Date: 29 Jul 1999 15:17:55 +0300 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: <86lnbzodjg.fsf@not.demophon.com> In-Reply-To: 's message of "29 Jul 1999 14:34:38 %2B0300" References: <Pine.GSO.4.10.9907290631520.29323-100000@isis.visi.com.newsgate.clinet.fi>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
<mestery@visi.com> writes: > 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. Is it just as bad, then? For some sounds, the ISO demo code and most programs derived from it (s.a. 8hz-mp3, no longer available, bladeenc, possibly gogo as well - I don't know) produces results that are unacceptably weird. I would assume that my experiences are due to the bugs in the psychoacoustic model referred to in the LAME documentation. In many of these cases, LAME produces better output. I've yet to find any cases where LAME would be worse, although I can sometimes hear audible degradation compared to CD-quality. Note that I almost always listen to music using headphones. You can't necessarily hear the differences in mp3 quality at 128kbit/s using typical stereos (or even worse, "computer speakers") over the noise of your computer. 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?86lnbzodjg.fsf>