From owner-freebsd-multimedia Fri Jul 30 0:55:38 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-multimedia@freebsd.org Received: from ns.oeno.com (ns.oeno.com [194.100.99.145]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7F5DF1568E for ; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 00:55:34 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from will@ns.oeno.com) Received: (qmail 22264 invoked by uid 1001); 30 Jul 1999 07:55:16 -0000 Date: 30 Jul 1999 07:55:16 -0000 Message-ID: <19990730075516.22261.qmail@ns.oeno.com> From: Ville-Pertti Keinonen To: mestery@visi.com Cc: freebsd-multimedia@freebsd.org In-reply-to: (mestery@visi.com) Subject: Re: Gogo vs. Bladeenc, Part II Sender: owner-freebsd-multimedia@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > 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