Date: 30 Jul 1999 07:55:16 -0000 From: Ville-Pertti Keinonen <will@iki.fi> To: mestery@visi.com Cc: freebsd-multimedia@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Gogo vs. Bladeenc, Part II Message-ID: <19990730075516.22261.qmail@ns.oeno.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.10.9907290757130.1075-100000@isis.visi.com> (mestery@visi.com)
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Hmmm, I had neglected to try LAME. I'll give it a shot after work > tonite and post the results as to how it works, and the quality it > produces. I'm assuming it will be about as fast as Bladeenc, if not > slower? Faster, if you use good compilation options (the port might not). If the quality improvements are indeed due to a better (and not buggy, like the LAME pages claim the ISO demo one to be - I don't know enough about DSP to verify this) psychoacoustic model, it needn't have any computational overhead. 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?19990730075516.22261.qmail>