-multimedia@freebsd.org Subject: Gogo vs. Bladeenc, Part II Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.10.9907290631520.29323-100000@isis.visi.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Well, I tried the latest Gogo vs. the latest Bladeenc from our ports tree, and here are more results: GOGO: 249.15 real 239.20 user 2.15 sys File size: 3446902 BLADEENC: 540.42 real 527.44 user 5.02 sys File size: 3446907 (FYI, this was encoding a song that was 3:34 seconds long a dual PPro machine with 128MB RAM.) I'm getting about 1.17:1 compression times with Gogo, which is amazing to me since I previously used bladeenc, which gave me 2-3:1 times. And there is no difference in the output quality. Gogo works nice, give it a try. -- Kyle Mestery | StorageTek's Storage Networking Group mestery@visi.com | http://www.freebsd.org/ mestery@netwinder.org | http://www.netwinder.org/ Protect your right to privacy: www.freecrypto.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-multimedia" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.10.9907290631520.29323-100000>